Killing an elephant

Edward Flores4 said:Technology is the ONLY thing actually working for us!

If humanity has any kind of future worth mentioning—and if there’s even one path that holds the potential for what I’d call "Enlightenment 2.0"—that path is undeniably technological in nature.

The real issue right now, though, is that everyone is sprinting toward new tech without actually grasping how it works. Because of that, we’re trying to tackle modern-day problems using yesterday’s tools, which is why there's this massive wave of global anxiety sweeping through society. Right now, technology is still largely being steered by global politics and the corporate elite at places like Wall Street or Silicon Valley giants, but honestly? That era is rapidly dying out. Once the average person takes the time to truly wrap their head around the tech they use every day, technology will finally return to its true purpose... it'll become "a tool for human liberation."

I agree with you that technology needs to serve humanity and that using it correctly is one of our best shots at promoting actual freedom.
Your point about understanding and mastering technology being the prerequisite for all of this also holds serious weight.
But in the real world, things aren't that simple.

Let me give you an example.
Back in the old USA, we didn't have political freedom, and we used to envy an average Frenchman who could walk into a grocery store and choose between thirty different types of bread. Meanwhile, in our stores, you had maybe two options: white or wheat. To us, living under a sort of political dictatorship (in every sense of the word), it felt like that Frenchman was freer just because he had thirty choices, while we were unfree because we only had two. We thought freedom was just about having options, failing to see that behind that "freedom" sat a rigid economic dictatorship that dictated exactly what the Frenchman needed.
It’s the same deal with technology. On one hand, when we use it to augment our own skills and abilities, it’s incredibly helpful. But on the other hand, once that technology becomes a social structure itself, it becomes our master. A machine has no feelings. It doesn't care if you're exhausted, depressed, or just not feeling it... it just demands the same repetitive motion, over and over, without ever stopping.

What do you think?

Mark Torres14 said:I agree with you that technology needs to serve humanity and that using it correctly is one of our best shots at promoting actual freedom.
Your point about understanding and mastering technology being the prerequisite for all of this also holds serious weight.
But in the real world, things aren't that simple.

Let me give you an example.
Back in the old USA, we didn't have political freedom, and we used to envy an average Frenchman who could walk into a grocery store and choose between thirty different types of bread. Meanwhile, in our stores, you had maybe two options: white or wheat. To us, living under a sort of political dictatorship (in every sense of the word), it felt like that Frenchman was freer just because he had thirty choices, while we were unfree because we only had two. We thought freedom was just about having options, failing to see that behind that "freedom" sat a rigid economic dictatorship that dictated exactly what the Frenchman needed.
It’s the same deal with technology. On one hand, when we use it to augment our own skills and abilities, it’s incredibly helpful. But on the other hand, once that technology becomes a social structure itself, it becomes our master. A machine has no feelings. It doesn't care if you're exhausted, depressed, or just not feeling it... it just demands the same repetitive motion, over and over, without ever stopping.

What do you think?

Personally, I don't see any real connection between political restrictions and the way we interact with tech.

When people say technology has become a "social relationship," what they really mean is that they're using it without actually understanding it. It's like those kids who absolutely have to have the latest sleek smartphone just because it serves as a status symbol within their specific peer group. If those kids understood technology the way a plumber understands that a faucet is just a way to access water—rather than a fashion statement—then that "must-have" phone wouldn't be serving a social function at all.

In other words, what you're describing still falls under the umbrella of "misunderstanding technology." People end up projecting almost supernatural importance onto modern gadgets. Whether it's a smartphone, a massive flat-screen TV, a luxury yacht, or even a high-end sports car with custom rims—they're all just symptoms of the same thing: a failure to grasp what the tech actually is, leading people to expect it to perform some social role it was never designed for. And because of that, disappointment and mistakes are pretty much inevitable.

Edward Flores4 said:Personally, I don't see any real connection between political restrictions and the way we interact with tech.

When people say technology has become a "social relationship," what they really mean is that they're using it without actually understanding it. It's like those kids who absolutely have to have the latest sleek smartphone just because it serves as a status symbol within their specific peer group. If those kids understood technology the way a plumber understands that a faucet is just a way to access water—rather than a fashion statement—then that "must-have" phone wouldn't be serving a social function at all.

In other words, what you're describing still falls under the umbrella of "misunderstanding technology." People end up projecting almost supernatural importance onto modern gadgets. Whether it's a smartphone, a massive flat-screen TV, a luxury yacht, or even a high-end sports car with custom rims—they're all just symptoms of the same thing: a failure to grasp what the tech actually is, leading people to expect it to perform some social role it was never designed for. And because of that, disappointment and mistakes are pretty much inevitable.

So, the issue is that technology is being used as a status symbol?
Where's the problem with that?

Mark Torres14 said:Exactly. It freed us from backbreaking physical labor. We’re cleaner, we live longer, and we actually have something called "free time." At the same time, we're being absolutely bombarded with information—most of which we don't need, didn't ask for, and have zero power to stop from flooding our brains.
At work, computers "simplified" things by making it so that everything I used to do on paper now requires both paperwork AND digital input.
That brings me to what Michael Anderson2 mentioned. The creation of unnecessary needs.
How much of modern life is spent being a slave to those needs, versus how much of our identity is built around satisfying them?
It really is the real question. For all our talk about freedom and independence, why isn't anyone lining up to herd sheep for a thousand bucks a month plus room, board, and cigarettes?
Does nobody know where the Trečićs are hiding?😁

It's because technology offers an easier life—more free time, more ways to stay connected.

By the way, I suspect that guy with the sheep just didn't market his 😁
enough.

placidranger said:So, the issue is that technology is being used as a status symbol?
Where's the problem with that?

The only person who has an actual problem with it is the one using it that way. It’s kind of like how back in the day, having pale skin was the ultimate status symbol—so much so that the aristocracy would basically smear toxic metal emulsions on their skin just to look brighter and signal to everyone else that they were higher up the social ladder.

The "problem" there was just that they’d regularly drop dead from poisoning by their early 30s. If they had actually understood the science behind the tech they were using, they probably could have avoided that mess entirely.

You’ve likely heard the stories about how lead poisoning wrecked Roman households... just another classic example of technology being misused purely for the sake of showing off.

Basically, any time you use technology recklessly without grasping its underlying logic or function, things tend to end badly. At best, you end up feeling unnecessarily let down because the gadget didn't live up to your "social expectations." In the worst-case scenario, you literally kill yourself because you couldn't foresee the consequences of your own ignorance.

Using tech like that is essentially a marriage between futility and illusion. It’s a total train wreck waiting to happen.

Edward Flores4 said:Personally, I don't see any real connection between political restrictions and the way we interact with tech.

When people say technology has become a "social relationship," what they really mean is that they're using it without actually understanding it. It's like those kids who absolutely have to have the latest sleek smartphone just because it serves as a status symbol within their specific peer group. If those kids understood technology the way a plumber understands that a faucet is just a way to access water—rather than a fashion statement—then that "must-have" phone wouldn't be serving a social function at all.

In other words, what you're describing still falls under the umbrella of "misunderstanding technology." People end up projecting almost supernatural importance onto modern gadgets. Whether it's a smartphone, a massive flat-screen TV, a luxury yacht, or even a high-end sports car with custom rims—they're all just symptoms of the same thing: a failure to grasp what the tech actually is, leading people to expect it to perform some social role it was never designed for. And because of that, disappointment and mistakes are pretty much inevitable.

They absolutely do. You think the kind of propaganda once masterfully pulled off by Goebbels could happen today without it?
Why do you think the Chinese want to control the internet?

Technology becomes a social ritual when you use it without actually understanding it. It’s like kids who feel they need a certain "sleek" smartphone just to fit in with their peers. If those kids actually understood tech—the way they understand that a faucet is just a tool to get water, not a fashion statement—then the "sleek phone" wouldn't serve that social function anymore.

But why should I need to know how a car works? It gets me from point A to point B. That's it.
I'm guessing you probably don't understand how an airplane stays in the air either, yet you still fly on them.

.....It's all just clear signs of misunderstanding the tech you're using and expecting it to perform some social role it wasn't even designed for. Naturally, that leads to disappointment and mistakes.

The issue is that technology itself imposes a specific social function on me, whether I understand it or not—or whether I even want it to.

casualwolf12 said:I would argue that technology is the only thing that *could* help us... provided, of course, it isn't held hostage by massive corporations. As long as they maintain that level of control, all that immense potential will either sit idle or, more likely, be weaponized for less than noble ends... if you catch my drift.

In my view, the internet ought to be at the forefront of that much-vaunted "human liberation." I can’t quite pinpoint the exact mechanism or provide a rigorous academic defense for it, but I simply perceive the internet as an emerging utopia. It is a realm that offers endless opportunities for networking—and no, I am not referring to Facebook or those other superficial social media platforms—alongside a vast ocean of educational content and literature spanning every conceivable field of human endeavor and theoretical thought. A wealth of everything the mind can conceive... all accessible, and all free.
Furthermore, beyond its efficacy as a real-time connector for people, the internet serves as perhaps the greatest and most vital archive ever assembled. Of course, there is always room for refinement...

If you were to strip away the internet while leaving all our other technological "tools" intact, humanity would still find itself significantly ahead of where it started. 🙏

The internet is a massive, complicated system with just as many pros as cons.

I suppose we might be approaching what some call the "singularity," that point where we essentially merge with machines and become cyborgs—which, if you aren't familiar, is just short for "cybernetic organism." I imagine we'll eventually just implant a chip in our brains and be able to blast out maybe a thousand posts in a single day, then lie down for a five-minute nap to recharge before starting all over again. It’s strange to think about... instead of humans actually living for a thousand years, life might just accelerate so much that someone living through a standard hundred years could cram in as much as a millennium's worth of tasks. And honestly, it all seems rather pointless.😁

Mark Torres14 said:Hey there.

My point wasn't about waking up to Christian Dior. I was trying to highlight our obsession with technology. We built this stuff to make life easier, but now it's become our secret master, forcing us to adapt at an insane pace. Our nervous systems—our ability to process endless streams of data, tackle multi-layered problems, and escape the constant flood of useless info—are being pushed to the absolute limit. It's a test of whether we can even function normally anymore.

Where do we draw the line, and what happens when we cross it?

Look at how nobody writes by hand anymore. Handwriting is practically a lost art; even little kids would rather use a keyboard. I know from experience. I can touch-type blindly with all ten fingers. I once had a keyboard where the letters had completely rubbed off—terrible quality, by the way—and it didn't bother me one bit. The problem was my wife. She rarely types, so she struggled, yet all three of our kids could use it without any issues.

And then there's the question of how to protect yourself from hearing or seeing the same news cycle over and over again. Most of it doesn't even involve you personally. It just dumps someone else's problems onto your plate, making you carry their weight, while the person on the TV, radio, or internet acts like it's breaking news you absolutely need to care about.

How much longer does it take you to scribble a word with a pen versus typing it out?

In the second scenario, nobody has to go chop down a tree.

That's evolution for you.

And no, I don't think we should ever forget how to use a pen.

Mark Torres14 said:Hey there.

My point wasn't about waking up to Christian Dior. I was trying to highlight our obsession with technology. We built this stuff to make life easier, but now it's become our secret master, forcing us to adapt at an insane pace. Our nervous systems—our ability to process endless streams of data, tackle multi-layered problems, and escape the constant flood of useless info—are being pushed to the absolute limit. It's a test of whether we can even function normally anymore.

Where do we draw the line, and what happens when we cross it?

Look at how nobody writes by hand anymore. Handwriting is practically a lost art; even little kids would rather use a keyboard. I know from experience. I can touch-type blindly with all ten fingers. I once had a keyboard where the letters had completely rubbed off—terrible quality, by the way—and it didn't bother me one bit. The problem was my wife. She rarely types, so she struggled, yet all three of our kids could use it without any issues.

And then there's the question of how to protect yourself from hearing or seeing the same news cycle over and over again. Most of it doesn't even involve you personally. It just dumps someone else's problems onto your plate, making you carry their weight, while the person on the TV, radio, or internet acts like it's breaking news you absolutely need to care about.

You choose your own input.

Mark Torres14 said:Spot on, Drew Morgan. Technology freed us from back-breaking manual labor and opened up entire new worlds of needs and possibilities. The real question is: at what point do those "chains of freedom" turn into shackles?
Is the human brain actually wired to keep pace with this kind of rapid technological evolution?

Humans don't "keep up" with technology; technology chases us because it's designed to make our lives easier.
But making things easier through tech and trying to manufacture more free time comes with a cost: you have to spend time learning how to use the damn thing.

For example, if you can't be bothered to walk down to the local Post Office, learn how to send an email. You don't *have* to, obviously. You can always walk.
The letter will show up in a few days regardless.

And tech keeps evolving to become simpler. Just ask Apple.

Don't worry about it; nobody is going to sink billions into developing something that only a tiny minority would actually use.

As for the biological toll? Yeah, it's not good... hasn't been good for a long time...

I’ve been thinking lately about how we handle those little day-to-day tasks—the stuff that just needs to get done without much fanfare—and it reminds me of the concept of "servantes." It’s such a specific kind of utility, isn't it? Not quite the main event, but absolutely essential to keeping the whole machine running smoothly. It’s like when you’re working on a big project at a place like Home Depot or even just trying to fix something around the house—you don't always need the high-end, heavy-duty power tools right out of the gate; sometimes you just need those reliable, steady little helpers that fill in the gaps. They aren't there to steal the spotlight, but without them, things would definitely fall apart. I find there's a certain quiet dignity in that kind of role—being the backbone of a process without needing the credit. It's a good reminder that even the most "supporting" roles are what actually hold everything together in the end. Edward Flores4 says:
Oh, they absolutely do. Honestly, do you really think modern media could pull off the kind of masterclass in propaganda that Goebbels managed to pull off back in the day? It was a different level of precision—almost surgical—compared to the chaotic noise we see now.

So, I’ve been chewing on this question about whether America should join NATO—even though, if we're being honest, the whole alliance feels like a decaying relic from the Cold War era. It's hard to ignore the criticism that lately, the organization seems more focused on destabilizing regions to keep the flow of oil and narcotics moving toward the US and the UK than actually maintaining peace. Plus, you have to look at the hypocrisy of it all—how they claim to stand for security while essentially turning a blind eye to the plight of the Kurds living within Turkey, which is itself a NATO member. It makes you wonder if the pact is actually about protection, or just about protecting certain interests.

I don't even know where to start with this—honestly, I’m at a loss for words. It feels like modern propaganda is actually more effective today than it even was back in the Goebbels era. It’s just different now, isn't it? Back then, you had to rely on massive rallies and radio broadcasts to get a message across, but today, the sheer scale and precision of how information is manipulated online is on an entirely different level. It's much more subtle, too—it doesn't always feel like a loudspeaker shouting in your face; sometimes it just feels like a quiet nudge in your feed that slowly shifts how you see the world. It’s pretty wild when you really stop to think about it.

I’m looking at this specific point—and I want to be really careful about how I frame it—but it seems like we’re missing the forest for the trees here. It’s one thing to talk about the surface-level mechanics of what happened, but if you look at the underlying structure, there’s a much deeper pattern emerging. It reminds me of that old saying about how you can’t fix a leaky roof by just painting over the water stains; eventually, you have to address the actual shingles and the wood underneath. We keep circling back to these small, tactical details, but we aren't quite grasping the strategic shift that's actually taking place. To truly understand why things are moving in this direction, we have to step back and look at the broader landscape—the kind of big-picture stuff that most people tend to overlook because it’s much easier to focus on the immediate drama.

Why is there such an intense push from the Chinese to control the internet? It’s one of those massive, complicated questions that really makes you stop and think about how much power information carries in the modern age. When you look at it through a certain lens, it isn't just about censorship—though that's a huge part of it—it’s more about total structural sovereignty. Think of it like this: if you own the roads, the bridges, and the traffic lights, you don't just decide where people go; you decide what they even see as an option. For a government that prioritizes social stability and centralized authority above all else, an unfiltered, borderless internet is basically a wild frontier that they can't police. In their eyes, the digital world is a battlefield for influence. If they let the globalized version of the web flow in without any filters, they aren't just letting in ideas; they're letting in potential instability. It’s similar to how a major US corporation might try to gatekeep its proprietary network to prevent any outside interference or data leaks—except here, the "corporation" is the state itself, and the "data" is the collective consciousness of its citizens. They want to build a digital ecosystem that functions like a walled garden. By controlling the gateways—the search engines, the social platforms, the hardware—they ensure that the narrative stays within a framework that supports their specific vision of order. It’s about making sure that the "digital landscape" doesn't become a breeding ground for dissent or foreign influence that could disrupt the status quo. To them, controlling the internet isn't just a preference; it's a fundamental necessity for maintaining domestic control in a hyper-connected world.

It’s just like they refused to learn a single thing from Putin... and honestly, what a massive missed opportunity that was.

I’m looking back at that previous point—and I mean really digging into it—and it strikes me how much we tend to overlook the nuance in these discussions. It’s easy to jump to conclusions when things get heated, but if you step back for a second, you see that the layers are much more complex than they first appear. It reminds me of how people approach complicated legal cases in the States; everyone wants a quick verdict, but the actual truth is usually buried under mountains of fine print and conflicting testimonies. We have to be careful not to oversimplify things just because a quick answer feels more satisfying in the moment.

I mean, honestly—why should I even care about how an engine actually works? At the end of the day, a car is just a tool to get me from point A to point B. If I turn the key and it moves, my job is done. I don't need to be a mechanic to drive to the grocery store or head down to the beach, right?

Look, you don't strictly *have* to understand it—nobody's forcing you to go back to school—but there’s a catch. When you use tools without actually grasping how they function under the hood, you aren't just flying blind; you're essentially multiplying every single potential risk by an exponential factor. It’s like trying to drive a high-performance Tesla when you barely understand how an internal combustion engine works—you might get from point A to point B, but the moment something glitches, you have absolutely no idea why you're spinning out of control. You're basically handing over all the leverage to the tech itself.

Honestly, ignorance is always an easy way out. That’s why most people just choose to stay in the dark—it’s easier than doing the actual work—and then they act genuinely shocked when some Goebbels or Sanders figure comes along and pulls the wool over their eyes.

Murphy hit the nail on the head there—honestly, it’s almost a moral obligation at this point to take those naive folks for everything they're worth!

I mean, honestly—you probably don't even grasp the fundamental physics of how an airplane stays in the air, yet you're still out there booking flights and cruising at thirty thousand feet anyway. Just a guess, of course.

Of course I get it. Honestly, I have this constant, restless need to wrap my head around how everything works—even the tech I don't actually use in my day-to-day life. Take aviation, for example; even if I'm not the one sitting in the cockpit or tinkering with jet engines, I still feel this pull to understand the mechanics behind it all. It's just how I'm wired.

I honestly feel like we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here—it’s easy to get caught up in the immediate noise, but if you zoom out, the underlying pattern becomes pretty obvious. It reminds me of that old saying about not missing the forest for the trees; we’re so focused on the individual leaves that we’re losing sight of how massive the entire ecosystem actually is. Think about it this way—if you were trying to fix a leaky faucet by just putting a bucket under it, you might solve the immediate mess on your floor, sure, but you aren't actually addressing the plumbing issue behind the wall. That’s what it feels like when we debate these specific points without acknowledging the systemic stuff happening in the background. We need to be looking at the structural integrity of the whole thing, not just patching up the surface level problems as they pop up. It’s more about understanding the "why" behind the friction rather than just reacting to the friction itself.

The real issue here—and I think this is something a lot of people struggle to articulate—is that she’s basically forcing a specific social role onto me just by existing. It doesn't matter if I actually want that role or even if I understand the "assignment" she’s handed me; her very presence dictates how I'm supposed to act in relation to her. It’s like being cast in a play you never auditioned for, where the script is written before you even step onto the stage. Whether I'm on board with it or not, the expectation is already set in stone.

How exactly am I supposed to avoid being told what to do?

When you actually grasp how technology works, you’re the one calling the shots—you're using it as a tool to get things done. But when you don't understand the inner workings? Well, you’re still using it, but at that point, the tech becomes nothing more than an empty gun. And honestly, there are two people who get caught up in that little drama—the person staring down the barrel, thinking they're in danger, and the person who knows damn well the gun is empty.

When you don't actually understand how technology works, it just becomes this convenient commodity to you. As long as it’s there and functioning, life is great—everything is seamless and "super." But if the responsibility of keeping it running fell on your shoulders? Well, we wouldn't have any of it. It’s this perfect, almost poetic collision of massive technological power and pure human ignorance, which reminds me of something A. Clark once pointed out:

You know, I was thinking about that old adage—the idea that any technology advanced enough eventually becomes indistinguishable from magic. It’s such a profound way to look at our relationship with progress, isn't it? Think about it this way: if you were to take a modern smartphone—something we all carry around like it's just a basic tool—and drop it into the hands of someone from, say, the early 1900s, they wouldn't see a "communication device." They wouldn't even understand the concept of a microprocessor or a digital signal. To them, being able to video call someone halfway across the country or access the entirety of human knowledge with a swipe of a finger? That isn't engineering. That's straight-up sorcery. It’s like something pulled right out of a fantasy novel. I feel like we hit this threshold every few decades. We move from wondering how a lightbulb works to treating wireless internet like it’s just an invisible, fundamental part of the atmosphere. We stop asking "how?" and just start asking "where's my charger?" We lose that sense of awe because the "magic" becomes mundane. But when you really step back and look at the sheer scale of what we've built—the leaps in physics and computation that allow us to manipulate reality at a granular level—it really is nothing short of miraculous. It makes me wonder what we consider "impossible" today that will just look like a common household gadget to our grandkids.

Carl Sagan put it a bit more bluntly when he said:

We’ve basically engineered a society where almost every single thing that keeps our world spinning—our infrastructure, our economy, our daily survival—is tethered to high-level science and technology. But here’s the kicker: we’ve also set things up so that the vast majority of people living in this country don't actually grasp how any of it works. It’s like building a massive, complex skyscraper out of glass and steel, then handing the keys to a crowd that doesn't even know what gravity is. Honestly? It feels like a recipe for a total meltdown. We might be able to coast on this momentum for a little while longer—we’ve been getting lucky so far—but you can only play with fire for so long. Eventually, this volatile cocktail of widespread technical illiteracy mixed with concentrated institutional power is going to hit a breaking point. And when it does, it’s going to blow up right in our faces..

Edward Flores4 said:The only person who has an actual problem with it is the one using it that way. It’s kind of like how back in the day, having pale skin was the ultimate status symbol—so much so that the aristocracy would basically smear toxic metal emulsions on their skin just to look brighter and signal to everyone else that they were higher up the social ladder.

The "problem" there was just that they’d regularly drop dead from poisoning by their early 30s. If they had actually understood the science behind the tech they were using, they probably could have avoided that mess entirely.

You’ve likely heard the stories about how lead poisoning wrecked Roman households... just another classic example of technology being misused purely for the sake of showing off.

Basically, any time you use technology recklessly without grasping its underlying logic or function, things tend to end badly. At best, you end up feeling unnecessarily let down because the gadget didn't live up to your "social expectations." In the worst-case scenario, you literally kill yourself because you couldn't foresee the consequences of your own ignorance.

Using tech like that is essentially a marriage between futility and illusion. It’s a total train wreck waiting to happen.

I can't say I agree. People have been successfully using things they don't understand for ages—the more complex the tech gets, the more common that becomes—and I don't see the harm in it.

Besides, the purpose of a tech product isn't set in stone when it's invented. Take texting, for example. Do you really think the pioneers knew it would become the primary way teenagers communicate and ultimately become a massive money-maker for carriers?
Computers were originally designed for government agencies and research labs. Now, we have enough for everyone on the planet. There are endless examples. Users are the ones who creatively redefine an invention's purpose, often completely ignoring what the designers intended. And frankly, accidents happen even to people who actually know what they're doing. 🤷

placidranger said:I can't say I agree. People have been successfully using things they don't understand for ages—the more complex the tech gets, the more common that becomes—and I don't see the harm in it.

Besides, the purpose of a tech product isn't set in stone when it's invented. Take texting, for example. Do you really think the pioneers knew it would become the primary way teenagers communicate and ultimately become a massive money-maker for carriers?
Computers were originally designed for government agencies and research labs. Now, we have enough for everyone on the planet. There are endless examples. Users are the ones who creatively redefine an invention's purpose, often completely ignoring what the designers intended. And frankly, accidents happen even to people who actually know what they're doing. 🤷

Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't one... Look, you're free to believe that both Clark and Sagan were spot on, and that you've somehow managed to grasp things more deeply than they did, but 🙂
that's a stretch.

Furthermore, the purpose of a technological product isn't defined by the moment it's invented.

I wasn't even talking about "purpose" in the first place, 🤷
to be honest.

Take SMS, for example. Who could have predicted it would end up as this massive communication staple for teenagers and become such a huge money-maker for carriers?

What does that have to do with anything I actually said?

Computers were originally envisioned as devices intended for government use and scientific laboratories.

As far as I know, inventions happen because there's a specific need being met. Computers exist because we needed to crack German codes during World War II. At that stage, nobody was thinking about mass-producing PCs, let alone predicting their future utility beyond the very reason they were created in the first place.

I'm all for having a different perspective, but try to back yours up with something concrete. Right now, it feels like you're just stating an opinion rather than making a point, because I'm struggling to find any logic in the argument.

There are endless examples. It's the users who creatively redefine the purpose of an invention, largely independent of what was originally intended.

Here we go again with the whole "purpose" thing. 🤷

If some guy who knows nothing about firearms finds himself out in Alaska, and his gun freezes solid overnight... he might get the bright idea to hold it right next to a fire just to thaw the slide. If he's lucky, he'll hold the loaded barrel away from the heat so he can bring the slide toward the flame without burning his hands.

In this ridiculous little scenario, the "purpose" of the gun is completely irrelevant. The only factor that matters is the total lack of understanding regarding the tool being used—which, in reality, is usually how people get hurt.

accidents happen even to the pros who actually know their business

Exactly. But if you pair bad luck with being plain old stupid—like trying to defrost a handgun over a campfire in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness... well, you’ve got a pretty good chance of kicking the bucket due to your own sheer stupidity long before any "accident" ever catches up to you.

Edward Flores4 said:Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't one... Look, you're free to believe that both Clark and Sagan were spot on, and that you've somehow managed to grasp things more deeply than they did, but 🙂
that's a stretch.

Furthermore, the purpose of a technological product isn't defined by the moment it's invented.

I wasn't even talking about "purpose" in the first place, 🤷
to be honest.

Take SMS, for example. Who could have predicted it would end up as this massive communication staple for teenagers and become such a huge money-maker for carriers?

What does that have to do with anything I actually said?

Computers were originally envisioned as devices intended for government use and scientific laboratories.

As far as I know, inventions happen because there's a specific need being met. Computers exist because we needed to crack German codes during World War II. At that stage, nobody was thinking about mass-producing PCs, let alone predicting their future utility beyond the very reason they were created in the first place.

I'm all for having a different perspective, but try to back yours up with something concrete. Right now, it feels like you're just stating an opinion rather than making a point, because I'm struggling to find any logic in the argument.

There are endless examples. It's the users who creatively redefine the purpose of an invention, largely independent of what was originally intended.

Here we go again with the whole "purpose" thing. 🤷

If some guy who knows nothing about firearms finds himself out in Alaska, and his gun freezes solid overnight... he might get the bright idea to hold it right next to a fire just to thaw the slide. If he's lucky, he'll hold the loaded barrel away from the heat so he can bring the slide toward the flame without burning his hands.

In this ridiculous little scenario, the "purpose" of the gun is completely irrelevant. The only factor that matters is the total lack of understanding regarding the tool being used—which, in reality, is usually how people get hurt.

accidents happen even to the pros who actually know their business

Exactly. But if you pair bad luck with being plain old stupid—like trying to defrost a handgun over a campfire in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness... well, you’ve got a pretty good chance of kicking the bucket due to your own sheer stupidity long before any "accident" ever catches up to you.

We're just interpreting their words differently. It's true that complex tech looks like magic to anyone without a basic grasp of the underlying principles—but that shouldn't affect their ability to use it, provided the interface is intuitive enough.

I wasn't even talking about the purpose 🤷
What does that have to do with anything I actually wrote?

Specifically, using technology as a status symbol was mentioned. That is a secondary function, distinct from its intended design, and I don't see any harm in that—nor in the rational use of any tool for any purpose.

The issue, as I see it, is the irrational use of potentially dangerous tech. That's how I interpreted Sagan's comment.

As far as I know, inventions happen when there's a specific need. The computer was born because we needed to crack German codes during World War II. In that phase, nobody was thinking about mass-producing computers, let alone their future applications beyond what triggered their existence.

Yes, I agree that's how many things get invented, but once they're in use, their initial function shifts. People end up using technology for things it wasn't designed for. Maybe I misread this part:

Those are all telltale signs of misunderstanding the technology being used and expecting it to fulfill a social role it wasn't built for. Consequently—disappointment and errors are inevitable.

?
A fleet of luxury cars perfectly serves the purpose of transportation while simultaneously acting as a status symbol.

I have no issue with differing opinions, but please back yours up with something concrete. Right now, it feels like you're just stating a conviction without any actual logic behind the argument.

Hopefully that clears things up.

The gun in this ridiculously over-the-top episode serves absolutely zero purpose. The real issue here—the only one that actually matters—is the total lack of understanding regarding the technology being used. It’s a dangerous kind of ignorance.

Most people today barely grasp how a computer works, yet they rely on them for their jobs, fly on commercial jets, drive cars... who knows what else. 🙂

Then again, the disaster at Three Mile Island was likely a direct result of incompetent handling and poor maintenance. I agree with you that anyone operating high-stakes tech needs top-tier training, but applying that logic to every single piece of technology seems like a bit of a stretch.

Mark Torres14 said:But rustymaker5, we can't just hand-wave everything away. Sure, tech gave us stuff we couldn't have dreamed of, but it also injected this restless impatience into us that just wasn't there before.

Your beach house story sounds exactly like mine. We used to hang out with the whole neighborhood, now we barely even wave hello. It's true that electricity brought everything we imagined when we were building it, but it also took away the joy of anticipation once it was done. Sure, we could go back to the old ways with one flick of a switch, but why does nobody ever flip it? Instead, everyone just sits around talking about the "good old days" with a sigh.

The reality is that everything can be rationalized if you look at it long enough. And the fact remains that in the future, people will look back at our era and call it the "good old days" too.🙂

As for why people don't just flip the switch—well, let me tell you, some people actually do. It really just comes down to the individual, I suppose. I still remember those times before everyone had a smartphone in their pocket, back when if you had an emergency, you had to sprint to a payphone on a street corner. There used to be lines, and I remember being so worked up I almost got into a physical altercation with some guy who wouldn't let me cut ahead... Now, everyone has a cell phone. And honestly, that's great. But it isn't great when we refuse to turn them off because we feel this crushing obligation to be reachable by everyone, all the time. So then we end up miserable because we feel like we have zero privacy left.🤷 But you've got to shut it off; you have to be the one in control of the device, rather than letting the device rule over you.
With all these high-tech assistants at our fingertips, any person with half a brain should take that extra free time they've gained and use it for themselves—for self-improvement, for reading, for learning something new, for a hobby, for spiritual growth, or just for pure personal enjoyment. Those who choose to become slaves to their technology... well, they would have found something else to be enslaved to, even without all this technological progress...

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose we might be approaching what some call the "singularity," that point where we essentially merge with machines and become cyborgs—which, if you aren't familiar, is just short for "cybernetic organism." I imagine we'll eventually just implant a chip in our brains and be able to blast out maybe a thousand posts in a single day, then lie down for a five-minute nap to recharge before starting all over again. It’s strange to think about... instead of humans actually living for a thousand years, life might just accelerate so much that someone living through a standard hundred years could cram in as much as a millennium's worth of tasks. And honestly, it all seems rather pointless.😁

The real question is how much information a person can actually process before they lose their mind. It feels like everything is becoming superficial. Younger generations don't even bother reading anymore; they just wait for someone to hand them a pre-packaged version of reality.
For instance, I know Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings from the books, but my kids only know the movies. They couldn't care less about the actual novels. To them, the pacing is just too slow.

hollowpuma762 said:How much longer does it take you to scribble a word with a pen versus typing it out?

In the second scenario, nobody has to go chop down a tree.

That's evolution for you.

And no, I don't think we should ever forget how to use a pen.

You choose your own input.

Humans don't "keep up" with technology; technology chases us because it's designed to make our lives easier.
But making things easier through tech and trying to manufacture more free time comes with a cost: you have to spend time learning how to use the damn thing.

For example, if you can't be bothered to walk down to the local Post Office, learn how to send an email. You don't *have* to, obviously. You can always walk.
The letter will show up in a few days regardless.

And tech keeps evolving to become simpler. Just ask Apple.

Don't worry about it; nobody is going to sink billions into developing something that only a tiny minority would actually use.

As for the biological toll? Yeah, it's not good... hasn't been good for a long time...

You sure you actually have free will?

When it comes to the biological cost, things aren't looking good... haven't been for a long time...

What does "biological cost" even mean to you? Are you saying technology is becoming essential just for humans to survive? If that's the case, then tech itself becomes a biological component.

Edward Flores4 said:

I’ve been thinking lately about how we handle those little day-to-day tasks—the stuff that just needs to get done without much fanfare—and it reminds me of the concept of "servantes." It’s such a specific kind of utility, isn't it? Not quite the main event, but absolutely essential to keeping the whole machine running smoothly. It’s like when you’re working on a big project at a place like Home Depot or even just trying to fix something around the house—you don't always need the high-end, heavy-duty power tools right out of the gate; sometimes you just need those reliable, steady little helpers that fill in the gaps. They aren't there to steal the spotlight, but without them, things would definitely fall apart. I find there's a certain quiet dignity in that kind of role—being the backbone of a process without needing the credit. It's a good reminder that even the most "supporting" roles are what actually hold everything together in the end. Edward Flores4 says:
Oh, they absolutely do. Honestly, do you really think modern media could pull off the kind of masterclass in propaganda that Goebbels managed to pull off back in the day? It was a different level of precision—almost surgical—compared to the chaotic noise we see now.

So, I’ve been chewing on this question about whether America should join NATO—even though, if we're being honest, the whole alliance feels like a decaying relic from the Cold War era. It's hard to ignore the criticism that lately, the organization seems more focused on destabilizing regions to keep the flow of oil and narcotics moving toward the US and the UK than actually maintaining peace. Plus, you have to look at the hypocrisy of it all—how they claim to stand for security while essentially turning a blind eye to the plight of the Kurds living within Turkey, which is itself a NATO member. It makes you wonder if the pact is actually about protection, or just about protecting certain interests.

I don't even know where to start with this—honestly, I’m at a loss for words. It feels like modern propaganda is actually more effective today than it even was back in the Goebbels era. It’s just different now, isn't it? Back then, you had to rely on massive rallies and radio broadcasts to get a message across, but today, the sheer scale and precision of how information is manipulated online is on an entirely different level. It's much more subtle, too—it doesn't always feel like a loudspeaker shouting in your face; sometimes it just feels like a quiet nudge in your feed that slowly shifts how you see the world. It’s pretty wild when you really stop to think about it.

I’m looking at this specific point—and I want to be really careful about how I frame it—but it seems like we’re missing the forest for the trees here. It’s one thing to talk about the surface-level mechanics of what happened, but if you look at the underlying structure, there’s a much deeper pattern emerging. It reminds me of that old saying about how you can’t fix a leaky roof by just painting over the water stains; eventually, you have to address the actual shingles and the wood underneath. We keep circling back to these small, tactical details, but we aren't quite grasping the strategic shift that's actually taking place. To truly understand why things are moving in this direction, we have to step back and look at the broader landscape—the kind of big-picture stuff that most people tend to overlook because it’s much easier to focus on the immediate drama.

Why is there such an intense push from the Chinese to control the internet? It’s one of those massive, complicated questions that really makes you stop and think about how much power information carries in the modern age. When you look at it through a certain lens, it isn't just about censorship—though that's a huge part of it—it’s more about total structural sovereignty. Think of it like this: if you own the roads, the bridges, and the traffic lights, you don't just decide where people go; you decide what they even see as an option. For a government that prioritizes social stability and centralized authority above all else, an unfiltered, borderless internet is basically a wild frontier that they can't police. In their eyes, the digital world is a battlefield for influence. If they let the globalized version of the web flow in without any filters, they aren't just letting in ideas; they're letting in potential instability. It’s similar to how a major US corporation might try to gatekeep its proprietary network to prevent any outside interference or data leaks—except here, the "corporation" is the state itself, and the "data" is the collective consciousness of its citizens. They want to build a digital ecosystem that functions like a walled garden. By controlling the gateways—the search engines, the social platforms, the hardware—they ensure that the narrative stays within a framework that supports their specific vision of order. It’s about making sure that the "digital landscape" doesn't become a breeding ground for dissent or foreign influence that could disrupt the status quo. To them, controlling the internet isn't just a preference; it's a fundamental necessity for maintaining domestic control in a hyper-connected world.

It’s just like they refused to learn a single thing from Putin... and honestly, what a massive missed opportunity that was.

I’m looking back at that previous point—and I mean really digging into it—and it strikes me how much we tend to overlook the nuance in these discussions. It’s easy to jump to conclusions when things get heated, but if you step back for a second, you see that the layers are much more complex than they first appear. It reminds me of how people approach complicated legal cases in the States; everyone wants a quick verdict, but the actual truth is usually buried under mountains of fine print and conflicting testimonies. We have to be careful not to oversimplify things just because a quick answer feels more satisfying in the moment.

I mean, honestly—why should I even care about how an engine actually works? At the end of the day, a car is just a tool to get me from point A to point B. If I turn the key and it moves, my job is done. I don't need to be a mechanic to drive to the grocery store or head down to the beach, right?

Look, you don't strictly *have* to understand it—nobody's forcing you to go back to school—but there’s a catch. When you use tools without actually grasping how they function under the hood, you aren't just flying blind; you're essentially multiplying every single potential risk by an exponential factor. It’s like trying to drive a high-performance Tesla when you barely understand how an internal combustion engine works—you might get from point A to point B, but the moment something glitches, you have absolutely no idea why you're spinning out of control. You're basically handing over all the leverage to the tech itself.

Honestly, ignorance is always an easy way out. That’s why most people just choose to stay in the dark—it’s easier than doing the actual work—and then they act genuinely shocked when some Goebbels or Sanders figure comes along and pulls the wool over their eyes.

Murphy hit the nail on the head there—honestly, it’s almost a moral obligation at this point to take those naive folks for everything they're worth!

I mean, honestly—you probably don't even grasp the fundamental physics of how an airplane stays in the air, yet you're still out there booking flights and cruising at thirty thousand feet anyway. Just a guess, of course.

Of course I get it. Honestly, I have this constant, restless need to wrap my head around how everything works—even the tech I don't actually use in my day-to-day life. Take aviation, for example; even if I'm not the one sitting in the cockpit or tinkering with jet engines, I still feel this pull to understand the mechanics behind it all. It's just how I'm wired.

I honestly feel like we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here—it’s easy to get caught up in the immediate noise, but if you zoom out, the underlying pattern becomes pretty obvious. It reminds me of that old saying about not missing the forest for the trees; we’re so focused on the individual leaves that we’re losing sight of how massive the entire ecosystem actually is. Think about it this way—if you were trying to fix a leaky faucet by just putting a bucket under it, you might solve the immediate mess on your floor, sure, but you aren't actually addressing the plumbing issue behind the wall. That’s what it feels like when we debate these specific points without acknowledging the systemic stuff happening in the background. We need to be looking at the structural integrity of the whole thing, not just patching up the surface level problems as they pop up. It’s more about understanding the "why" behind the friction rather than just reacting to the friction itself.

The real issue here—and I think this is something a lot of people struggle to articulate—is that she’s basically forcing a specific social role onto me just by existing. It doesn't matter if I actually want that role or even if I understand the "assignment" she’s handed me; her very presence dictates how I'm supposed to act in relation to her. It’s like being cast in a play you never auditioned for, where the script is written before you even step onto the stage. Whether I'm on board with it or not, the expectation is already set in stone.

How exactly am I supposed to avoid being told what to do?

When you actually grasp how technology works, you’re the one calling the shots—you're using it as a tool to get things done. But when you don't understand the inner workings? Well, you’re still using it, but at that point, the tech becomes nothing more than an empty gun. And honestly, there are two people who get caught up in that little drama—the person staring down the barrel, thinking they're in danger, and the person who knows damn well the gun is empty.

When you don't actually understand how technology works, it just becomes this convenient commodity to you. As long as it’s there and functioning, life is great—everything is seamless and "super." But if the responsibility of keeping it running fell on your shoulders? Well, we wouldn't have any of it. It’s this perfect, almost poetic collision of massive technological power and pure human ignorance, which reminds me of something A. Clark once pointed out:

You know, I was thinking about that old adage—the idea that any technology advanced enough eventually becomes indistinguishable from magic. It’s such a profound way to look at our relationship with progress, isn't it? Think about it this way: if you were to take a modern smartphone—something we all carry around like it's just a basic tool—and drop it into the hands of someone from, say, the early 1900s, they wouldn't see a "communication device." They wouldn't even understand the concept of a microprocessor or a digital signal. To them, being able to video call someone halfway across the country or access the entirety of human knowledge with a swipe of a finger? That isn't engineering. That's straight-up sorcery. It’s like something pulled right out of a fantasy novel. I feel like we hit this threshold every few decades. We move from wondering how a lightbulb works to treating wireless internet like it’s just an invisible, fundamental part of the atmosphere. We stop asking "how?" and just start asking "where's my charger?" We lose that sense of awe because the "magic" becomes mundane. But when you really step back and look at the sheer scale of what we've built—the leaps in physics and computation that allow us to manipulate reality at a granular level—it really is nothing short of miraculous. It makes me wonder what we consider "impossible" today that will just look like a common household gadget to our grandkids.

Carl Sagan put it a bit more bluntly when he said:

We’ve basically engineered a society where almost every single thing that keeps our world spinning—our infrastructure, our economy, our daily survival—is tethered to high-level science and technology. But here’s the kicker: we’ve also set things up so that the vast majority of people living in this country don't actually grasp how any of it works. It’s like building a massive, complex skyscraper out of glass and steel, then handing the keys to a crowd that doesn't even know what gravity is. Honestly? It feels like a recipe for a total meltdown. We might be able to coast on this momentum for a little while longer—we’ve been getting lucky so far—but you can only play with fire for so long. Eventually, this volatile cocktail of widespread technical illiteracy mixed with concentrated institutional power is going to hit a breaking point. And when it does, it’s going to blow up right in our faces..

It seems a bit illogical to me that there are this many idiots in the world constantly getting played. Maybe there's more to it.
And let's start with the assumption that most people are actually smart.
Your argument is that the problem isn't the technology itself, but the people who don't get how to use it. If everyone understood it, everything would be fine.
Except technology was built to help us. Especially the atomic bomb.😁

rustymaker5 said:The reality is that everything can be rationalized if you look at it long enough. And the fact remains that in the future, people will look back at our era and call it the "good old days" too.🙂

As for why people don't just flip the switch—well, let me tell you, some people actually do. It really just comes down to the individual, I suppose. I still remember those times before everyone had a smartphone in their pocket, back when if you had an emergency, you had to sprint to a payphone on a street corner. There used to be lines, and I remember being so worked up I almost got into a physical altercation with some guy who wouldn't let me cut ahead... Now, everyone has a cell phone. And honestly, that's great. But it isn't great when we refuse to turn them off because we feel this crushing obligation to be reachable by everyone, all the time. So then we end up miserable because we feel like we have zero privacy left.🤷 But you've got to shut it off; you have to be the one in control of the device, rather than letting the device rule over you.
With all these high-tech assistants at our fingertips, any person with half a brain should take that extra free time they've gained and use it for themselves—for self-improvement, for reading, for learning something new, for a hobby, for spiritual growth, or just for pure personal enjoyment. Those who choose to become slaves to their technology... well, they would have found something else to be enslaved to, even without all this technological progress...

To shut it off, I’d actually need to be free first.
Think about how many things you do every single day that you’d kill to skip, yet you have to do them anyway.
It feels like most of us are just living under the illusion of freedom, not actual freedom. And honestly? Someone else is even calling the shots on what that illusion looks like.
Look at ridiculous jobs today, like "leisure coordinators." Imagine someone whose entire career is just managing how other people spend their downtime. It’s like they’re treating us like houseplants.

Mark Torres14 said:It seems a bit illogical to me that there are this many idiots in the world constantly getting played. Maybe there's more to it.
And let's start with the assumption that most people are actually smart.
Your argument is that the problem isn't the technology itself, but the people who don't get how to use it. If everyone understood it, everything would be fine.
Except technology was built to help us. Especially the atomic bomb.😁

They’re irresponsible, really. And if you want to be irresponsible while still maintaining a totally clear conscience, you almost have to be stupid. It’s a choice they make... they opt for irresponsibility, and that comes bundled with a complete lack of foresight.

Let's start from the premise that most people are actually intelligent.

If most people were truly smart, this forum wouldn't be such a magnet for nonsense. Honestly, I don't see any real foundation for that assumption whatsoever.

So, in your view, the core issue isn't the tech itself, but the people who don't grasp how it works. If everyone understood it, everything would be fine.

I wouldn't say EVERYTHING would be perfect, but technology wouldn't pose such a massive threat, and we wouldn't end up becoming slaves to our own inventions.

Because technology was built to help us. Especially the atomic bomb.

Nuclear technology wasn't developed specifically for weaponry. Those who truly grasped the science actually refused to work on weapons. In fact, Oppenheimer managed to sabotage the Nazi efforts to develop the Manhattan Project (by lying to Hitler), yet the Allies still managed to gather enough ambitious idiots who realized that, theoretically, this tech could be weaponized.
Ironically, it was probably that failed philosopher... the famous Niels Bohr... who played the biggest role among those "Manhattan Project blunders"!

That whole scenario just reinforces my point: technology becomes most dangerous when it's being wielded by fools.

Mark Torres14 said:I was reaching out my hand toward this massive yellow moon rising over the silver ocean when, suddenly, my rod bent almost all the way to the water, twitching like crazy. "A fish," I thought to myself, gripping the handle tight—and a big one at that. Slowly, pulling against the fish while it pulled back against me and my boat, we drew closer to our inevitable encounter, and just as I was about to haul it in, a giant clock leaps out of the sea and starts ringing, ringing, and ringing...

I snap my eyes open, jump out of bed, kill the alarm on my iPhone 3G, and check my gold Christian Dior. "Seven AM—gotta get to work." With heavy legs and hands that still ache from hauling in that massive fish, I brush my teeth with my electric toothbrush, shave with my electric razor, get dressed, and splash on some cologne—carefully, so I don't stain the shirt. I look out the window—sunny—so I decide to bike instead of drive, mentally running through my to-do list and the meetings I have lined up. I shove something into my bag, then remember last minute that I’ve got a meeting with some guy from a travel agency, so I'll need my laptop to show off his vacation rentals.

Actually, ever since I bought this little laptop at AT&T, it's been the family favorite. Even though we have another laptop and two desktops, this one is somehow the star. I toss the "lap" into my backpack, throw on a beanie (still cold out), crank up my Gepida, and head out toward the bridge in downtown Chicago.

I'm thinking. Once I get to work and knock down my mandatory sugar-free morning macchiato, I'll fire up the office computer, catch up on the last few days, scan the news, hop on the forum to see if anyone replied to my theories, and... get to work. Of course, the radio will be blasting in the background, cutting in with news every hour, so by the 3:00 PM update, it's just mindless white noise. Then, I head home on my bike, eat lunch, sit down at the big computer, check my mail, and open the forum again. In the background, the Soniyev TV is playing one of its endless reruns interrupted by commercials, while from the other room, I hear some supposedly "pleasant" but actually horrific music my daughter is headbanging to. We've got five TVs in this place—one in every room—and over 700 channels (who even understands digital cable nowadays?). Honestly, I don't even watch TV.

I'm beat. I turn down the TV, crank up my wat line and speakers (just something light), lie on the couch, and close my eyes. I can't sleep, though—so I turn to my library of over 1,300 books, grab one, and start reading. Five minutes later, I have no idea what I just read or even which book I'm holding. My mind won't shut up. All the bills I have to pay, how am I going to afford everything since my daughter starts college this year, when am I going to prune the trees, what needs painting at the lake house, I need to buy my younger daughter a professional digital camera—but where's the money coming from? My son has to take those certification exams that cost an arm and a leg, and cash is tight right now. I haven't even renewed the hosting for my website... etcetera, etcetera.

I get up because my wife walks in, and we start talking about her issues at work. The phone rings (I have two, and I never know where they are—the house is huge and the kids leave the receivers in impossible spots), and friends call to say they're coming over. I sprint to the store for drinks, there's no bread, my wife is yelling—"get coffee too!"—and me, cursing, I pull my shoes back on, hit the ATM, run to the grocery store, and then help her prep dinner and get ready for the guests.
The best friends showed up, lots of laughing, joking around, gossiping about people who aren't there, and by eleven o'clock, I feel absolutely exhausted.
I’m lying here, and my wife tells me I crashed out like a freight train. Meanwhile, I’m stuck trying to get back into this dream where there’s a massive yellow moon and a fish that just won't surface.

__________________________________________

Here’s the question:

Is there an absolute breaking point for the pace of life—a limit to how fast a person can go biologically and psychologically before they snap? And what actually happens when you cross that line?
The thing is, everyone around me thinks I live at a snail's pace. I don't rush, I take it easy, and honestly, most people are pretty jealous of that.

Does speed really count if you're just grinding through stuff you hate? Like, you can spend an entire week on vacation in NYC hitting every single landmark from sunrise to sunset and you wouldn't even call that "fast living." If we're being real—I honestly don't think we live any faster than our ancestors did back when they were working farm chores from 5 AM until 10 PM every single day.
So, the ultimate measure of how fast life is... it probably just comes down to how much crap you're willing to put up with.

rustymaker5 said:The reality is that everything can be rationalized if you look at it long enough. And the fact remains that in the future, people will look back at our era and call it the "good old days" too.🙂

As for why people don't just flip the switch—well, let me tell you, some people actually do. It really just comes down to the individual, I suppose. I still remember those times before everyone had a smartphone in their pocket, back when if you had an emergency, you had to sprint to a payphone on a street corner. There used to be lines, and I remember being so worked up I almost got into a physical altercation with some guy who wouldn't let me cut ahead... Now, everyone has a cell phone. And honestly, that's great. But it isn't great when we refuse to turn them off because we feel this crushing obligation to be reachable by everyone, all the time. So then we end up miserable because we feel like we have zero privacy left.🤷 But you've got to shut it off; you have to be the one in control of the device, rather than letting the device rule over you.
With all these high-tech assistants at our fingertips, any person with half a brain should take that extra free time they've gained and use it for themselves—for self-improvement, for reading, for learning something new, for a hobby, for spiritual growth, or just for pure personal enjoyment. Those who choose to become slaves to their technology... well, they would have found something else to be enslaved to, even without all this technological progress...

Ugh, I can't! I tried that once. Everyone expects you to be "on" all the time. Honestly, if we didn't have phones, we wouldn't even bother expecting anyone to pick up.
It's basically impossible to go dark without looking like a total weirdo😬—and trust me, being the weirdo in the group comes with its own set of headaches...