Technology's Future Psychological Impact

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A hundred years ago technology had only a minor impact on the day to day lives of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree completely. Technology dominated peoples' lives one hundred years ago exactly as much as it does today. Every facet of every moment of every day in 1905 involved technologies in manufacturing, agriculture, medicine, etc. Every human being in western civilisation in 1905 covered themselves with manufactured goods, made their homes from manufactured tools, was employed in some task that required manufactured goods, etc. Boots, buttons, cloth, knives, guns, glasses, buggy whips, plows, machines, everything. In fact, man is defined by his technology. Without our technology we are naked apes, shivering and being eaten by bears.

Just yesterday it occured to me that everthing in the modern world, literally hundreds of billions of manufactured items, is the end result of an unbroken chain of manufacture that muse go back a minimum of seven to ten thousand years, possibly longer. Modern goods are made from tools and machines that were made with tools and machines that were made with tools and machines . . . The last time that tools themselves were created from nothing but new, raw materials available in and on the Earth, and the application of nothing but human labor, had to be many thousands of years ago. It could be argued that certain native tribes in North America and elsewhere around the globe that still practiced raw toolmaking traditions like stone knapping are exceptions. But I would argue that those tool lineagaes are almost certainly extinct. Modern tools like manufactured knives have completely replaced native toolmaking traditions.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore at least 20% of the population had at least a vague understanding of those technolgies along with the ability if, need be, to grasp them more fully.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt this as well. Did 20% of the population in 1905 know how to manufacture gun powder, a thousand year old technology? Did 20% of the population know how to make steel? How to weave cloth? Manufacture paper? How to build and operate a steam engine? How to make a gun? And to the extent that there was some fraction of the population "vaguely familiar" with the principles behind these technologies, I would argue that percentage has not dropped in the modern populace (as poor as our education system is, there is still bound to be 20% of the population that succedes in spite of it).

I would argue that in 1905 the division of labor was as absolute as it is now, and that few people worried about how the locomotive worked or how to make gun powder, unless they worked on locomotives or at a gun powder plant.

As for technologies becoming ever more intricate with ever fewer people able to understand them, we already have that. A modern airliner is so complex that no one member of the team of engineers that designs it has a complete understanding of every component and scientific principle behind the design. Engines are ordered from engine manufacturers that meet certain specifications. It weighs so much, consumes so much fuel, produces so much thrust, etc. The people designing the wing most likely have only a rudimentary understanding of the mechanics of the engine, and the people who made the engine probably have only a rudimentary understanding of wing design. The human factors engineers who design the cockpit have little understanding of aerodynamics and lift, or hydraulic controls, or landing gear design, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, and even more so in the not too distant future, technology will have a major impact on peoples's lives. And only maybe five percent of the population will have even the most cursory understanding of how the gadgets that almost eveyone will be so dependent on, works. Even fewer will be smart enough to have any hope of fully understanding their underlying pricnciples and even fewer still, actually will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paradoxically I think you're being both to harsh on people and too generous. I think that we're already at the point where the majority of people have only a rudimentary understanding of how the technologies we're dependent on work, but I believe that if not most, at least a good chunk of people do in fact have that rudimentary understanding. Which, given the division of labor, is probably more than they require at all.

[ QUOTE ]
I wondering what effect this will have on thinking people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect very little.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe I read this excellent (IMO) post after that awful one in Politics.

I agree with Borodog's stance here.
David's original post seems to have a lot of modern bias in it. Technological spurts similar to today's have been occuring pretty frequently. Look at the industrial revolution. It changed people's lives in a ton of ways. What about the telegraph? Trains? Mass production of antibiotics? Within the 100 year mark but out of the digital age: automobiles, flight, radio, TV?
And I agree that the 20% figure seems very high.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I read this excellent (IMO) post after that awful one in Politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should reconsider your interpretations of the post in Politics then.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I read this excellent (IMO) post after that awful one in Politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should reconsider your interpretations of the post in Politics then.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Very different subjects.

As others have no doubt said the idea that technology did not impact strongly on people's lives a hundred years ago is incorrect. Even such simple technology as agriculture profoundly changed everyone's life forever. It created war and allowed for a huge increase in humanities population. None the less, technology is increasing in an exponential rate. Until one hundred years ago almost all inventions made by man were really just a few simple machines put together. Now, we have incredibly complicate devices capable of doing incredibly complicated things. This trend will continue for a long time, so long as humanity survives the next few centuries. This will have an incredible effect on our society in ways we cannot accurately predict at the moment.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I wondering what effect this will have on thinking people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not much on thinking people, but it's much easier to succeed today and not be a thinking person so there'll be less of them by percentage.

The effect of not getting plenty of exposure to the application of 'the nature of things' is an increased susceptability to magical thinking. The current rise in astrology is caused by the same lack of a good grasp of scientific principles as it was 200 years ago.

Two hundred years ago the overall scientific knowledge was much less and it's availability to the general population was low. Today, the scientific knowledge is huge but the availability/need for it by the general population is low. It's like it's not there again.

Prepare for more magical thinking.

[Lestat]

The biggest problem as I see it (and as it relates to me personally), is modern man's refusal to read a set of instructions.

I am still reeling from the psychological ramifications of getting my ipod to download properly.

I understand what you are saying about technology a hundred years ago not having a big effect on people's lives. As many posters have said, this is erroneous, but this could be a matter of semantics more than a conceptual error. Back in the good ol' days a far greater percentage of the general populace understood the workings of their basic implements, as there were few extremely complex examples outside the realm of academia that had far reaching effects.
Obviously the railroads and firearms industries are the best examples of technologies being implemented by massive numbers of the general public without an acute understanding of the minutiae involved. Yet even the simpleton of the day had an understanding of how to utilize these tools, just not how to produce them.
The concept David is attempting to elucidate is one more subtle. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be a matter of our world shifting more and more towards a division of labor society. One of the last men to be a true expert in every field of academia was Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz, and he was an intrepid genious of the first class. The world since his time has become more complex on an astronomical scale and at a staggering pace. It is simply impossible for anyone to be able to learn, in intricate detail, the dynamics of our modern world.
The concept does not end here, it only shows how, as the world becomes more intricate, we will find ourselves more and more detached from our own sustaining technologies.
The psychological effect will be one of universal bewilderment. Except for those who sink into their own area of expertise, and maintain only a working knowledge of those things whoxh are required for our mutual survival.

I want to keep thinking and writing, but responsibilities pull me away

Cambraceres

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I wondering what effect this will have on thinking people.

[/ QUOTE ]

They will have more to think about.

Stu

[peritonlogon]

I'm not sure if I'm off topic in this reply, but an inquiry about the changing roles of technology in people's lives and people's understandings of those technologies, must include the concept of technologies and tools as "extensions of man" as put forth by Marshal McLuhan in "Understanding Media." (a book which has more B.S in it than any book I've taken to read seriously since I read Aristotle). I think that, right now, we're at a point where the precise way in which technology will become part of us is unclear. As an analogy for what I mean by this, the tool that delivers a blunt, quick force underwent much transformation before it became the hammer that is used by carpenters today that is carried around with instant access for the dominant hand that also doubles as a prybar/nail puller. But electronic technology is much more complex, and there are many many more paths it could take before it becomes as seamless in our existence as the carpenter's hammer is in his. The Ipod, a few new multipurpose devices like camera phones and perhaps even Skype, are offering already a dramatic movement toward seamlessness, and they are really just the begining. So exactly how technology will change people's lives is still unclear as exactly how the technology will change is not determined yet.

As far as people's understanding of the technology they use goes, I think one major difference with electronic technology is that, even if someone knows a lot about a thing, and understands it well, often that person just can't fix it. So, along with there being a lack of understanding of the technology and it's general principles, there is also a lack of power over it even for those who do understand the thing. This change almost gives the electronic tools in our lives a life of their own (albiet a disposable life). Along with this life like quality, the experience I feel when the Internet is down/cuts out, or I have to run a virus scan or restart my computer is not unlike dealing with a person in my life that is bothering, ignoring, or leaving me. There's anxiety, helplessness and the results of pure rage are usually quite bad. I have never had experiences that mimic people with any other type of technology, not cars, books, powertools etc. I think the reason for this is that interacting with information technology often does not allow a person to have mastery over the tool. It feels like we are at the mercy of this thing which often feels like it has a will of it's own, but in any case we are its servant and we are forced to come to terms with this in a way no other technology has required us to do.

[Peter666]

Obviously technology will turn us into unsociable blithering idiots as its major end conciously or subconciously has always been the creation of an anatomically correct sex robot available en masse for masturbation purposes. We have almost reached the zenith.