TheNecroswanson said:
Some day our only friends will be robots, so I'm going to socialize as much as possible until then, that way, when I lead the rebellion, Ill have points of contact.
I have to say that's pretty much what I was going for with this whole piece. I'm not too sure on the whole "Lose All Social Contact" in anything within my personal lifespan, but it's still an interesting point of observation whenever I look at the world around me.
Though, I'm not sure about the stringent refusal for Pay at the Pump or Self-Checkout, because these things have their uses like any other. I find that a majority of individuals will go to a register long before they'll take a Self-Checkout lane, which enables me to take an hour at the store, and turn it into fifteen minutes without a line.
What strikes me as most bizarre about my habits is the way I like doing things. I've always hated depositing checks and getting cash back from automated machines, and refuse to do so in lieu of going to the bank and speaking with the teller. At the same time, I severely dislike having to make the effort to go all the way into the gas station when I can simply fuel-up and go. I would draw parallels with the days attendants would fuel for you, but I was never around for those years.
Really bizarre, these habits we've gotten ourselves into.
Flap Jack452 said:
Maybe I'm crazy, maybe my opinion is totally invalid and wrong, but that is just how I feel.
Certainly not. I think our biggest problem is going to be finding a happy medium. Out of perhaps 50 register lanes at the national supermarket chain that's settled in my college town, only 8 of them are Self-Checkout. I think this is a good balance between having people you can approach, and talk to, and being able to pursue a quick in-and-out purchase without having to go through another dried dialog of small-talk that the register operator may not even care about.
Though this is the socialite in me speaking. I find that job workers who are paid to be nice and do so insincerely are more offending than silence. Sometimes, I'll share an actual laugh with a worker, and it makes my day brighter. But when I see someone glaring at me from across the store, and the too-fake smile when I approach their counter, I'm just as likely to just check myself out then deal with someone who hates me because he also hates his job.
I digress... There's nothing wrong with self-sufficiency used in conjunction with machinery, but trying to make it replace a very personable like large group meetings or presentations is honestly the wrong way to use an available technology. Being able to call someone I know in Australia, England, and even United States locals without the chance to otherwise speak with them is the proper use of available technologies. Running your computer from Remote Desktop because you couldn't be bothered to show up at work isn't.
xitel said:
[T]here's certain things a computer can't emulate. Like, when one of my regulars was having a bad day, I'd do something small for them, like laying my hand on their shoulder. If you can show me a computer that can do that and comfort a person, I will let it take my job. But for now, I have yet to see it.
This is part of the reason I wrote this. People are beginning to gray the function of computers over the function of people. Well, more so than they should. Because technology can accomplish so much these days, we now have the option to do something a little less personally. This is fine in a sense, but I fear it could grow too overused. The internet is the most bizarre of loves in my life because it symbolizes so little actual human interaction, but it enables me to meet-and-greet with people I would never have met or spoken to. The fact that I know what
Galletea or
Labyrinth sound like is a testament to just how far technology is going to connect people who would otherwise be disconnected.
The problem is when people use the same technology to disconnect themselves from things they should be connected to.
brainfreeze215 said:
I definitely clicked on this topic because "Face-to-Face" is my favorite Daft Punk song.)
One of my favorites. I freely admit to shamelessly using that to my advantage.
Trivun said:
Just one question, since I can't think of a decent reponse to this thread. Does anyone else find it ironic that a question about needing more face-to-face interaction is being posted anonymously on an internet forum?
Oddly enough, I actually allude to this in my opening post. I said that as:
...and settled down to ready and complete a presentation. The presentation itself was this thread.
Though I'd be happy to debate the anonymity thing, since there are many many ways you can make this very personal. My actual name in my profile included.
Odude said:
I can see why many wouldn't like this though. As stated, I just can't put up with the common populous like most people can.
It seems so bizarre to me the amount of times I see statements like these. You're a member of an online discussion forum, and opening stating that you intensely dislike people. Generally speaking, forums are designed to introduce you to groups of people you would not normally meet.
Though I can see where you come from, I still have to wonder why. Stepping away from humanity as a majority isn't really something to strive for. If that were the case, then some the world's most enlightened people wouldn't write academic journals for the masses or attend large conferences; they'd be crazy hermits in the mountains.
matrix3509 said:
Have you ever had to stop and use every muscle in your body to loath someone?
This seems more a matter of perspective than isolation. As I said above: I disagree.
Flying-Emu said:
Yes, we are losing our social nature in a loose sense of the word. No, it's not an extensive problem. We'll be fine.
I'm in line to agree. You actually summed it up pretty much like I should've. When I write to emphasize what could potentially be a problem, I tend to write in a slant against the problem I'm highlighting. I don't even mean to most times.
Labyrinth said:
In my view, little compares to sitting down with a friend over lunch or curling up with someone in front of a movie. Human contact is a wonderful thing a times.
In lieu of having anything particularly striking or enlightening to add here, I find I have little more to say than "Very yes."
The only thing I'd like to point out is no one seems to strike to the second, sort of sub-point I touched on, which is the streamlining that these technologies provide. While saving five minutes may not be a big deal to most people, it usually means enough time to sit down for a brief breather during a particularly busy day. Seems like with life and "always connected" life we have now, the fifteen minute power nap and afternoon
siesta are looking to become a product of history. Anything that can get me an hour's shut-eye in this sometimes overwhelmingly busy life is encouraged to be explored. At the very least.
Shade Jackrabbit said:
Huh. This question reminds me of Wall-E, since it somehow crept back into my mind. One part I loved about that movie was the depiction of the doomed humanity completely absorbed in their computer screens and not even seeing each other.
Yeah, I think we're heading towards a bad trend with destroying face-to-face work. On one hand, you don't have to deal with stupidity. But then again, one thing I love doing as an incredibly witty person is buying food or such and dropping comments that elicit a laugh.
I really like the
Wall-E comparison, which is so very apt for this. Which bothers me because I didn't think of it at all.
While it's still an unreasonable thing to imagine in this day and age, it's proving to be quite accurate sooth-saying for the distant future. Maybe it's humanity's fault for making everything so easy that we don't go through the extra effort anymore. Textbooks are footnoting difficult words' definitions, txt-speak and abbreviations are becoming more and more acceptable in professional and formal environments, and we're not expected to know the same things that used to be required. Though it has always been little changes, a lot of little changes over a long period of time are turning us slowly but steadily more lazy.
space_oddity said:
As a an engineering student, ive noticed an interesting trend.
Essentially, efficiency is inversely proportional to the number of people between the consumer and the product.
Considering we are a consumerist society that is forever striving to increase 'efficiency' in our lives, the future does not bode well for socializing.
Given the word-length to post-box-size ratio in that statement, I'd say that post is only about 65% at capacity, and could be operating more efficiently given the size of your available text box.
Though I'm not sure what field of engineering would be called upon to adjust such a problem. Linguistic Dynamics? Or would that be Textual Statics?
