Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?

[CountDeMoney]

I want a horse.

[Ed Anger]

Brain wants a horse sex farm

[MadBurgerMaker]

I want a horse.

My uncle had horses (along with the cow named Brisket that I think I've mentioned here before).  They're a pain in the ass and expensive to take care of. 

Well.  Not for me, cause I wasn't doing it.  They were pretty great as far as I was concerned. 

[Eddie Teach]

When I was a kid, they said similar things.  Video games and anime would destroy my generation, they said.  Maybe somebody once said that cars would destroy another generation.  Changed a generation, for sure.  Destroyed?  Doubt it. 

But, but, I kinda want the millennials to be destroyed.

So why'd you marry one?

[HVC]

I had a horse. He was an asshole.

[jimmy olsen]

On the one hand, the "ZOMG the next generation is shite we are all doomed" crap is so fucking done already.

On the other hand, it is silly to dismiss real, quantifiable data because the form of the basic observation resembles that generational bullshit that is so ubiquitous.

Example: The rise of the telephone in households in Victorian England was seen as the end of society as they knew it - young people were talking to each other on the phone, whenever they wanted, and without chaperones! This is going to lead to the end of managed relationships that defined much of the social structure! We are all doomed!

The "we are all doomed" part was bullshit, but the observation that this would result in radical change was not. It DID destroy (or contribute to the destruction) the previous way of interaction.

This is more of the same. The article can be completely correct in that this represents a serious change in how people will relate to each other, and that may have some significant negative consequences. But it probably has some incredible positive consequences as well.

Mostly though, it is change. And that scares us old people.

I think the car was a bigger factor in that, though the telephone helped.

[Eddie Teach]

We should ask Grumbler for his first hand perspective.

[Tonitrus]

We should ask Grumbler for his first hand perspective.

Everything went to hell after Tiberius Gracchus.

[dps]

When I was a kid, they said similar things.  Video games and anime would destroy my generation, they said.  Maybe somebody once said that cars would destroy another generation.  Changed a generation, for sure.  Destroyed?  Doubt it. 

But, but, I kinda want the millennials to be destroyed.

So why'd you marry one?

Well, it was a good way to destroy the life of at least one of them.

[Malthus]

On the one hand, the "ZOMG the next generation is shite we are all doomed" crap is so fucking done already.

On the other hand, it is silly to dismiss real, quantifiable data because the form of the basic observation resembles that generational bullshit that is so ubiquitous.

Example: The rise of the telephone in households in Victorian England was seen as the end of society as they knew it - young people were talking to each other on the phone, whenever they wanted, and without chaperones! This is going to lead to the end of managed relationships that defined much of the social structure! We are all doomed!

The "we are all doomed" part was bullshit, but the observation that this would result in radical change was not. It DID destroy (or contribute to the destruction) the previous way of interaction.

This is more of the same. The article can be completely correct in that this represents a serious change in how people will relate to each other, and that may have some significant negative consequences. But it probably has some incredible positive consequences as well.

Mostly though, it is change. And that scares us old people.

Exactly.

It's a change, a major change, and all major changes pose challenges.

It is just too bad that we tend to lack perspective. Think of the changes our grandparents went through - a case can be made that social media is a whopper of a change, maybe a case could be made that it compares in scale to a society that went from mostly animal powered vehicles to near-ubiquitous car ownership in a single lifetime ... point being that major changes are hardly unknown in our society. 

[Berkut]

On the one hand, the "ZOMG the next generation is shite we are all doomed" crap is so fucking done already.

On the other hand, it is silly to dismiss real, quantifiable data because the form of the basic observation resembles that generational bullshit that is so ubiquitous.

Example: The rise of the telephone in households in Victorian England was seen as the end of society as they knew it - young people were talking to each other on the phone, whenever they wanted, and without chaperones! This is going to lead to the end of managed relationships that defined much of the social structure! We are all doomed!

The "we are all doomed" part was bullshit, but the observation that this would result in radical change was not. It DID destroy (or contribute to the destruction) the previous way of interaction.

This is more of the same. The article can be completely correct in that this represents a serious change in how people will relate to each other, and that may have some significant negative consequences. But it probably has some incredible positive consequences as well.

Mostly though, it is change. And that scares us old people.

Exactly.

It's a change, a major change, and all major changes pose challenges.

It is just too bad that we tend to lack perspective. Think of the changes our grandparents went through - a case can be made that social media is a whopper of a change, maybe a case could be made that it compares in scale to a society that went from mostly animal powered vehicles to near-ubiquitous car ownership in a single lifetime ... point being that major changes are hardly unknown in our society. 

I do think it is dangerous, however, to just dismiss change as "Meh, we've had major change before, and it all worked out fine! Don't worry about it!". (Not saying you are doing this, just using this as a springboard for conversation).

Unless you believe in a god that cares a lot about humans, the fact that we have managed to survive major change previously* doesn't imply any guarantee that the next major change is going to be ok as well.

You see this with the automation and value of labor arguments, and I think that is very wrong. Just because we've gone through tech adjustments that changed how labor was allocated before, and the result was better efficiency but still full need for human labor, doesn't guarantee that will always be the case. And indeed, simple logic will tell us that *at some point* it CANNOT be the case. The value of human labor has been going down, and continues to go down, and at some point will basically become zero. That is not just a cycle that repeats endlessly.

There is no reason, outside faith, to assume that any conceivable societal or technological change will necessarily be a net positive, or particularly compatible with a human being who is the product of evolution and the influences of natural selection that simply cannot respond to the pace of change currently available.

*It is also worth noting that plenty of the huge changes humans have "survived", we've survived, but at a often incredible cost in pain and suffering. So it would be great if we could avoid another mega war for example. Sure, we may survive it fine, but that doesn't mean we should not be willing to spend considerable effort on avoiding massive upheaval that major social and economic changes force on us.

[Malthus]

I do think it is dangerous, however, to just dismiss change as "Meh, we've had major change before, and it all worked out fine! Don't worry about it!". (Not saying you are doing this, just using this as a springboard for conversation).

Unless you believe in a god that cares a lot about humans, the fact that we have managed to survive major change previously* doesn't imply any guarantee that the next major change is going to be ok as well.

You see this with the automation and value of labor arguments, and I think that is very wrong. Just because we've gone through tech adjustments that changed how labor was allocated before, and the result was better efficiency but still full need for human labor, doesn't guarantee that will always be the case. And indeed, simple logic will tell us that *at some point* it CANNOT be the case. The value of human labor has been going down, and continues to go down, and at some point will basically become zero. That is not just a cycle that repeats endlessly.

There is no reason, outside faith, to assume that any conceivable societal or technological change will necessarily be a net positive, or particularly compatible with a human being who is the product of evolution and the influences of natural selection that simply cannot respond to the pace of change currently available.

*It is also worth noting that plenty of the huge changes humans have "survived", we've survived, but at a often incredible cost in pain and suffering. So it would be great if we could avoid another mega war for example. Sure, we may survive it fine, but that doesn't mean we should not be willing to spend considerable effort on avoiding massive upheaval that major social and economic changes force on us.

Can't see much to argue with you here, as I tend to agree with everything you say.

Indeed, I pointed out upthread, that it is worth comparing our century with the past century in terms of "destroyed generations" of youth - we have smartphones in 2017, they had ... WW1 in 1917.

Of course, even WW1 did not literally "destroy" a generation, but it did a shitload of damage to it.

The problem with the scaremongering articles, at least to folks not given to panicky enthusiasm, is that it is likely to turn off any actual critical analysis - it is easy to dismiss with jeers yet another apocalyptic prediction. Any discussion of actual social problems (and possible benefits!)posed by the phenomenon under discussion is likely to not happen. 

[Berkut]

Can't see much to argue with you here, as I tend to agree with everything you say.

I think we can leave it at that.

[viper37]

My wife has had to hire, manage, and fire tons of them.  My brother is dealing with a couple of them at work now, and I have I have several other acquaintances that have struggled with managing and working with them in their jobs.  Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, and hopefully the rest will grow up at some point.

They will. But remember Millennials are now well into their early 30s now. Heck by some standards people in their early 40s are Millennials. You may be talking about the people in their early 20s who are supposed to be the generation after the Millennials...whatever they are called.

Yeah, I'm a Millennial and I just turned 31.  The younger ones are Gen Z. Now them, they're fucked up. All nazis from what I understand.

of course they're fucked.  There's nothing after Z.

[The Brain]

My wife has had to hire, manage, and fire tons of them.  My brother is dealing with a couple of them at work now, and I have I have several other acquaintances that have struggled with managing and working with them in their jobs.  Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, and hopefully the rest will grow up at some point.

They will. But remember Millennials are now well into their early 30s now. Heck by some standards people in their early 40s are Millennials. You may be talking about the people in their early 20s who are supposed to be the generation after the Millennials...whatever they are called.

Yeah, I'm a Millennial and I just turned 31.  The younger ones are Gen Z. Now them, they're fucked up. All nazis from what I understand.

of course they're fucked.  There's nothing after Z.

Å, Ä, and Ö.