Boredom before computers

[crazy canuck]

You dont have to go back 1000 years.  When I was young nobody had computers - There wasnt even Atari Pong games.  Arcades were for pin ball machines and TVs had 2-3 channels.

Kids played a lot outside together.  Not sure how adults passed the time (I was rarely around to see their what they did with their free time as I was too busy playing with my friends) but I do recall my parents going over to a friends house or having friends over  more often then our generation.

On the whole I am not sure I like our technological age better.  Things are easier now, standards of living have improved but we also seem to have lost some social connections as we spend more time in front of screens.

Of course the counter argument is that there are connections of a different sort - eg Languish, where people from all over the world can easily communicate instantly.  But that is a different quality of connection.  If I hadnt met a number of you in person I doubt I would be here as much or at all.

[Berkut]

The problem with the idea that things were better before than now, and that our overall quality of life has deteriorated as a result of technology (at least in this fashion) is that it presupposes that human are incapable, as a whole, of evaluating what actually makes them happy.

It isn't like the advent of TVs forces people to watch them, or that computers make people only interface via facebook. Rather it is a choice.

I reject the notion that by and large humanity is incapable of deciding on an individual level what will make them more happy. If people choose to spend more time in front of a PC and less time interacting with their neighbors, then I will operate under the assumption that is because they are in fact happier doing more of the one and less of the other.

[Malthus]

The problem with the idea that things were better before than now, and that our overall quality of life has deteriorated as a result of technology (at least in this fashion) is that it presupposes that human are incapable, as a whole, of evaluating what actually makes them happy.

It isn't like the advent of TVs forces people to watch them, or that computers make people only interface via facebook. Rather it is a choice.

I reject the notion that by and large humanity is incapable of deciding on an individual level what will make them more happy. If people choose to spend more time in front of a PC and less time interacting with their neighbors, then I will operate under the assumption that is because they are in fact happier doing more of the one and less of the other.

I don't really agree with this - at least, I know that I myself often end up going with passive entertainment such as TV watching or video game playing rather than active, outdoors-type entertainment or creative entertainment, simply because it is easier. The other forms of entertainment require effort to set up - and it takes a concious effort to do it; nonetheless, those times when I make the effort to (say) go out sketching or the like, I am far happier afterwards than when I vegitated for five solid hours in front of the TV.

It is similar to foods, in that a bit of effort and self-restraint are amply rewarded. It may be most immediately fun to eat chips and ice-cream all the time, but it isn't necessarily going to make you happier in the long term.

[Malthus]

Anyway, to answer the question - what people did, more than any other single thing, was apparently to engage in lots and lots of story-telling. The art of being able to tell a good story was much cultivated.

[crazy canuck]

I reject the notion that by and large humanity is incapable of deciding on an individual level what will make them more happy. If people choose to spend more time in front of a PC and less time interacting with their neighbors, then I will operate under the assumption that is because they are in fact happier doing more of the one and less of the other.

People do all kinds of things that are objectively stupid.  Smoking, eating too much, getting too little exercise.  I am sure we could make a very long list.

I am not sure why you suppose that people are rationale enough not to watch too much TV especially since most North Americans DO watch a too much TV for their own good.  The only thing that has reduced TV viewing recently is that people spend more time infront of other screens.

[KRonn]

They worked through all the hours of daylight and slept as soon as it got dark, simple as that. People would be a lot happier now if they did more of the same.

Yes, but I always wondered what the idle plebs of the city of Rome did between gladiator bouts.

Maybe they day dreamed of computers, tv, radio, travel and internet!

[Berkut]

I reject the notion that by and large humanity is incapable of deciding on an individual level what will make them more happy. If people choose to spend more time in front of a PC and less time interacting with their neighbors, then I will operate under the assumption that is because they are in fact happier doing more of the one and less of the other.

People do all kinds of things that are objectively stupid.  Smoking, eating too much, getting too little exercise.  I am sure we could make a very long list.

But they do not do things that overall make them less happy than some other thing.

I won't say "objective;y" since of course their own happiness is by definition completely subjective.

Stupid is another thing entirely, and even then I refrain from joining the "OMG, people are so stupid! If only they did what *I* think is best for them..." bit.

I am not sure why you suppose that people are rationale enough not to watch too much TV especially since most North Americans DO watch a too much TV for their own good.  The only thing that has reduced TV viewing recently is that people spend more time infront of other screens.

They do? Who says they watch too much "for their own good"? You? Are you the authority on what is "for their own good" much less on what makes them happy?

[MadImmortalMan]

I can only imagine that if I'd lived in earlier times I would have read a shitload of books.

[crazy canuck]

They do? Who says they watch too much "for their own good"? You? Are you the authority on what is "for their own good" much less on what makes them happy?

Rising obesity rates do.

You can try to rationalize all you want about how getting fatter through less exercise is making people subjectively happy.  But you will never convince me that it is actually good for them.

[Berkut]

The problem with the idea that things were better before than now, and that our overall quality of life has deteriorated as a result of technology (at least in this fashion) is that it presupposes that human are incapable, as a whole, of evaluating what actually makes them happy.

It isn't like the advent of TVs forces people to watch them, or that computers make people only interface via facebook. Rather it is a choice.

I reject the notion that by and large humanity is incapable of deciding on an individual level what will make them more happy. If people choose to spend more time in front of a PC and less time interacting with their neighbors, then I will operate under the assumption that is because they are in fact happier doing more of the one and less of the other.

I don't really agree with this - at least, I know that I myself often end up going with passive entertainment such as TV watching or video game playing rather than active, outdoors-type entertainment or creative entertainment, simply because it is easier. The other forms of entertainment require effort to set up - and it takes a concious effort to do it; nonetheless, those times when I make the effort to (say) go out sketching or the like, I am far happier afterwards than when I vegitated for five solid hours in front of the TV.

It is similar to foods, in that a bit of effort and self-restraint are amply rewarded. It may be most immediately fun to eat chips and ice-cream all the time, but it isn't necessarily going to make you happier in the long term.

I submit that you in fact veg about as much as makes you happy, and go out and do other things about as much as makes you happy. I think this is true for most people, overall.

Notice that in fact you do NOT veg out in front of the TV for five hours all the time but instead choose to go do other things because you know in fact that vegging out for 5 horus all the time will not actually maximize your happiness.

You have the ability to make that choice for yourself, and you strike some balance between activities that you find to be optimal.

Why should we presume that that is not generally true for everyone else?

[Berkut]

They do? Who says they watch too much "for their own good"? You? Are you the authority on what is "for their own good" much less on what makes them happy?

Rising obesity rates do.

You can try to rationalize all you want about how getting fatter through less exercise is making people subjectively happy.  But you will never convince me that it is actually good for them.

I am not rationalizing anything - I am just not going to operate under the assumption that people are incapable of determining what makes them happy better than I can.

Whether it is healthy for them is another issue entirely - but then, people have varying ideas about how important their health is to their happiness. I know people who do not give a shit, and I know people who spend what seems to me to be ridiculous amounts of time worrying about their health to the extent that I cannot see how it could make them happy.

But hey, differenet drummers and all that. If micro-managing every morsel you eat and spending 30 hours a week running and working out makes them happy, I am not going to second guess them. It probably does in fact make them happy.

[Berkut]

I can only imagine that if I'd lived in earlier times I would have read a shitload of books.

Indeed.

And you would probably also spend some of your time wondering what people did before there were books to read.

And other people would talk about how much things were better before those new-fangled books made everyone sit around and get fat reading all the time, when they could be doing worthwhile activities like stir dirt with a stick - like they did when THEY were kids!

[Grey Fox]

We are all working on the assumption that previously it was okay to have a lot of different recreational time & activities. Was it the case?
In a rural society, atleast around here, previous to the introduction of TV, it doesn't look like it was.

[DGuller]

I thought about this a little to myself.  I actually concluded that a little boredom is not a bad thing at all.  In my life I've come up with some fairly creative stuff while being bored, and done some interesting things.  These days I have more than enough things to do to occupy my free time, and it seems like time just flies, and I have nothing to show for it.

[Barrister]

I submit that you in fact veg about as much as makes you happy, and go out and do other things about as much as makes you happy. I think this is true for most people, overall.

Notice that in fact you do NOT veg out in front of the TV for five hours all the time but instead choose to go do other things because you know in fact that vegging out for 5 horus all the time will not actually maximize your happiness.

You have the ability to make that choice for yourself, and you strike some balance between activities that you find to be optimal.

Why should we presume that that is not generally true for everyone else?

I don't understand why you're being so agressive about this.

I find that in my own life I often do not take steps to maximize my own happiness.  As just one example every time I take the canoe out I find that I have a tremendous time and I wonder why I don't do it more often.  And there's no really good answer other than the fact that just sitting and watching tv (or in my case sitting and playing on the computer) is often the easier path, but not the one that maximizes my happiness.

You're showing a kind of ipso facto reasoning that people do the thing that makes them the happiest because that is what people are doing.  I really don't think it's that simple.