I hadn't seen this video yet, but it is pretty interesting:
From Gadgetoff 2007
Posted 28 November 2007 - 08:58 PM
Posted 30 November 2007 - 12:40 AM
Posted 30 November 2007 - 12:31 PM
Posted 30 November 2007 - 06:11 PM
Yeah, the cellphone is most surprising. Any one by themselves would probably be less surprising (especially the car, cause in lots of places you don't need one), but all 3 combined is probably a very low percentage of the population in the developed world.The only one that surprises me might be the cellphone. I'm quite jealous.
Posted 30 November 2007 - 07:36 PM
Anyone else find it surprising that Aubrey doesn't own a cellphone, television, and car?
Posted 30 November 2007 - 08:27 PM
Yeah, I understand. I am just such a technophile (I would fit in good at "Gadgetoff" I think) that I probably find it more surprising than others might.Anyone else find it surprising that Aubrey doesn't own a cellphone, television, and car?
Not really,
I don't own a cellphone or a TV either.
Generally I find the information radiated from these devices unproductive and annoying. Sure, once in a while I may find the need for a TV or a cell phone but overall I don't consider them beneficial for my well being at this point.
Posted 30 November 2007 - 08:47 PM
(I guess it also might mean that a lot more people than I had thought won't want to partake of transhumanist technologies when they became available for the same reasons.)
Posted 30 November 2007 - 08:49 PM
Posted 30 November 2007 - 08:56 PM
That's where I fall. I am still pro technological advancement (maybe more than most of the people).I would imagine a good deal of that minority don't use them because they feel the advantages/disadvantage ratio isn't worthwhile enough yet to bother with instead of being against the technologies themselves.
Posted 30 November 2007 - 09:04 PM
True, but the advantages of transhuman technologies (especially in the beginning) will probably be the same. The early adopters of those technologies will be the ones who are in general early adopters for technology. (at least in general they will be, there are always a small percentage of outliers) I would estimate that of those who will be early adopters of transhuman tech, a very small percent (less than 1% I would imagine) would not own a cell phone today. I can see someone not having a tv because they would rather have a higher end computer or something, and lots of people don't have cars (especially in large cities with good public transport).(I guess it also might mean that a lot more people than I had thought won't want to partake of transhumanist technologies when they became available for the same reasons.)
I wonder exactly how many people that don't regularly use those technologies are actively avoiding them vs. not using them because the need isn't present. I would imagine a good deal of that minority don't use them because they feel the advantages/disadvantage ratio isn't worthwhile enough yet to bother with instead of being against the technologies themselves.
Posted 30 November 2007 - 09:15 PM
So you are more of a late majority as far as the adoption of technology. I see myself as more of an innovator or an early adopter on the scale of when I have to have the newest technology.That's where I fall. I am still pro technological advancement (maybe more than most of the people).I would imagine a good deal of that minority don't use them because they feel the advantages/disadvantage ratio isn't worthwhile enough yet to bother with instead of being against the technologies themselves.
Once a gadget has the advantages/disadvantages ratio greater than 1 I would quickly have it. Of course there is dificulty sometimes in identifying advantages/disadvantages and that varies from person to person.
Posted 30 November 2007 - 09:16 PM
Exactly. If you have a computer stuck to your face 24/7, email is way better than any cell service. Whereas if you use computers infrequently and are constantly on the move, a cell phone is valuable.If someone doesn't see the benefits of current technologies, then I would suspect they wouldn't see the benefit of future technologies. Now, Aubrey is somewhat of an exception because I know he uses a computer often, and was a Computer Engineer, and so on, so I am sure the lack of cell phone is just an anomaly.
Posted 30 November 2007 - 09:37 PM
Posted 30 November 2007 - 09:48 PM
Yeah, whether you're one or the other depends on the meaning of newest technology. There's low-order civilian tech to perform normalized tasks and then there's high-order civilian tech with more risk factors involved. Aubrey, for instance, probably makes up for his lack of simple gadget possessions with his access to more high-order civilian tech.I see myself as more of an innovator or an early adopter on the scale of when I have to have the newest technology.
Posted 01 December 2007 - 08:20 AM
Quite right. I wasn't talking about any specific technology, just technology in general and the propensity for one to adopt. Of course if there is a technology that does something more conveniently/faster/better in some way, then one would be silly not to use it instead.Exactly. If you have a computer stuck to your face 24/7, email is way better than any cell service. Whereas if you use computers infrequently and are constantly on the move, a cell phone is valuable.If someone doesn't see the benefits of current technologies, then I would suspect they wouldn't see the benefit of future technologies. Now, Aubrey is somewhat of an exception because I know he uses a computer often, and was a Computer Engineer, and so on, so I am sure the lack of cell phone is just an anomaly.
Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:06 PM
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users