15 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

I hadn't seen this video yet, but it is pretty interesting:

From Gadgetoff 2007

[Live Forever]

Anyone else find it surprising that Aubrey doesn't own a cellphone, television, and car?

[Shepard]

The only one that surprises me might be the cellphone. I'm quite jealous.

[Live Forever]

The only one that surprises me might be the cellphone. I'm quite jealous.

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.

[struct]

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.

[Live Forever]

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.

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.

(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.)

[Shepard]

(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.

[Liquidus]

I've already been through 4 cellphones and I'm not even into the workforce yet . Maybe that's a good reason why people like Aubrey don't use cell phones, aside from the technological coolness of them, they're more of a scam than not (between unreasonable rate plans, terrible bloated services, bad reception in non-urban centers, and general short life-span).

[struct]

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.

That's where I fall. I am still pro technological advancement (maybe more than most of the people).
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.

[Live Forever]

(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.

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).

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. I am speaking more generally about the lack of desire to be cutting edge as far as tech is concerned. (computers, MP3 players, the latest tech for whatever hobby you have, etc.)

[Live Forever]

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.

That's where I fall. I am still pro technological advancement (maybe more than most of the people).
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.

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.
For any type of technological innovation (from here and here):
* Innovators – venturesome, educated, multiple info sources (the first 2.5%)
* Early adopters – social leaders, popular, educated (the next 13.5%)
* Early majority – deliberate, many informal social contacts (the next 34%)
* Late majority – skeptical, traditional, lower socio-economic status (the next 34%)
* Laggards – neighbours and friends are main info sources, fear of debt (the last 16%)

Of course, there is nothing wrong with waiting for technology to be perfected and be more widely adopted before adopting it yourself, and I have no idea what it says about one's personality to be higher or lower on the scale, but I know for me personally as soon as something new comes out, I am always wanting to get it, and as soon as I can afford it I do. I would highly suspect the scale to be the same for transhuman technologies, life extension technologies, etc, as it has a long track record with other technologies.

[Athanasios]

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.

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.

[salyavin]

I also have no cell phone or television. I live near my grocery store and library and work from home so I rarely drive. I feel more relaxed walking or bicycling plus I figure the exercise helps extend my life a tiny bit. Being without television for over a decade is interesting in that I notice so many people relate to others through what's on TV. I do occasionally rent videos to watch on a computer. For the amount of TV I have time for renting is way cheaper than even the cheapest cable plan and I don't have a particular time I have to watch it. On cell phone I don't feel the need yet with instant messaging and email on computers. If I ever get married I will probably get one. I do not feel these devices are bad.

[Kalepha]

I see myself as more of an innovator or an early adopter on the scale of when I have to have the newest technology.

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'm not making a big deal about the good or badness of being either an innovator or an early adopter, but to respect what the difference entails would make it easier to understand and respect the decisions of someone like Aubrey in gadget-world terms and beyond.

[Live Forever]

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.

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.

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.

[acto]

I don't have a cellphone or a tv, either. I find both to be incredibly annoying.

I am ashamed to admit that I do have a car, though. Which is also incredibly
annoying.

I live in the USA in an area where there is very little public transportation.

It's about as uncar as a car can be while still being effective.