Our Childrens' Futures?

[Feralpeg]

I didn't find the things on the list disturbing or sad. I did see something the other day that made me a bit sad. It said that most people would rather chat with friends and family over facebook or email rather than in person. I think this distance makes the world less friendly. JMHO.

I also think that the fact that many kids hate to read is sad. I saw this at the school where I worked. Books don't provide the immediate gratification they get from movies and high tech games. That does bother me.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Lord help the world if the power goes out or mother nature cause interferece with all wireless gadgets. The real problem as I see it is the sole dependence on technology. The " I don't need to learn to spell because spell check will fix it or we don't have to practice writing because we text everything." Great when it works but have you ever tried going to the grocery store when the computers are down?

If/when the power grid gets attacked and goes down for months at a time, can you imagine how much richer those of us who know how to do things without the benefit of electronics will be? Even if it's just the barter system, we'll be making out like bandits from those who haven't a clue how to purify water, find and cook food or research appropriate survival shelters when their "smart" house won't run because everything (including the furnace) runs on electricity.

The thing is, Bicker, we're not talking about levers and fulcrums here, or even diesel-powered combines. There is technology, and then there is technology that does not function without electric power drawn from the grid. Right now, I can think of only two commonly used personal devices that are capable of running for months solely on a non-recharged battery or on solar power: small timepieces, and pocket calculators. (I can think of some others, but they are not exactly pocket-sized: the technology is primarily used by satellites.)

I grew up in the hurricane belt. Anyone who thinks that it isn't possible in this day and age in America to find yourself without access to ANY electric power other than solar or diesel-generated for an extended period of time is dead wrong. (A car battery is good for a couple of days at most when it is being used to power anything more than the electical system of a vehicle.)

Not nearly enough of our technological development is being invested in the creation of end-user electric power sources that do not require being run through the mainstream grid. Unless that R&D focus changes radically, it would be unforgiveably foolish to abandon all forms of manual, unpowered eye-readable information storage for basic survival information (including technical information on how to maintain the infrastructure that supports the power grid!)

Agreed.

Think of it this way: the digital media for baby pictures is so easily corrupted, lost, or termed obsolete as opposed to the old fashioned Kodak prints. Film prints from the late 1880's and early 1900's are still around and can stand the test of time when stored correctly. Digital photos? Let's see where they are in 30 years.

 

[bicker]

Think of it this way: the digital media for baby pictures is so easily corrupted, lost, or termed obsolete as opposed to the old fashioned Kodak prints.

Bring your Kodak prints over and I'll show you have easily that they can be corrupted by fire. Meanwhile, with baby pictures stored with Carbonite, it would take a huge catastrophe to corrupt, lose or obsolete those images, a catastrophe of such magnitude that you'll be lucky if anything in life, technological or not, will be free from corruption.

Film prints from the late 1880's and early 1900's are still around and can stand the test of time when stored correctly. Digital photos? Let's see where they are in 30 years.

The opposite of what you're asserting here is true. The problem with storing images digitally is that, in some cases, there is no way to get rid of them, ever.

 

[NotUrsula]

However, once you introduce diesel-powered combines to the scenario, all my points apply. And beyond that, even more strongly once you employ the technological accomplishments regarding fertilizers and pesticides. We cannot feed the world without them.

Like the machines that fabricate the aforementioned fertilizers and pesticides, and machine the precision parts necessary to build the diesel engines, and operate the pipelines and tanker ships that provide enough crude oil to fuel those combines.

Have you been on a tanker lately? For safety reasons, every critical system on it has a manual backup than can be operated without electrical power. Power is often disrupted on ships during emergency conditions, and if you don't have manual override systems it can become a floating coffin, or worse, a floating bomb. If that ship is carrying something that can destroy an entire ecosystem, you can bet your life that there will be a way to control it without electricity. They wouldn't be able to insure the thing otherwise.

As to agriculture, you would be amazed at how much of that work is done throughout the world (even in the US) without regular access to electric power. Many, many feed mills are run on diesel or ethanol powered equipment because they don't have reliable access to electricity, or because it is cheaper not to use electricity. The sugar mills where I grew up did not run on electric power then and they still don't -- it's cheaper to power the equipment by burning bagasse. (Stinks to high heaven, but it's VERY good fuel. Ask a Brazilian.)

Ironically for your example, farmers and sailors tend to be two groups of people who are very adept at using both ancient and new technologies simultaneously -- they use new things enthusiastically, but almost never completely abandon old knowledge.

 

[scrapquitler]

I also think that the fact that many kids hate to read is sad. I saw this at the school where I worked. Books don't provide the immediate gratification they get from movies and high tech games. That does bother me.

There have been kids that hate to read since the invention of books.

 

[bicker]

Have you been on a tanker lately? For safety reasons, every critical system on it has a manual backup than can be operated without electrical power.

You're missing the point: The tanker cannot be built, or maintained, without today's technology. Without today's technology hunger would be vastly worse than it is. Those are the things you need to turn your focus on to understand this issue. Of course mission-critical systems will have backups for short-term lapses in power, but that's totally irrelevant to things that aren't mission-critical, and and totally irrelevant to the doom-and-gloom scenario of power catastrophe that was painted earlier. I can go a night or so without reading my Kindle. It won't kill me. Understand?

As to agriculture, you would be amazed at how much of that work is done throughout the world (even in the US) without regular access to electric power.

Again, you've totally missed the point. It isn't about how much is done without modern technology - the point is about how much solely relies on modern technology.

 

[CandyMandy]

The article is a classic example of a poorly read person trying to act like a cultural visionary.

First of all is their numbing obsession with handhelds, thinking they will replace every other form of communication. The end of wires? Yes, certainly, we're approaching a time when electrical power to brew our latte will be transmitted through the airwaves And do they have a @%*^@ clue about something called bandwith (and its limitations; don't get me started on Iphone addicts who whine about how lousy AT&T is.....). Or the fact FM and satellite radio signals can still be received almost everwhere while in transit, whereas web broadcasting cannot (no Virginia, there is not a Starbucks hotspot on every corner).

Second is their complete lack of appreciation of the power of nostalgia - and its huge, attendant impact on behavior. Does the author realize Amazon and Barnes and Noble are struggling with the fact a large number or people (and not just older ones) enjoy the tactile feel of a book and hence have zero interest in moving to E-readers? Or that the "retro' driven demand for vinyl LPs has risen to the point where turntable sales are growing and previously closed record printing plants are re-opening?

And perhaps they should read some of the better research out there on Facebook behavior. Kids aren't signing up for it in the drove levels anymore; the biggest growth in membership on that site in recent years has actually been with older adults - which has much less to do with "eternal connectedness" and a lot more to do with the voyeur element...of seeing how fat and bald your classmates have become. Or put another way, the kids the article author is referring to have already wised up. Which is why you will see a trend towards private, closed substitutes to Facebook (online communities that restrict and control access). Unless it mutates, Facebook will eventually fade into AOL-style obsolesence, because people aren't looking for mass market technology to force them to perpetually re-live high school.

 

[Feralpeg]

There have been kids that hate to read since the invention of books.

That is true, but I'm seeing more and more of this and more and more kids who are terrible readers. Reading is a skill that needs reinforcement. If kids never read, they don't become good readers. Why not encourage kids to read and use their imaginations instead of supplying everything to them in the form of videos and games that encourage nothing more than the ability to shoot a digital weapon? I'm not saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to watch movies or play video games. I just think they should be encouraged to develop other skills as well.

 

[NotUrsula]

You're missing the point: The tanker cannot be built, or maintained, without today's technology. Without today's technology hunger would be vastly worse than it is. Those are the things you need to turn your focus on to understand this issue. Of course mission-critical systems will have backups for short-term lapses in power, but that's totally irrelevant to things that aren't mission-critical, and and totally irrelevant to the doom-and-gloom scenario of power catastrophe that was painted earlier. I can go a night or so without reading my Kindle. It won't kill me. Understand?

Again, you've totally missed the point. It isn't about how much is done without modern technology - the point is about how much solely relies on modern technology.

I understand the POINT of the article quite clearly: the point is the speed of obsolescence and the acceptability of ignorance to alternatives. What I'm saying is that the author is incorrect that all of the older alternative devices and methods that perform these functions will be completely obsolete in 26 years, and the reason that they will not be is that the devices he is citing are mostly dependent upon the grid. Without electrical power, most of them become useless bricks in a day or so, and sometimes within only a few hours, and only an idiot like this author would blithely consign all manually operated alternatives to the dung heap just because they may not be the OPTIMAL tools for the job. Total ignorance of alternatives to the most popular methods and tools would leave an unacceptable number of people helpless in an emergency, so it is in all of our best interests to be sure that it does not happen.

I'm not talking doomsday scenarios here; I'm talking two weeks to a month without electricity. It can and does happen in this country, but when it does, our need to live, work and communicate does not stop. We still need to be able to find potable water, to call an ambulance, to administer medical treatment, to buy, preserve, and prepare food, to perform our jobs to the best of our ability, to heat our homes, to entertain our young children to keep them out of trouble, and to let our loved ones know that we are still alive. (Speaking of that last item, it's appalling how many kids now fail to memorize any telephone number or address other than their own. THAT trend has to be stopped.)

Even if the power goes down for a day, it can cause problems for unprepared people. If you rely on wireless broadband for all your news (including tornado warnings), then what happens when a power outage knocks out your router, or a storm that is 5 miles away takes out the cell tower? If every battery-powered device you own is an Apple, you're going to be out of luck, because they don't include radio receivers.

I saw this scenario in action just last week: I was in a hotel that lost power during a storm cycle in below-freezing temperatures, and you should have SEEN the panic among the majority of the guests, because almost no one, including the staff, had access to a regular battery-powered radio (I wasn't one of them, as it happens; I did have a radio easily to hand, but it did not have speakers.) It took 3 hours to get the hotel's generator running, and had there been a tornado in the area that might have been just too late. (Note that the hotel did HAVE a generator, however.) Lots of people were going out to sit in their cars just to get warm and try to get some news, but that wouldn't have lasted long either, because in a city-wide power outage most of the gas pumps were not functional. I had at least 30 people ask me to tell them what time it was, because I was -- wait for it -- wearing a watch.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Besides "Books, magazines, and newspapers", 'talking to one person at a time", and "The separation of work and home", I don't find any of this sad in the slightest.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

The end of wires? Yes, certainly, we're approaching a time when electrical power to brew our latte will be transmitted through the airwaves

While wireless power is not 26 years down the road, it's probably not more than 75.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer

 

[cm8]

I understand the POINT of the article quite clearly: the point is the speed of obsolescence and the acceptability of ignorance to alternatives. What I'm saying is that the author is incorrect that all of the older alternative devices and methods that perform these functions will be completely obsolescent in 26 years, and the reason that they will not be is that the devices he is citing are mostly dependent upon the grid. Without electrical power, most of them become useless bricks in a day or so, and sometimes within only a few hours, and only an idiot like this author would blithely consign all manually operated alternatives to the dung heap just because they may not be the OPTIMAL tools for the job. Total ignorance of alternatives to the most popular methods and tools would leave an unacceptable number of people helpless in an emergency, so it is in all of our best interests to be sure that it does not happen.

I'm not talking doomsday scenarios here; I'm talking two weeks to a month without electricity. It can and does happen in this country, but when it does, our need to live, work and communicate does not stop. We still need to be able to find potable water, to call an ambulance, to administer medical treatment, to buy, preserve, and prepare food, to perform our jobs to the best of our ability, to heat our homes, to entertain our young children to keep them out of trouble, and to let our loved ones know that we are still alive. (Speaking of that last item, it's appalling how many kids now fail to memorize any telephone number of address other than their own. THAT trend has to be stopped.)

Even if the power goes down for a day, it can cause problems for unprepared people. If you rely on wireless broadband for all your news (including tornado warnings), then what happens when a power outage knocks out your router, or a storm that is 5 miles away takes out the cell tower? If every battery-powered device you own is an Apple, you're going to be out of luck, because they don't include radio receivers.

I saw this scenario in action just last week: I was in a hotel that lost power during a storm cycle in below-freezing temperatures, and you should have SEEN the panic among the majority of the guests, because almost no one, including the staff, had access to a regular battery-powered radio (I wasn't one of them, as it happens; I did have a radio easily to hand, but it did not have speakers.) It took 3 hours to get the hotel's generator running, and had there been a tornado in the area that might have been just too late. (Note that the hotel did HAVE a generator, however.) Lots of people were going out to sit in their cars just to get warm and try to get some news, but that wouldn't have lasted long either, because in a city-wide power outage most of the gas pumps were not functional. I had at least 30 people ask me to tell them what time it was, because I was -- wait for it -- wearing a watch.

, you have raised valid points and I agree with your post

 

[ChrisFL]

The end of wires? Yes, certainly, we're approaching a time when electrical power to brew our latte will be transmitted through the airwaves

Actually, yes, wirless charging, etc. is already being worked on right now.

 

[bicker]

I understand the POINT of the article quite clearly: the point is the speed of obsolescence and the acceptability of ignorance to alternatives. What I'm saying is that the author is incorrect that all of the older alternative devices and methods that perform these functions will be completely obsolete in 26 years, and the reason that they will not be is that the devices he is citing are mostly dependent upon the grid. ... Total ignorance of alternatives to the most popular methods and tools would leave an unacceptable number of people helpless in an emergency, so it is in all of our best interests to be sure that it does not happen.

Okay so if I understand you correctly, you're challenging the article's absolutism. Instead of "all" the author should have said "practically all", for example. Furthermore, you're putting forward that the most likely differentiator would be how mission-critical things are: So something affecting our ability to get emergency medical care probably will rely on older alternatives more and/or longer, while something like reading novels would not.

That does make a lot of sense. Thanks for clarifying.