Infantalized: the case against mobile phones

After many long years holding out, I finally had to get a mobile phone. During my time without one, I was a true social aberration. Just try telling someone you don’t have a mobile phone. How do you live life? (I eat and sleep, like you.) Do you have any friends? (Not really.) How do you talk to people? (Have you heard of email? I can also talk.)

The fact is I hate the things. I hate the glazed eyes, the tongue hanging loosely from between their lips, when people play with the flashing buttons. I hate how loudly people talk on mobile phones, anytime, anywhere, regardless of how far they are from my eardrums. Do I really need to find out from two feet away at 90 decibels how hard you banged Lucy last night? And have you ever noticed that 50% of all mobile phone conversations involve detailed explanations of where the user is? “I’m sitting on the bus… I’m at Broadway and Granville… No, the other Granville… Ya, in front of GM Place… Dude, I’m looking right at you. Look up, look up…. whoooyaaaa!” Worse, unlike smoking, I don’t have the choice of walking away. Many of the most horrific instances have occurred stuck on a bus or waiting in a long line because people talk longer and more animatedly when they are bored. The sum effect of mobile phones on human behavior is akin to getting behind the wheel of a car: even the prettiest doll can be turned into a goading monster.

Including myself. I have suffered through the advanced stages of cellrage. And unlike the sources of my misery, I was not born with a pleasant disposition, continually struggling against my urge to smash phace and fone. I am well-aware that my woes can be solved with more technology: sleek new tongue-holders, more sensitive phone mics, and red man-earrings bearing tiny Warning! signs would surely clear up the many misunderstandings between me and my interlocutors. I would also probably possess fewer assault charges. Then again, loosening laws protecting mobile phone users from assaults would also help.

My point is that we need to be more inventive about how we as a society deal with violent offenders. I should tell you, however, that at night when I lay my head down on my pillow, I just wish that people would stop using mobile phones.

So it is with my own perceived best interest in mind that I present to you this rare and brief glimpse into

Life without Facebook: Infantalized

Infantilising The Human Mind (Listen to the audio)

The Health Effects of Social Networking

more doomsday: Climate Wars

Check out Gwynne Dyer’s CBC podcast Climate Wars. There are three parts and the first, posted here, is the most gripping. Roll over and hit play in the Snapshot, or 2click to download.

Highlights

15:55: Uncertainty about climate change does not refer to whether it is happening but how fast.

21:50: So, how did climate change become ideological? People don’t take up ideological positions on the cause of earthquakes, for example, so, why on climate science? Dyer argues that the division of climate change into right/left is an American phenomenon. Dyer provides very interesting evidence that climate change in America became a cultural conflict about values: values, and not evidence determine acceptable responses to climate change.

32:00: The significance of feedback effects, for example, the methane stored and released by melting permafrost.

37:15: To the extent that climate change is a result of human activities, 2C is a tipping point for feedback effects at which point we are likely to lose control over our ability to control greenhouse gases. In other words, human efforts to reduce emissions will have no effect.

42:15: The possibility of international cooperation is hampered by nationalism and patriotism: see interviews with Russian politicians responsible for planting the Russian flag at the bottom of the Arctic.

49:50: Civilizations always grow populations up to carrying capacity for food, and have never been able to restrict growth so as to sustain themselves. We are just another example.

Life on Earth is Doomed

Now here is an interesting bit of reading. I care not whether this man is right or wrong; his predictions fit my mood. My only comment, slightly unrelated, is that this economic recession should be telling us to live differently. But, instead, news media and the population at large continue to proclaim unquestioningly the idea of economic growth as the single most important goal and value. Indeed, the question is posed, when are things going to get back to normal? It is my view that the idea of growth as we knew it in the twentieth century is probably the most dangerous idea currently held. I might argue that twentieth century ideas of economic growth are more dangerous than religious extremism: one, there is little to no serious opposition to growth in any of its forms; two, growth is the only major idea to which human beings all over the world proclaim adherence; three, growth is unquestioningly equated with liberal individual well-being and conservative family values. I will add a fourth reason: economic growth is not considered a belief or value at all, but a necessary and universal condition for the well-being of any human being. To witness the power of the idea of economic growth, try to denounce it to a friend, family member, or, better yet, a mere acquaintance and watch what happens to you: a mild look askance at most. No one is going to take you seriously and that is a trait of a deeply embedded idea. I cannot think of a more embedded and dangerous idea than twentieth century versions of economic growth. Anyway, I’m sure this guy will be thoroughly and publicly castigated for his doomsday views.

Life doomed by climate woes: Top British scientist

It’s too late for Planet Earth