Internet The need for technology (Was: Urban Guerilla)

[Urwumpe]

To not further derail another thread:

Some people are surprised that I can exist without a car and without a cell phone (while they are even more surprised of not having a cell phone rather than a car). But I'm surprised that they are surprised. Because it works. And why shouldn't it? It also worked before. It's not a real must- have. It's a collective feeling of must-have. A feeling which I never got. A phone which one can carry wireless and use everywhere? :hmm:

Why don't you live in a cave? It also worked before. That kind of argumentation is, as you can see here, not really logical. Technology advances for a reason and that reason is usually utility. Hypes come and go, but lasting progress is made when a technology is useful.


A smartphone is for me an useful unification of many specialist tools into one very tiny package. Of course there had been such tools before. But never in a way that you can hold them in your hand comfortably. And that also much cheaper than the sum of all specialist tools.

A collective feeling of must-have? Sure. But not because the other collective people are stupid - they simply all can see the obvious advantages.

And even just cell phone part: It is just a phone that you can carry with you. Nobody forces you to phone with somebody, when you don't want to and you can be called in the middle of the night even with a normal old telephone.

Same with the car: You can live without one. But having one has advantages. Even you might need to know somebody who has a car. You can live without owning one yourself and be dependent on others in the rare situations that you might face. But still, it is only a question of technological advantages for you. As long as not owning one is less bad than paying for owning one, it is a good choice.

And if you are Superman, you will also never have the need for an aircraft. But for others, it can be a good concept.


But then, there is also one aspect that you ignore in your egocentric position: Without many people using smartphones, we wouldn't have them in their current form. The whole infrastructure around them would be unaffordable and make no sense at all. Why should many antenna masts exists all over Germany for a single phone to use them eventually? It only makes sense if many people use the infrastructure and drive innovation. And innovation is for example the higher density of masts that permits the current data rates for many users. Or public WiFi hotspots.

 

[Ghostrider]

Moreover, good luck working without a cellphone today. I missed them before they were invented, because I have often found myself in need of contacting people and request information with no phone booth or public phone in sight. When you have to walk for kilometers to find a working booth (and hope you have enough change in the pocket to use it) you come to appreciate the ability to make a phone call from almost anywhere.

Smartphones are not really cellphones, they're palmtop computers with a built-in modem/phone. With one I can easily operate my computer back home through VNC, access my files and work in the field without having to carry a laptop around (it has its uses but giving me a hunchback is not one).

It's not a collective feeling of must have. To me, it's a personal feeling of "finally they made them". Not everybody is a 24/7 facebookie or Angry Birds junkie. Carrying your office in the pocket is priceless.

 

[Urwumpe]

Carrying your office in the pocket is priceless.

And even if not the office...

I now have MP3-Player, Stop watch, GPS sports tracker, medical information and phone combined in one light device during sports. For some expenses, I could even have a pulse monitor included. And could theoretically even replace my wallet with it... well, that might be too much innovation for me. :lol:

Also I have a good camera included, and could even create geo-tagged photographs or videos with the same small tool. I can find any public transportation schedule in lower saxony with it and find the direction to the next bus stop, should I exceed my physical limits...

Really: I know how things have been like before smartphones. Luckily those times are over.

 

[TMac3000]

To not further derail another thread:




Why don't you live in a cave? It also worked before. That kind of argumentation is, as you can see here, not really logical. Technology advances for a reason and that reason is usually utility. Hypes come and go, but lasting progress is made when a technology is useful.


A smartphone is for me an useful unification of many specialist tools into one very tiny package. Of course there had been such tools before. But never in a way that you can hold them in your hand comfortably. And that also much cheaper than the sum of all specialist tools.

A collective feeling of must-have? Sure. But not because the other collective people are stupid - they simply all can see the obvious advantages.

And even just cell phone part: It is just a phone that you can carry with you. Nobody forces you to phone with somebody, when you don't want to and you can be called in the middle of the night even with a normal old telephone.

Same with the car: You can live without one. But having one has advantages. Even you might need to know somebody who has a car. You can live without owning one yourself and be dependent on others in the rare situations that you might face. But still, it is only a question of technological advantages for you. As long as not owning one is less bad than paying for owning one, it is a good choice.

And if you are Superman, you will also never have the need for an aircraft. But for others, it can be a good concept.


But then, there is also one aspect that you ignore in your egocentric position: Without many people using smartphones, we wouldn't have them in their current form. The whole infrastructure around them would be unaffordable and make no sense at all. Why should many antenna masts exists all over Germany for a single phone to use them eventually? It only makes sense if many people use the infrastructure and drive innovation. And innovation is for example the higher density of masts that permits the current data rates for many users. Or public WiFi hotspots.

Partial thank:shifty:

Why don't you live in a cave? It also worked before. That kind of argumentation is, as you can see here, not really logical. Technology advances for a reason and that reason is usually utility. Hypes come and go, but lasting progress is made when a technology is useful.

Agreed. Even in the complete absence of modern conveniences, a house/apartment/flat offer considerably more protection from the weather:thumbup:

A smartphone is for me an useful unification of many specialist tools into one very tiny package. Of course there had been such tools before. But never in a way that you can hold them in your hand comfortably. And that also much cheaper than the sum of all specialist tools.

A collective feeling of must-have? Sure. But not because the other collective people are stupid - they simply all can see the obvious advantages.

Partially agreed. The collective interest in smart phones comes from their inherent utility, yes. But some credit also goes to the slick marketing behind them I went without a cell phone for the longest time. The things always struck me as too shallow and pop-cultureish:lol: But when I got stuck at college with no change for the pay phone, a cell was the first thing that popped into my mind

So I got one. But still I eschewed all the fanciness of touch screen smart phones with all the e-mail, Twitter, I-can-check-my-bank-balance-on-my-phone nonsense. Why did I need all that stuff? I could do all those things on my computer when I got home!

But one day last year, I was walking through the Dollar General and saw an LG smart for only $50. That's a third of what you pay for higher end brands Add to that, that I'm a visual person. For example, my computer had a perfectly good wireless mouse and keyboard, but I spent about $60 on a new setup because the keyboard with it had a really slick, low profile look to it. I like slick things

And oh, that LG was soooo slick-looking. And it does things my old Motorola flip-phone never dreamed of. I'll grant that it doesn't do near as much as an I-Phone 5, but I don't need even a quarter of what an I-Phone 5 does. I think I see where this is going:lol:

Same with the car: You can live without one. But having one has advantages. Even you might need to know somebody who has a car. You can live without owning one yourself and be dependent on others in the rare situations that you might face. But still, it is only a question of technological advantages for you. As long as not owning one is less bad than paying for owning one, it is a good choice.

Now this I don't know about. Living without a car is considerably more difficult than living without a cell phone. There aren't many jobs in my home town, and the...five? maybe?...that there are will usually go to the proprietor's friends/family, which I am not. I have to go father afield to find work. Specifically, I took a tax preparation job at H&R Block, in an actual city (if a very small one:lol about 10 miles (16 km) north of where I live. That's about a three-hour trip on foot, and my work day starts at 9 am. Which means I would have to leave the house at 6 am, which means I would have to get up at 4 am, which means I would have to go to bed at 8 pm. I get off at 5 pm. And it would be another three hours to get home. Get up, go to work, work, come home, go to bed, repeat. It's doable in theory (and I'd be the fittest guy in my state), but there's just about zero life or joy in it. Which is why I have a ride

And if you are Superman, you will also never have the need for an aircraft.

Not only do I agree, I'd take it a step further. Even if you are not Superman, you can still take a boat. Their a lot slower and more expensive, but try finding a can-can show or a craps table or half-way decent food on an airplane

But then, there is also one aspect that you ignore in your egocentric position: Without many people using smartphones, we wouldn't have them in their current form. The whole infrastructure around them would be unaffordable and make no sense at all. Why should many antenna masts exists all over Germany for a single phone to use them eventually? It only makes sense if many people use the infrastructure and drive innovation. And innovation is for example the higher density of masts that permits the current data rates for many users. Or public WiFi hotspots.

Now this I agree with:thumbup: We invented cell phones, but then we had to invent all the infrastructure to support them, which is why they're expensive. Same with spacecraft. Same with aircraft. Same with big ships, and many other amenities (tho not all of them, of course)

 

[APDAF]

Agreed. Even in the complete absence of modern conveniences, a house/apartment/flat offer considerably more protection from the weather:thumbup:

False.

Explain how houses collapse due to the weather while caves don't do much.

 

[Urwumpe]

False.

Explain how houses collapse due to the weather while caves don't do much.

Caves also collapse due to "weather". Especially artificial caves.... :facepalm:

 

[TMac3000]

Living in a cave, you could freeze to death in the winter. Oh sure, you could build a fire, but that doesn't throw near as much heat as a gas heater or wood stove. And it would suck to be you in a rain storm, with no door (you may be well-protected overhead, but the wind can still blow all that rain right into your cave.

And there's worse problems with a cave than weather. Security, for instance. It's hard to put a door on a cave

 

[FADEC]

Why don't you live in a cave?

In fact I would like to live in a small timber cottage near or in the middle of a forest. No hot water (I already don't use hot water for showers), no electrical heating/gas heating/oil heating. Heat and warm water would come from my woodstove. I would need only little electricity for light (LED bulbs) and a notebook. Even in the city I already use less than 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year (about 2.2 to 2.5 kilowatt-hours per day).

But one doesn't have to live in the forest this way (sorry that there aren't english subtitles):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHCLN1T-Yiw"]Besuch bei Anne Donath, 2012 - YouTube[/ame]

It's almost perfect, except it could be a few m² bigger and offer electricity for light pulbs and a socket for charging a notebook.

It also worked before. That kind of argumentation is, as you can see here, not really logical. Technology advances for a reason and that reason is usually utility. Hypes come and go, but lasting progress is made when a technology is useful.

A smartphone is for me an useful unification of many specialist tools into one very tiny package. Of course there had been such tools before. But never in a way that you can hold them in your hand comfortably. And that also much cheaper than the sum of all specialist tools.

A collective feeling of must-have? Sure. But not because the other collective people are stupid - they simply all can see the obvious advantages.

While most people fail to see the non-obvious disadvantages.

If you want to participate in everything which the modern world offers, you have to work hard your entire life. The modern world only looks comfortable. But there are only a very few hours left for most people, to enjoy all the achievements. The biggest part of the day is reserved to get to work, work, and get home for most people. It's working for consumption above all (i.e. turning on the microwave and TV after work), which is expensive (and also swallows lots of resources).

And even just cell phone part: It is just a phone that you can carry with you. Nobody forces you to phone with somebody, when you don't want to and you can be called in the middle of the night even with a normal old telephone.

And nobody forces me to have a cell phone!

My telephone is completely off from 10 pm until about 5 pm by the way (useless power consumption in case I'm not at home/sleeping anyway). In other words: I'm available by phone for about 5 hours a day. That's enough (I get no more than 1-3 calls per week anyway, because people know me). I'm always available by mail though. I check it twice a day (in the morning and in the afternoon). So I have time to find an answer, or just delay it if I don't feel like it.

Same with the car: You can live without one. But having one has advantages.

And also a huge disadvantage: high costs. Which is why I prefer my bike and in rare cases public transport.

Even you might need to know somebody who has a car. You can live without owning one yourself and be dependent on others in the rare situations that you might face. But still, it is only a question of technological advantages for you. As long as not owning one is less bad than paying for owning one, it is a good choice.

I can perfectly live in a world without cars. Public transport provides sufficient mobility.

And if you are Superman, you will also never have the need for an aircraft. But for others, it can be a good concept.

For now it's a good concept because using an airplane is like using public transport (and often burns less fuel per head and/or baggage as some cars...). But as soon as everyone would use its own airplane, like cars, it's not even possible I think.

But then, there is also one aspect that you ignore in your egocentric position: Without many people using smartphones, we wouldn't have them in their current form. The whole infrastructure around them would be unaffordable and make no sense at all. Why should many antenna masts exists all over Germany for a single phone to use them eventually? It only makes sense if many people use the infrastructure and drive innovation. And innovation is for example the higher density of masts that permits the current data rates for many users. Or public WiFi hotspots.

Well, I don't need a smartphone. And I prefer places where such things don't exist.

Last weekend I visited a friend in the countryside. A 360° panorama of trees and meadows. The only noises: wind and horses. The next supermarkets and village is 3 Km away (1,700 citizen = calm and nice). Perfectly available by bike. It would be the ideal place for me. I seriously consider to move to the countryside in the future, since my city life feels and seems exhausting and unnecessary, and above all unnatural and not really healthy. Concrete deserts, covered with noisy, smelly, rolling scrap metal.

My point is not to dispense with progress/modern technologies. My point is not to use everything possible in abundance only because it is available. I never felt the need for owning a car only to carry my small as from A to B. Not to mention a big house, two cars etc., and a electricity bill which lists several thousand kilowatt-hours per year.

My current expenses are 315 Euro rent including heating, 30 Euro for the internet & phone, 30 Euro for electricity (which will be further reduced to 25 next year), and 120 Euro for food & hygiene. That's roughly 500 Euro per month. Some would complain that they are poor with a part-time job and less than 1000 Euro per month. I can say that I'm rather happy with it and "rich". Because I have time for being creative, for cooking, reading/learning, sports, and relaxing. A few friends of mine own big houses, cars, go on holiday many times a year, and regularly buy the latest cell phones, computers and big TVs. Especially for their children. But they work like crazy for only a very few hours of enjoyment. That's just not my world. Of course you have to work more as soon as you have children. But you have to work like a horse if you want to consume and let your children consume.

 

[Urwumpe]

I already use less than 1000 kWh per year thanks to modern technology... And that with an lifestyle that I consider luxurious. :rofl: (Still I will pay much more for electricity this year... but my revenge will come, big lazy energy companies)

I live in the middle of the city... directly next to the city forest... concrete deserts are far away. The only loud sounds are ambulance helicopters and playing children. Both pretty tolerable.

Also, you miscalculate yourself terribly in one aspect: You can survive well working part time, but that does not allow you to save money for retirement. Which, in the current situation in Germany, is a stupid idea.

 

[TMac3000]

In fact I would like to live in a small timber cottage near or in the middle of a forest. No hot water (I already don't use hot water for showers), no electrical heating/gas heating/oil heating. Heat and warm water would come from my woodstove. I would need only little electricity for light (LED bulbs) and a notebook. Even in the city I already use less than 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year (about 2.2 to 2.5 kilowatt-hours per day).

But one doesn't have to live in the forest this way (sorry that there aren't english subtitles):

Besuch bei Anne Donath, 2012 - YouTube
​

It's almost perfect, except it could be a few m² bigger and offer electricity for light pulbs and a socket for charging a notebook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe

It also worked before. That kind of argumentation is, as you can see here, not really logical. Technology advances for a reason and that reason is usually utility. Hypes come and go, but lasting progress is made when a technology is useful.

A smartphone is for me an useful unification of many specialist tools into one very tiny package. Of course there had been such tools before. But never in a way that you can hold them in your hand comfortably. And that also much cheaper than the sum of all specialist tools.

A collective feeling of must-have? Sure. But not because the other collective people are stupid - they simply all can see the obvious advantages.

​

While most people fail to see the non-obvious disadvantages.

If you want to participate in everything which the modern world offers, you have to work hard your entire life. The modern world only looks comfortable. But there are only a very few hours left for most people, to enjoy all the achievements. The biggest part of the day is reserved to get to work, work, and get home for most people. It's working for consumption above all (i.e. turning on the microwave and TV after work), which is expensive (and also swallows lots of resources).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe

And even just cell phone part: It is just a phone that you can carry with you. Nobody forces you to phone with somebody, when you don't want to and you can be called in the middle of the night even with a normal old telephone.

​

And nobody forces me to have a cell phone!

My telephone is completely off from 10 pm until about 5 pm by the way (useless power consumption in case I'm not at home/sleeping anyway). In other words: I'm available by phone for about 5 hours a day. That's enough (I get no more than 1-3 calls per week anyway, because people know me). I'm always available by mail though. I check it twice a day (in the morning and in the afternoon). So I have time to find an answer, or just delay it if I don't feel like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe

Same with the car: You can live without one. But having one has advantages.

​

And also a huge disadvantage: high costs. Which is why I prefer my bike and in rare cases public transport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe

Even you might need to know somebody who has a car. You can live without owning one yourself and be dependent on others in the rare situations that you might face. But still, it is only a question of technological advantages for you. As long as not owning one is less bad than paying for owning one, it is a good choice.

​

I can perfectly live in a world without cars. Public transport provides sufficient mobility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe

And if you are Superman, you will also never have the need for an aircraft. But for others, it can be a good concept.

​

For now it's a good concept because using an airplane is like using public transport (and often burns less fuel per head and/or baggage as some cars...). But as soon as everyone would use its own airplane, like cars, it's not even possible I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe

But then, there is also one aspect that you ignore in your egocentric position: Without many people using smartphones, we wouldn't have them in their current form. The whole infrastructure around them would be unaffordable and make no sense at all. Why should many antenna masts exists all over Germany for a single phone to use them eventually? It only makes sense if many people use the infrastructure and drive innovation. And innovation is for example the higher density of masts that permits the current data rates for many users. Or public WiFi hotspots.

​

Well, I don't need a smartphone. And I prefer places where such things don't exist.

Last weekend I visited a friend in the countryside. A 360° panorama of trees and meadows. The only noises: wind and horses. The next supermarkets and village is 3 Km away (1,700 citizen = calm and nice). Perfectly available by bike. It would be the ideal place for me. I seriously consider to move to the countryside in the future, since my city life feels and seems exhausting and unnecessary, and above all unnatural and not really healthy. Concrete deserts, covered with noisy, smelly, rolling scrap metal.

My point is not to dispense with progress/modern technologies. My point is not to use everything possible in abundance only because it is available. I never felt the need for owning a car only to carry my small as from A to B. Not to mention a big house, two cars etc., and a electricity bill which lists several thousand kilowatt-hours per year.

My current expenses are 315 Euro rent including heating, 30 Euro for the internet & phone, 30 Euro for electricity (which will be further reduced to 25 next year), and 120 Euro for food & hygiene. That's roughly 500 Euro per month. Some would complain that they are poor with a part-time job and less than 1000 Euro per month. I can say that I'm rather happy with it and "rich". Because I have time for being creative, for cooking, reading/learning, sports, and relaxing. A few friends of mine own big houses, cars, go on holiday many times a year, and regularly buy the latest cell phones, computers and big TVs. Especially for their children. But they work like crazy for only a very few hours of enjoyment. That's just not my world. Of course you have to work more as soon as you have children. But you have to work like a horse if you want to consume and let your children consume.

You should meet my mom, you two would get along great:lol:
Really, the Thoreau-ian lifestyle has it's advantages, and I commend you for taking that challenge on. It sounds nice--once in a while. I could live like that for about two weeks out of the year, just to get away from it all. But as a whole life style? For me, that would get old after more than the specified two weeks. I'm glad to pay more, and get more

 

[jedidia]

Living without a car is considerably more difficult than living without a cell phone.

That depends heavily on where you live. In the US, living without a car can be pretty difficult I imagine.

In Switzerland, about the only advantage a car has is flexibility of schedule. It is more expensive, and oftentimes slower than public transport, depending a bit on where you live and where you want to go. If you commute majorly between cities, public transport is faster even if you don't take the time into account you waste with a car while searching for parking space, and the schedules are at half-hours interval.

 

[TMac3000]

That depends heavily on where you live. In the US, living without a car can be pretty difficult I imagine.

In Switzerland, about the only advantage a car has is flexibility of schedule. It is more expensive, and oftentimes slower than public transport, depending a bit on where you live and where you want to go. If you commute majorly between cities, public transport is faster even if you don't take the time into account you waste with a car while searching for parking space, and the schedules are at half-hours interval.

I imagine you live in a heavily metropolitan area. That's usually the case in those places. New York, for example

 

[FADEC]

I already use less than 1000 kWh per year thanks to modern technology... And that with an lifestyle that I consider luxurious. :rofl: (Still I will pay much more for electricity this year... but my revenge will come, big lazy energy companies)

Most people I know use 1,800 to 2,000 kWh (while 1,800 mostly is assumed to be average). And they don't even cook on a daily basis.

If I had a woodstove already, my consumption would be only a very few hundred kWh per year.

I live in the middle of the city... directly next to the city forest... concrete deserts are far away. The only loud sounds are ambulance helicopters and playing children. Both pretty tolerable.

Well, I live in a relatively big city. And I really don't know why I still do so. Although I already live on the edge of the own. But I'm "extreme" in this context anyway. Since I don't want to move to a smaller town or village, but really into a "nothing". Just at the end of a small country road. Not only because I love it (I already lived that way with my parents), but because I simply have not enough fortitude for a normal/modern life. I'm already tired in case I have a date which forces me to go to town. The traffic, the people, the noise, the smell... I always have to take an afternoon sleep afterwards to become charged again.

Also, you miscalculate yourself terribly in one aspect: You can survive well working part time, but that does not allow you to save money for retirement. Which, in the current situation in Germany, is a stupid idea.

If you have worked a lot in your life in order to reach a certain standard, and if you want to continue to hold your standard for the rest of your life after your occupational life, then you have to retire the way you are thinking about.

But see: my entire life is not designed for the usual consumption, i.e. for what is statistically and economically defined as "wealth" in our society. I need only a very few things in my life, which statistically makes me "poor" and look like a boring person (but I don't care). If I had my own small cottage already, I even could retire in ten years from now because my current pension would be enough already. But for city people or middle class people and up, which are used to consumption and wealth, it would mean poverty and even homelessness. Since a lot of people can't imagine to live in close touch with nature anymore (which does not mean that one has to dispense with modern stuff at all; one can perfectly combine it). This is why I personally don't link wealth to money.

My idea is not to become old and tottery in a big house or freehold flat in a city, with a car in my garage, taking a cruise each year or sitting in front of the TV each day or whatsoever. I will chop wood and harvest and pickle my food. Something which I partly do already. I will never retire "classically". I will always "work". Not to get money, but to get food. It seems hard for most people, but if you like it it's pleasure and it fills out your day.

You should meet my mom, you two would get along great:lol:
Really, the Thoreau-ian lifestyle has it's advantages, and I commend you for taking that challenge on. It sounds nice--once in a while. I could live like that for about two weeks out of the year, just to get away from it all. But as a whole life style?

Yes

I already need two weeks when I return home from the town center (at daytime) in order to get well again. I still wasn't downtown this year (except shortly during night with my bike, when it's empty and silent).

I was at a stag night two weeks ago, in another city. Luckily I was too drunken in order to remember and so to feel annoyed. It was my first "party" since 2005. But now I need my loneliness again. I think it was my last stag night anyway, since they're all married now.

For me, that would get old after more than the specified two weeks. I'm glad to pay more, and get more

While more can mean less. But it's a personal point of view and personal needs. If one would give me a big house, a car etc., even without the need to go to work for it, I would refuse it because I would have no use for it.

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------

Living without a car is considerably more difficult than living without a cell phone.

It depends. I don't own a car, nor a cell phone. But I would describe my life as comfortable/easy.

I took a tax preparation job at H&R Block, in an actual city (if a very small one:lol about 10 miles (16 km) north of where I live. That's about a three-hour trip on foot,

And about 30-40 minutes by bike, depending on your condition and bike

I went to work by bike 17 km for years (so 34 all in all). I personally would drive up to 30 km (60 all in all). That would be my personal limit. But most people which I know wouldn't even drive 5 Km. They'd rather pick the car, pay a lot of money for it, and complain about their bellies

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 PM ----------

It's not a collective feeling of must have. To me, it's a personal feeling of "finally they made them".

Never had such a feeling. In the beginning I thought it was just a passing fad of everyone now playing a businessman, being available everywhere at any time. Then I realized that the industry has find a way to make the entire population dependent, and so generating millions and millions of regular customers.

Until today I never needed a cell phone for any job I had. And if it should be the case, I would solely use it for and only during my job. And when it's home time, it would remain off.

 

[jedidia]

I imagine you live in a heavily metropolitan area. That's usually the case in those places. New York, for example

Ha, that's about the first time I heard switzerland described as a "heavily metropolitan area"... :lol:

sure, switzerland is not too big, but we don't have many big cities either. New York city has more population than the whole of switzerland.

No, fact is, there's practically not a single settlement (including the ones with 3 or 4 houses) that doesn't lie within 15 minutes of public transport access. Sure, if you live in that outback, having a car usually does work better. In normal villages with some 1000 to 5000 souls it's a slight advantage, but at a price. Most of our cities don't contain more than 50'000 people, so "heavily metropolitan" seems somewhat of an exageration... :lol:

 

[Fabri91]

Well, for US/Canadian/Russian standards probably the whole of Europe could be considered as "reasonably metropolitan".

For me, living in a 2500-soul town and commuting to Milan every day, it would be possible to get by without having a car, which I normally use to drive to another nearby town (7km away) where I catch the train for the 45-ish km to school.

Here in northern Italy this is especially true since there isn't any space left between the single towns, while in Germany this is much less so.

EDIT, regarding smartphones:
the things are awesomely practical: countless times I've used my sub-200€ phone to check the train timetable, keep up on news (Spiegel online app, for example), check my school's timetable (someone made a program with which it's possible to login directly to the school's web account for this), used as a navigator on one of our numerous public transport strikes, carry various data around, look up weather forecasts, etc.

And right now I'm installing a program to track my glider flights, of all things.

The point being, a smartphone (with the "phone" bit being by far the least used, in my case) allows to condensate in a single device what could otherwise only be done with numerous devices.

In the end the only difference between the tablet computer you've bought and a smartphone is size.

 

[Ghostrider]

Never had such a feeling. In the beginning I thought it was just a passing fad of everyone now playing a businessman, being available everywhere at any time. Then I realized that the industry has find a way to make the entire population dependent, and so generating millions and millions of regular customers.

Oh, yeah, we're all so naïve, O Enlightened One.:lol:

Guess what, my job is about information, and information needs to be processed and relayed, otherwise its usefulness (and value) goes dramatically down. Since I'm a SF fan I could imagine such devices - in Space: 1999 they had "Commlocks" which were essentially computer terminals, A/V transceivers and remote controls all into one, so it's not like I never thought about the capabilities of such things. I also knew that we were - alas - far more likely to develop a commolock-like device than an Eagle spacecraft.

If you can live on Mosquito Coast, your choice. But please try to outgrow the "why can't everyone be just like me" phase. It's cute at 15 but it gets annoying quickly.

Until today I never needed a cell phone for any job I had. And if it should be the case, I would solely use it for and only during my job. And when it's home time, it would remain off.

Don't you have anyone you need calling, or whom may need your help, when you're not working? Because I have, and it's good to know that if they ever need me, they know how to contact me.

 

[Staiduk]

Hi. I've always had a 'live and let live' approach; so my comments only apply to myself. I myself don't have a smart phone and unless there are radical changes to my lifestyle (not likely) never will. I like being unconnected. I don't have a car either; or a microwave. By choice. Not for any higher ideals; just because I don't want the trouble of bothering with them. I have owned several cars; my last one was stolen. Insurance paid for it but it was still a blow. The one before that was trashed - the area in which I live is about as lawless as you can get in Canada and when I found my car in the lot burned, dented and crushed - having been the site of a block crack-party apparently - the police didn't even bother to investigate; not that I blame them. I only got the Internet back in January; and that only because I wanted to make a few online purchases.

I'm older - certainly not as old as many here; staring 50 in the face - but I really don't understand the modern need for connectivity and convenience. If I want bread I'd much rather bake it myself than pick up a loaf of Wonder plastic in the supermarket.

I really do understand the need for people in business, research, etc. to be connected; it's an integral part of their work. I'm a printer - I don't need Twitter or SMS or whatever.

What I don't understand or accept is the way young (>30) people seem to use their smartphones like people on my street use crack. Case in point: If I get too stressed I hop on a bus to Jasper, then wander the back-trails until I am deep in the arms of the Mountains where I can meditate, explore and enjoy the silence of being alone. On one walking trip I encountered a group of chattering youths -about 15 ~20-year-olds - heading for one of my favourite lookout points. They gasped and cooed as they saw tha magnificent heart of the Rockies before them then...almost as one, they all lifted smartphones and pointed them around. They spent the whole time waving little black plastic wafers around. At the vista; at one another. I sat back and watched, bemused and munching on edible plants (the Rockies are a veritable free supermarket of snacks if you know what you're looking for) while these young folk never spent one minute actually looking at their surroundings. They were too busy recording it. Then they moved off, still chattering; leaving me alone. I returned to my private meditation; but was saddened slightly - here those kids were looking at possibly the single most magnificent vista on Planet Earth and they didn't want to look at it live - they wanted to look at it on a 2x4" screen later.

Personally; I really think that this level of connectivity is a detriment in the long run. After all; the Human Race is quickly approaching a crisis point. I personally believe we passed it years ago and are now in the fall; but we can argue that later. What will happen with these kids when their connected world is taken away from them?

I am reminded of a brilliant song by fellow Albertan Corb Lund: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uASQgLwaIs] Gettin' Down on the Mountain[/ame]
(OK - He's a real Albertan. I'm a transplanted Ontarian. I connect to the land; not political geography. :lol: ) When the fall occurs; I can do everything he says and much more besides. Who else can among the young connected folk of today?

I understand that sounds reactionary but I really believe that one of the points of youth is to learn the basics of living - how to be a Human Being. I wonder what will happen when - as Lund puts it - the social fabric rips and the connected kids are left stranded.

 

[tomthenose]

i'm pretty sure we don't need most technology, for most of human history we've done pretty well with a small collection of pointy stones! i like a good bit of camping pretty much because your technology is limited to what you will willingly carry on your back and everything else is direct interaction with the world. it might not seem like much but its amazing how different and... natural it feels compared to what we currently accept as a normal lifestyle. currently i have to go to the wild places to escape the human world before i feel halfway normal, this is strange no? there must be someway we can reintroduce an aspect of this kind of freedom back into our lives whilst remaining faithful to technology and progress?
i have no idea how though, i'm just noticing an ever increasing number of humans like me wandering the hills wondering how it all got this weird!

in all honesty though i think its more likely to go the other way and the human race is about to evolve into some sort of cyborg hive mind or something. wait for the day you can plug facebook into your head and you'll know know thats the end of the human ape!

 

[PennyBlack]

I've avioded getting a mobile phone for so long now. I could never get used to be tied to one. I had one, but it sat in a box and I gave it a charity, its probably being used in Uganda to cold call somebody back here in the UK for their bank details to shove 150 million Ugandan dollars into their account. But I really must get around to getting one. A family member tried to raise me only today and was unable to do so. Many times I've recieved a frown because I haven't got one, I've felt quite alienated at times by it and the surprised faces when I'm asked for my non existent number. I feel I have to get one more-over because they use them and I don't, I think. I do feel like I am being pulled into the moby trap more and more by unaviodable peer pressure. To be part of the collective, I must be assimilated. I do see the benifits, as Ghostrider pointed out, emergencies, in case somebody needed my help ect.
I can get a pay-as-you-go sim as getting a phone isn't a problem. The kids have offered to give me one so they can call me. One possitive use for one, is that I can ring the missis in advance to put the kettle on before I get in.

 

[TMac3000]

Hi. I've always had a 'live and let live' approach; so my comments only apply to myself. I myself don't have a smart phone and unless there are radical changes to my lifestyle (not likely) never will. I like being unconnected. I don't have a car either; or a microwave. By choice. Not for any higher ideals; just because I don't want the trouble of bothering with them. I have owned several cars; my last one was stolen. Insurance paid for it but it was still a blow. The one before that was trashed - the area in which I live is about as lawless as you can get in Canada and when I found my car in the lot burned, dented and crushed - having been the site of a block crack-party apparently - the police didn't even bother to investigate; not that I blame them. I only got the Internet back in January; and that only because I wanted to make a few online purchases.

I'm older - certainly not as old as many here; staring 50 in the face - but I really don't understand the modern need for connectivity and convenience. If I want bread I'd much rather bake it myself than pick up a loaf of Wonder plastic in the supermarket.

I really do understand the need for people in business, research, etc. to be connected; it's an integral part of their work. I'm a printer - I don't need Twitter or SMS or whatever.

What I don't understand or accept is the way young (>30) people seem to use their smartphones like people on my street use crack. Case in point: If I get too stressed I hop on a bus to Jasper, then wander the back-trails until I am deep in the arms of the Mountains where I can meditate, explore and enjoy the silence of being alone. On one walking trip I encountered a group of chattering youths -about 15 ~20-year-olds - heading for one of my favourite lookout points. They gasped and cooed as they saw tha magnificent heart of the Rockies before them then...almost as one, they all lifted smartphones and pointed them around. They spent the whole time waving little black plastic wafers around. At the vista; at one another. I sat back and watched, bemused and munching on edible plants (the Rockies are a veritable free supermarket of snacks if you know what you're looking for) while these young folk never spent one minute actually looking at their surroundings. They were too busy recording it. Then they moved off, still chattering; leaving me alone. I returned to my private meditation; but was saddened slightly - here those kids were looking at possible the single most magnificent vista on Planet Earth and they didn't want to look at it live - they wanted to look at it on a 2x4" screen later.

Personally; I really think that this level of connectivity is a detriment in the long run. After all; the Human Race is quickly approaching a crisis point. I personally believe we passed it years ago and are now in the fall; but we can argue that later. What will happen with these kids when their connected world is taken away from them?

I am reminded of a brilliant song by fellow Albertan Corb Lund: Gettin' Down on the Mountain
(OK - He's a real Albertan. I'm a transplanted Ontarian. I connect to the land; not political geography. :lol: ) When the fall occurs; I can do everything he says and much more besides. Who else can among the young connected folk of today?

I understand that sounds reactionary but I really believe that one of the points of youth is to learn the basics of living - how to be a Human Being. I wonder what will happen when - as Lund puts it - the social fabric rips and the connected kids are left stranded.

Agreed--partially
Balance is the key. There's nothing wrong with connectivity, or taking pictures to have a permanent memorial of something you may never see again. It's when we let technology take us out of the world, let it deprive us of real face-to-face contact with our fellow human beings, that we have a major problem.