> Also, many people bemoan the loss of our "culture" because of gains in technology. Some people seem to think that "culture" is a static thing that somehow never changes (or never should change, at least). This, I think, is one of the major problems we face today. Culture is not static. It never has been, and it never will be. What is part of our culture today may cease to be of any import in ten or fifty or a hundred years. Anybody who tries to argue that we should curb technology because it has a negative impact on our "culture" is too late. Technology has already ingrained itself irrecovably into our culture. It cannot be removed without destroying what we all think of as a normal way of life. Should we not develop virtual reality because it will create more couch potatos? Well, radio and TV already did their fair share of that. Besides, VR will have so many more useful uses than just getting an oil massage from Cindy Crawford and her simulated twin sister. If it changes our "culture," so what? Everything we do every day effects that. We can't stop it--it's part of being a social animal.


Hi Dave,

This is a good point that you bring up. The "good old days" did not seem quite as halcyon while we were living through them, and even if there were a way to bring back the "culture" of our personal or national youth, this wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.

What concerns me about technological advance is its effect, not on the ephemeral way of life that is our present culture, but on those more deeply-rooted things that almost every culture requires. That TV should produce more "sedentary" future generations is less a worry for me than that our rapid exploitation of natural resources may impoverish our descendants. The need for food and the basics of life, most would agree, support culture but do not have a solely "cultural" importance.

This said, each person's list of what is merely cultural and therefore negotiable and what is foundational and of greater value, will differ. My list is bound to be more extensive than many. A moment ago I may have implied that TV and other entertainment technologies don't much concern me. In fact, I'm concerned by them quite a bit, because I rate creativity, a work ethic, and sensitivity to violence as super-cultural values, and the explosion of entertainment technology seems to have damaged all three to varying degrees. Do we therefore put a stop to TV, VR and their various successors? No, but we can't be willfully blind to their effects, either. Finding creative ways to preserve good values in the entertainment age will be one of my greatest challenges as a parent someday.

This, I suppose, is just to say that I agree with you that culture is bound to change, and we can't kick and scream about it forever when our favorite cultural features are superceded by the next advances in technology and other areas. But the interpretation of what is "merely" cultural and what is of more lasting value is a task that I find well worth undertaking. Humans are social animals, but we're picky about the worth of the society we're in, and if necessary, we'll change it ... or at least, we *should*.

Iss (aka, "other Dave")