Will the human tendency to always want things done quicker and more efficiently ever reach a barrier?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

When? How?

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:13 (twenty-one years ago)

no. even my 2 year old now tries to find ways of doing his 'projects' quicker / better. Just part of being human.
If we stop trying, what will happen then?

― donna (donna), Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I risk being regarded as some kind of Luddite by posting this, but it is a genuine concern. Not only has technology enabled us to do things quicker and more efficiently, but also technology has made us *want* things done quicker and more efficiently, so that with every advance, we are criticizing it and wanting it to work even quicker and even better. I was prompted to post this by seeing the Transport Direct thread here.

Now, don't get me wrong, I realise that the current versh of Transport Direct is a beta and that it is already a useful tool. But while I was waiting for it to search, I was tapping my fingers thinking "Get a move on!" and when it found the results of my serach I thought "Hmm, why can't it take account of how often the buses and trains run?" and "shouldn't there be a facility to put in how fast you walk, as that's obviously a factor?" Never mind that go back 10 years and you'd have to walk to the library or ask someone as these were the only ways to find out the info, and these took much much longer and were more likely to be inaccurate or out of date. Never mind that, go back 100 years and you'd have to saddle you horse and provide it with provender ect ect, or most likely, not make the journey at all!

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I feel there are parallels with the work of Thomas Malthus and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and all that. You know, how there were supposed to be checks on the growth of human popns - war, famine, death, pestilence. What Malthus failed to realise was that we'd find ways to cheat these things by developing technologies he couldn't envisage. But, similarly, there may be checks on how fast and efficiently we can do stuff - in terms of what the human body can physically manage, what the human brain can cope with and what computers and other technologies can do within the confines of the laws of physics. Like it or not, a person can only move so fast and think so fast without burning out (stress is real) and there are physical laws that say that there's a limit to computing power even tho we might be far from reaching such limits at present. Or am I simply suffering from the same limitations as Malthus in terms of vision?

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I suppose to answer my question we need to look at how much of our desire for speed and efficiency cultural and how much of it is innate? There are already big differences - in both expectation and delivery - between, say a central London dweller and someone from the highlands of Scotland, or between a New Yorker and a South Sea Islander. Ppl do find it hard to adapt to the pace of life and how efficiently things are done outside their immediate cultural context.

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:32 (twenty-one years ago)

it's not a tendanc, it's a function of social organisation and, in contemporary terms, the market. Vast monopolies were/are not efficient, just profitable but not as profitable as when staff can be gotten rid of.

― Queen Gimme the wheel, Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I think three primary factors are the media, transportation, and computer technology. Everything is faster these days in each, which is why we've sped past the more leisurely pleasures in life, be it a long walk, a film like Time Out or even Once Upon A Time In the West, and the notion of actually writing letters or researching something via a library. I showed the latter film above to a girl I was seeing one time, and she thought it felt five hours long, "ugh way too slow" or something like that.

People need to live their lives on the go and never rest. To cite an oft-cited example, my roommate. She's never home, any time she is she's on her cell phone, if she watched a movie for her acting class she watches it in 20 minute segments over the course of a week (interrupted by hours of MTV viewing), changes clothes five times a day, and can't stand still at all.

I think some people are so used to the fast pace of modern life that they're subconsciously afraid if they pause or slow down, they'll get left behind in some way.

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Myself, I find a slower pace in music, film, and life to be mesmerizing. Which is why I get pissy when some ADD-afflicted critic or acquaintance tells me music or film I enjoy is boring, probably because it doesn't have big beats/quick editing.

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:47 (twenty-one years ago)

so used to or so conditioned to?
A week without the internet reminds me how lttle I need it. A day wthout it sendss me assfreakingcrazy.

― Queen no Gmail for me, Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:50 (twenty-one years ago)

the posts in this thread are too long.

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:53 (twenty-one years ago)

When I'm at work, I need the internet. But you're right, when I don't have it for awhile I sort of forget about it.

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:54 (twenty-one years ago)

pare that down for me DL?

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 5 August 2004 07:55 (twenty-one years ago)

uh.

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 5 August 2004 08:05 (twenty-one years ago)

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 5 August 2004 08:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think Malthus has been proven *totally* wrong yet. Maybe his specifics have, but in general I still think he's right and we haven't circumvented nature by technology. There's still limits, but we've extended them, I suppose.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 5 August 2004 08:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Edward Tenner's recomplicating revenge effects are important here too - i.e. every development we make spews forth new unforeseen problems which have to be solved, which keep us striving, working to find new solutions and alternatives. I think there is a fear in many ppl's minds that the greater steps we make, the greater the revenge effects. So there is a fear about nanotechnology, GM food ect ect coz they are big changes that could potentially bring about big revenge effects. The furore over drugs in sport comes into this too - I think it's as much to do with "if we let this go on unchecked we will be building sporting MONSTERS who may run fast and are no longer truly human" as it is about "they are cheats, we must stop them".

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 5 August 2004 08:33 (twenty-one years ago)

we will be building sporting MONSTERS

The sooner this happens the better. Monster Olympics in 2008!

― robster (robster), Thursday, 5 August 2004 08:37 (twenty-one years ago)

are you meaning - is there a real and actual limit to what can be done and what will always be expected in progress?
or - are we on a scarey course of self-destruction due to our demands for faster / better
or neither.

― donna (donna), Thursday, 5 August 2004 08:41 (twenty-one years ago)

well, certainly not neither, more, both, really. The limit might be our self destruction.

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 5 August 2004 08:45 (twenty-one years ago)

have you read Gleick's Faster? it goes into this.

it also mentions The Long Now Foundation (i heard of them first from either eno's diaries or wired) which are trying to promote long term thinking.

efficiency is a good thing but people should learn to chill.

― koogs (koogs), Thursday, 5 August 2004 08:49 (twenty-one years ago)

i made a (rather crappy) electro track called "efficient beats". it was very efficient.

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 5 August 2004 09:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Not only has technology enabled us to do things quicker and more efficiently, but also technology has made us *want* things done quicker and more efficiently

is that not just human nature though? to want to be like harder better faster stronger? or just nature in general.. like animals that would only fuck the animal dudes with the biggest muscles etc. so that the new generation will run quicker, or soemthing?

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 5 August 2004 09:30 (twenty-one years ago)

if there is such a thing as human nature, which I've never seen proved but let's allow it for the sake of discussion, then it ties in with animal nature and animal nature is not to be the biggest or strongest or fastest - it's to be the most adaptable to success and the impartation of its genes. Define success how you will, but it ain't about being bigger than the whale (call me ishmael). The idea that we are driven by some imperative to consume, to produce, to progress comes from a discursive position that allows certain proponents to have power, power over the body or as foucault termed it biopower. Ths power becomes solidified and reproduced by the 'naturalisation' of terms such as human nature, destiny etc. We need to think far more about who benefits from notions of progress, who controls what the idea of progress is.
I would suspect a lot of humans in the 14th century didn't have a tendanc to do thinngs quickly or efficiently, and their masters and lords probably weren't concerned with it either. The peasants were concerned with doing things in fear of God, their masters concerned with protectng their accumulated wealth.

― Queen God of the 12 th century tribe of islamc warriors known as ugh, Thursday, 5 August 2004 10:15 (twenty-one years ago)

the posts in this thread are too long

Dog Latin OTM. Can someone not precis them? I haven't the time to dig through all that text for the point.

― ___ (___), Thursday, 5 August 2004 10:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Define success how you will, but it ain't about being bigger than the whale (call me ishmael). The idea that we are driven by some imperative to consume, to produce, to progress comes from a discursive position that allows certain proponents to have power, power over the body or as foucault termed it biopower.

of course, it's not about being bigger than the whale (unless you count the critically obese) but had we been somehow in competition for food with whales (since we're on that example), we'd certainly be thriving to be able to outmuscle the whales somehow - swim faster than them? be able to kill them if they're taking the food we need? and if we hadn't done that, we would be starving to death.

peasants would dream of one day somehow becoming a landlord, and those with land would hope to obtain more. kings conquered other territories. technology had existed right from the start.. cavemen would use sticks and stones, and discovering fire. is it a bad thing that they then thought to hunt with weapons and cook?

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 5 August 2004 10:44 (twenty-one years ago)

and why would peasants be in fear of God? if it weren't for God to be perceived as being more powerful? bigger? in charge of our destiny?

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 5 August 2004 10:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I haven't the time to dig through all that text for the point.

There is a theory that before the industrial revolution, time was never really a matter to most people.

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 5 August 2004 10:50 (twenty-one years ago)

not as much. there certainly wasn't so much of a need for accuracy. The clock on Westminster Abbey only has an hour hand.

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 5 August 2004 12:37 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.