And yet, I can't help thinking that I would hate to live in Tolkien's time. When I was around 10, in 1975, I built a giant computer out of a cardboard box. To me, a computer was the same as a spaceship--something I would never own. Then in 1978, I saw an ad for a TRS-80 personal computer, and my world flipped.
Even now, in my 60s, I can't wait to sit down and start programming (with or without AI). I've had a long, fruitful, and extremely fun career with computers, and I can't imagine what I would have done without them.
Does that mean it's all relative? Whatever we're used to, that's what's good and any change is monstrous? Or is there really such a thing as progress and degeneration? Is it possible to say our time is better or worse than Tolkien's in some absolute sense?
I don't know. I think if you take a Rawlsian perspective, and imagine being a random person of the era, I think being born today is far preferable to being born in 1892. On every measure--childhood poverty, violent deaths, even air quality--2026 is better than 1892.
And that improvement is due almost entirely to technology--to the machine.
When I was young I only saw the first half. Decades later I got to finish it ... what a letdown after all this time.
In around 1976, when I was five, I followed a smaller design: mine fit entirely inside an egg carton, with the tops painted various colors representing buttons. I had a roll of punched paper tape as a souvenir from my aunt, who worked in accounting for textile company. I fed that tape into the egg carton as input.
And so here we are ...
It's a shame that kids today don't get the option to do crazy kid stuff while they're young and healthy enough to bounce back from injury. I can't blame the tech for that though. It's parents who don't restrict screentime and our society that thinks it's okay to call the police on parents who let their kids walk down the street unattended.
I probably should have been explicit that I don't think technology has no downsides--it most certainly does. It's just, IMHO, the benefits outweigh the risks. And, over time, we figure out how to ameliorate the downsides.
You're falling into the trap of saying I could've only been happy if I did X. But humans aren't like that - even garbagemen find happiness in their work. The brain adapts to baseline no matter the field.
The second trap you're falling into is saying look how abundant things are compared to 1892. We have every statistic proven and locked down that abundance does not equal happiness.
Do you believe that, on balance, the world is no better today than in 1892? If so, that's where we disagree.
Citation definitely needed.
The ones I know find happiness in their relatively high pay for an 8hr/day, no GED-required job, with the job security that the first few days are blindingly difficult for anyone to adapt to, even highly fit college athletes (source: 40+ garbageman whose son couldn't hack two days of it).
I’m not a fan of cars or environmental damage but the idyll that he puts on a pedestal just didn’t exist for the vast majority of humans in Britain (let alone elsewhere in the world)
Somebody in 1820 might not be able to read but by 1920 literacy had hit 96-97% (numbers for the UK in general), books became far more common etc etc
Change is the only constant.
In 1900, there was a major manure crisis in all large european and north american cities. The swarms of flies were inescapable.
Although certainly the new roads required by increased population caused disruption.
Is it possible for a tech-oriented ideal to escape "machine worship"?
As we strive to refine our "machines" ever further, and our "machines" become ever more capable, where does that lead us?
