Skip to main content

View Diary: Your iPhone may be killing people (271 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the iPhone should be manufactured in the US !!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge

    it would have the size of a Chevy, cost 40,000k, but it would be clean, honest and purely American

    •  No, it could be done here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fabian, esquimaux

      It would be more expensive. The point is why do we have to have so many products? We don't really need most of them. It's just that we addicted to toys--I am too (though less than most people) and am really looking at that in my own life.

      •  How is a smart phone a toy? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk

        And even so, why shouldn't we have toys?  How is austerity a virtue?  We should protect the environment, but we can do that and still have toys.

        •  Very good question! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          songsparrow

          Why, indeed. Ok, here's how I see it:

          Toys and entertainments are distractions and easy passtimes wherein we can avoid doing other things that keep humanity intact as follows:

          1. socializing and creating community without which no political changes can come;
          1. we are facing stunningly powerful problems that are unprecedented in human history--climate change, for example, could (not will that we don't know) cause dramatic feedback loops that could signal major environmental degradation and not only mass die-offs of animals (already occuring) but human die-off. In addition, we are still facing the issues of war and very dangerous weapons that could devastate all live on earth.

          The more we look at these issues the more we want to avoid dealing with them and thus spend enormous amounts of time online on cable and on phone. If you feel comfortable with that then what can I say. Having lived in places where techonology was barely available I saw the quality of human interaction increase. In other words, less technology, more high bandwidth interation with people and the natural world which is, to me, endlessly engaging.

          If I can assign one thing that is keeping us from dealing with life realistically and rationally it is that we are way too distracted to think straight.

          •  I completely disagree! :) (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk, tari

            I guess I am a tech optmist.  I think tech brings people together in a powerful way.  I don't believe, nor do studies suggest, that social media and tech toys weaken our communities.  They strengthen and enlarge them.  I think that learning forward technologies are emblematic of our desire to learn and engage, not hide.  So I completely disagree.

            •  Thanks for your honesty (0+ / 0-)

              Don't see the strengthening and enlarging bit. I see that communities are less strong and less engaged. Witness the increasing dominance of oligarchies in our society.

              It is far harder to make social/politial change now than it was 30-40 years ago because people lack the sense of giving up personal comforts for a greater good since technology is able to give them more instant gratification and virtual interactions that don't demand commitment and can be stopped at any time they become uncomfortable.

              Despite the advancement of climate science there is less likelihood today of doing anything significant about climate change than there was 20 years ago. What happened? I say it is mass entertainment and the internet that has disabled a certain part of us that interacts with the real world.

              BTW, I do like technology and machines and work in the IT field--so I'm not a technophobe.

              •  I'm glad. (0+ / 0-)

                "Don't see the strengthening and enlarging bit. I see that communities are less strong and less engaged. Witness the increasing dominance of oligarchies in our society."
                I think the opposite is happening.  15 and 20 years ago our highly mobile work force and the trend of strengthening exurbs tore our communities apart.  As young professionals and families return to the cities, communities are growing back to.  And technology makes it easier to do that even within our hectic work life.

                "It is far harder to make social/politial change now than it was 30-40 years ago because people lack the sense of giving up personal comforts for a greater good since technology is able to give them more instant gratification and virtual interactions that don't demand commitment and can be stopped at any time they become uncomfortable."  Again I disagree.  Most of the social change that happened was changed that benefited a much poorer, mostly white middle class.  And what they got were real material benefits.  Most of the social change that needs to happen now is either based on environmental problems or the needs of the a mostly minority underclass.  The same white working, middle class voters who fought for change before are now against it, fearing costs they will have to bear but "those people" won't.  Status anxiety is much more a driver, imo, than smart phones for the difficulty of social change.

                I'm sure you aren't a technophobe.  But I think you only see the down side of tech, a downside that imo applies much more to television than online.  People who are "entertained" on the net are much more likely to support claimate and social action than the TV viewers, I'd bet.

    •  I know it's a joke (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, tari

      but I don't like the "American-made products are crappy" storyline.  More expensive, yes, but not as good as Chinese-made products, no.

    •  It really should be. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Domestic Elf

      I know that the "Made in the USA" ideal is now laughable to a lot of upper class liberals, but the reason we're seeing an implosion of the middle class is because too many American companies decided we're not cheap enough to assemble their money makers.  

      What are the core principles of the Democratic Party? Serious Question...

      by Beelzebud on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 08:16:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  absolutely right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave925

        which led to the housing and credit bubbles, and the whole house of cards falling in 2008.  

        In "The End of Poverty" Jeffrey Sachs decries protectionism, stating that the world economy is not a zero-sum enterprise (in order for Chinese or Indian workers to win, American workers have to lose).  I'm not about to argue with Jeffrey Sachs for Heaven's sake.  But, I can't see the logic of making Hanes T-shirts in Thailand and shipping them here, when the folks in Winston-Salem, NC who used to make them are drawing unemployment.  Is it possible that a "little" protectionism is a good thing - like "taking care of your own"?

      •  This is so simplistic it's false. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk

        but the reason we're seeing an implosion of the middle class is because too many American companies decided we're not cheap enough to assemble their money makers.  

        If they did make them here, then Americans wouldn't buy them because we've been conditioned to pay the lowest price without regard to other considerations.  Hence any maker that does manufacture here, by and large, fail in the marketplace.  American consumers don't leave them much choice.

      •  Only bubbles are "Made in the USA" (0+ / 0-)

        and the kill the entire world economy.

        Do we manufacture anything? Please remind me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site