Talk:1215: Insight

Indeed, somebody speaking circa 1895 could have made the same remark but instead of Google Glass the subject could have been something then new such as the Horseless Carriage, a technology now known as the Automobile in which I will soon drive to work. 24.91.233.200 09:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The same could be said for electrification (utility-provided mains, especially when extended to rural areas), steam locomotives, and industrialization as a whole. --BigMal27 // 192.136.15.177 11:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's make a list! --DanB (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

added <fire>, sorted by date--~~ ~~

• Maybe before we rush to adopt <Google Cornea Implants> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. (2020)
• Maybe before we rush to adopt <the internet> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. (1986)
• Maybe before we rush to adopt <TV> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. (1954)
• Maybe before we rush to adopt <automobiles> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. (1914)
• Maybe before we rush to adopt <electrification> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. (1880's)
• Maybe before we rush to adopt <growing food> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. (10,000 BCE)
• Maybe before we rush to adopt <fire> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. (400,000 BCE)

• Maybe before we rush to adopt <walking upright> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. (7 million BCE)

I think that most people initially view a new idea or technology with skepticism and/or suspicion, but eventually accept it and learn to incorporate into their everyday life. This generally works out fine, and often for the better. Historical examples of this abound: the telephone, electricity, and the automobile, for example, probably all caused controversy when they were first rolled out to the general public, but today we couldn't imagine our lives without them. Another great example is civil rights. At first, the public attacks civil rights activists as radicals, then tolerates them as equals, and eventually hails them as heroes who fought for good and justice.

However, I would caution against thinking that every new idea is equally beneficial, and that those who express initial concern about the latest gizmo are merely backward Luddites. Humans are generally a lot better at figuring out how to make/do/use something before we figure out if it's good for us. Just look at drug companies like Bayer at the turn of the 20th century, who marketed aspirin (good) right alongside heroin (not so good) as great new drugs for modern medicine. Or think about eugenics, which developed out of evolutionary theory. While evolution was, is, and probably will always be the foundation of modern biology, eugenics provided justification for some truly horrible actions in the 20th century before people decided that it was all bull**** science.

Or, take Google Streetview. Sure, it's a great new technology, and I use it almost daily. But think about the unprecedented amount of information Google has been able to collect on (literally) the entire world. I don't think anyone can claim that we fully understand the repercussions that these new Google technologies will have on our lives, and I'd argue that it's premature to ignore or ridicule people who advocate caution with Google Glasses. After all, we're talking about strapping a camera to your face! Just my $0.02.

TL;DR: New technology isn't always good technology. Chris j (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe before we rush to adopt <reading> we should stop ...

A thought expressed by Socrates, at least according to Plato. Nitpicking (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chris j, please sign your posts by using the sign button on top of the editor. --Dgbrt (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe before we rush to adopt <signing our posts by using the sign button on top of the editor> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. -- 173.245.52.135 20:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

unprecedented amount of information Google has been able to collect on (literally) the entire world

Nothing like the entire world. Vast areas have no streets. Even where there are streets, there are large areas either nowhere near a street or not visible from the street. I await Google JungleView, SteppeView and (ahem) BedroomView. Or maybe not. 203.206.118.14 02:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe before we rush to adopt <language> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in... oh, wait. Shit. --Jesse (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I find this discussion joyously entertaining. 173.245.48.137 15:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is related to xkcd 1289. 173.245.52.177 23:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess one of the core issues is that it is almost completely impossible to predict the consequences of introducing technology into any part of our lives, central or not. It not even really possible to determine whether or not a specific technology will take up a role in people's lives.- Pennpenn 108.162.249.205 02:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe before we rush to adopt <electronic payment> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. /David A 141.101.80.33 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference to the precautionary principle. 162.158.186.36 17:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And yet, it's not wrong. NoriMori (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)