Such a simple statement to have so much wrong

[nettiger]

George Will, today's Washington Post:

Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent
The fact that anyone thinks this is acceptable to the most basic of knowledge is... well, it's insane

Comments

[hgryphon]

With the growing fundamentalist trend, you really need to ask that question?

[nettiger]

I know this is nothing new. It doesn't actually surprise me, either. But just because something is stupid, and we all know it's stupid, doesn't mean there isn't something instructional in point it out from time to time, so we don't become complacent and accept it as simply part of the landscape.

[hgryphon]

No, by all means, it is a completely broken system that we're observing here. Most people use tools they know nothing about and can not duplicate if the need arises. They're dependent on these things. Hopefully, they'll never end up without or there will be chaos like nothing we've seen before: riots, looting... I mean, look at what happens in places where the electricity goes off for a while?

[toob]

Isn't dependence upon the mysterious sort of a definition of humanity? Haven't we always been?

[santyth]

Funny I should catch this post immediately after reading the most recent Dresden Codak again; the same theme taken to its ultimate conclusion.

Lord knows I interact with enough people who have no idea how computers or cars really work and wonder how they get through the day. On the other hand, those same people keep my friends and I employed. In the end this is just the nature of specialization.

[nettiger]

This may see a tangent, but that was sorta expected when I posted this in the first place:

For most of human history, population WAS the base unit of power. The number of people you had had a direct correlation to the energy output of your civilization. That changed somewhat with mechanical power, but it was the harnessing of chemical power that changed it all.

How much of modern population is required in a superfluous fashion, to cover for the ignorance of those higher-placed? You no longer need 13 children to cover inevitable child mortality losses, or to plow the fields or run the factories. At some degree we extol the virtues of anti-intellectualism and the culture of willful ignorance - "I have 'people' for that", in part because facing up to the true cost is something rather horrific in implication (Congratulations, 80% of the population is superfluous in the face of actual, practical education).

[pagan_foxcat]

Fuck no. It will always work. It just does, It has to. Amirite?

[bohor]

Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent

What's the other options? There's no way any individual can have knowledge of everything they use in everyday life, so either we have to shun most modern conveniences to avoid becoming dependent on them, or accept that we're going to need specialists. I don't really see anything wrong with that, and the practice has helped humanity far, far more than it has hurt it.

And what do we include as "basic function and maintenance"? I can change the oil on my car, but I couldn't change the clutch on it. (Even if I had the knowledge, I don't have the tools.) Is that basic function? It's something I know is going to eventually fail.

For that matter, aren't we really just talking about control over things we depend on, rather than knowledge? I know (at least at a basic level) how food is grown, how electricity is generated and distributed, how oil is refined into gasoline, and how the internet works, but if any of those cease to

[nettiger]

The problem is there are so many peopel who are so willfully ignorant of how things work - let's take your hard drive example. You, at least, know enough to know that backups are essential. I've run into people, computer professionals by claim, that don't get this