rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Based on history I can see how that seems like "common sense". However, I don't think we know the ramifications of electronic socialization.
I read an article yesterday discussing the end of viral disease. It asked the question, what if we attained it? Would it be bad for the human race? It touched on the elimination of natural selection as a potential negative but in a world without disease, do we need the gene pool to pass on natural immunity? Based on historical fact, it said that the elimination of most bacterial and parasitic threats from Western worlds has not had a negative impact. In fact it mentioned that there are likely positives and pointed to Africa where significant numbers constantly battle Malaria and AIDS. They said a population that spends a lot of time being sick, seriously impairs productivity. They postulated that ridding the continent of killer bacteria and common parasites would likely enable millions to address other problems and might make put the continent on the road to being self-sufficient. It closed by saying that the elimination of virus from the planet is unknown. It questioned whether or not some virus contributed to the development of our organs as we grow. The article admitted there's no way to know until we eliminate them and "see what happens".
Bottom line: Is there really enough R&D/fact/proof regarding whether or not mass electronic socialization is good or bad? I think we might be trying to throw social media contact into the same bucket as general lack of human contact, which I believe has been proven to be negative. However, the two are quite different. When I grew up there was fierce competition for the telephone. Then came the kid line because mom and dad were tired of folks trying to call and always getting a busy signal (this is before call waiting). Is there any proof that kids raised 30 to 40 years ago are social deviants (not necessarily in an evil way) because they spent too much time on the phone? |
