Rayne does TED

[marsden_online]

Last week the Least I Could Do webcomic (N always SFW) ran a series of strips which had one of their main characters (Rayne) doing a TED talk. (TED.com - Ideas worth sharing)

It starts with a premise that "the world we live in is driven by a sense of fear and a sense of entitlement"

5 strips, starting here
Follow-up blog post by the author of the strip

~~~
As a tangent, last week in the NZHerald Anthony* Doesburg asked Faster, wider bandwidth - but what will we do with it? He didn't answer the question directly, but I'd like to suggest that even getting the majority of the country on the same sort of speed I'm accustomed to (4Mb/s) would open up access to things like the TED talks. (OK, also need much cheaper data rates because y'know, streaming video glug glug glug).

*the fact that no-one at the herald has bothered correcting the blatant typo in his name in the headline irritates me.

Gosh, do I have a sense of entitlement about fast, cheap broadband? Probably, but I believe the benefits are so great that it need to be designated a public good* like electricity and in earlier years the telephone.

*I know I'm not using the proper economic definition here, but I can't recall the correct term. Nationalised good?

Comments

[adrexia.livejournal.com]

But I don't think you need *fast* broadband to get along in today's world.

What about tomorrow's world? The computer used to send men to the moon was far less advanced than the computers you find everywhere today. Most wouldn't have been able to imagine why we would need these computers.

Slightly tangental

[jomas-45.livejournal.com]

We need these computers today so that humans can spread out more and still function. If tomorrow's world starts getting more electronic and spread out, then I'll probably lose all the faces that I see normally. I hate the idea of self checkouts and express lanes. Having a trolley that does it for you makes life even more faceless. It's bad enough trying to figure out IRD and WINZ without them passing you on to another computer. If tomorrow's world needs faster broadband, what is it using it for, other than taking people out of jobs? Yes the jobs are crummy, but some people still like it. My ex decided to give up a career in tourism so he could be a checkout manager. He liked being a checkout boy and worked all the time. It takes all kinds.

Re: Slightly tangental

[adrexia.livejournal.com]

The world changes, and not all of it is for the best. Generally though, new jobs appear to take the place of the old.

I like self check-outs. Grocery shopping isn't really something I do for social interaction, so what little it provides isn't missed. Saying that though, I do start conversations with checkout workers and know the manager of my corner store by his first name.

Re: Slightly tangental

[jomas-45.livejournal.com]

However, the new jobs don't always get taken by those who have lost their jobs. If you put a machine in to do a job, you have one person to monitor it and a few others and one person to fix them. The monitor may be the same person, but it's likely that the fixer isn't!

Re: Slightly tangental

[adrexia.livejournal.com]

No. Sometimes the people that lose their jobs are never gainfully employed again.

Re: Slightly tangental

[marsden-online.livejournal.com]

Advances in technology have always, always taken away jobs, but at the same time they've always created more. How much work is there for a skilled scribe in today's world?

We're too hung up on 'jobs'. Weren't we all supposed to have lives of luxury by now, working (and yes, working in some form is necessary to the human psyche) and socalising as we wanted while machines took care of the chores? A civilisation of craftspeople, real public servants, scientists and artists?

Technology can now let you see the faces that matter and get to know people ~wherever they or you may be in the world, is that worth tired hellos from a wage slave behind a checkout whom you may never see again?

Re: Slightly tangental

[jomas-45.livejournal.com]

I've never noticed a tired hello from a wage slave from my local butchery, bakery, or vege shop. I know some people who will always go to the same checkout operator if they're on. I think supermarkets just naturally sap the strength of their workers, with crabby hours and changing shifts so that they're never awake. Also you're always stuck on exactly the same job, so you're no longer retail, you're a factory worker. No wonder their minds switch off.

I personally don't like not seeing the faces of whom I'm talking to unless I know the person well enough that I can think of their expressions in my head. Hence my reluctance to have facebook, phones, LJ... etc. Static pictures don't help. Even video phones are off putting - although much better than a normal phone or a email. Of course, I mean this for in depth get to know you conversations, not the "When are we meeting?" ones!

My point with the jobs was, is that we aren't making lives of luxury, all we're doing is giving the smarter people more jobs, and the not so smart or maybe more manual people less jobs. Then these people have no income except the dole. Even getting into factory work these days requires a lot! Retail and the government seem to be the only place where you can go without any skills and upskill. Everywhere else requires you to have magically come up with experience from somewhere else.

Re: Slightly tangental

[marsden-online.livejournal.com]

> you're no longer retail, you're a factory worker. No wonder their minds switch off.

All the more reason to automate those job and let people do something that uses their brains. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

>we aren't making lives of luxury, all we're doing is giving the smarter people more jobs, and the not so smart or maybe more manual people less jobs.

There's a horrible duality in our society which groups people as 'working' or 'beneficiaries'. Why are there only two options, 'job' or 'not job'? The industrial age redefined what it meant to 'work'. Perhaps it's time the information age did the same.

I wasn't paying attention at the time so I only have a vague historical awareness, but it was one of the '90's governments which managed to demonise beneficiaries. It doesn't matter if it was National or Labour because since then they've both beaten the same drum and continued to cut the real value of benefits - unemployment, DPB, student allowance, sickness ... take your pick.

Social welfare should give people encouragement to explore their options, not loom over them with the threat that they must take any lousy job that comes along because they can't live otherwise. It should be enough to free them from worrying about the bills (as long as they are careful) so they can look forward rather than drive them into the ground with depression because there is never enough money.

>Even getting into factory work these days requires a lot!

There's no incentive to give people a chance any more - in fact exactly the opposite. If you make a bad choice as the employer it costs, big time, to get rid of someone. Naturally this has led to defensive hiring practices and an explicit demand for candidates with proven histories.

Straight out of school you're screwed and you can't even take a year off on the unemployment benefit to get your head straight any more.

Society needs to make the difference, but I feel we've started to reflect the whims of our governments rather than them reflecting the will of the people. I haven't figured out how to reverse that yet.

Re: Slightly tangental

[jomas-45.livejournal.com]

I've just started a job as a clothes pinner, process work if there ever was any, so in about a month or so I'm going to answer this post as to whether factory work should be got rid of. I've done intelligent jobs before, and they definitely weren't worth the money for the amount of deadness I felt at the end of the day.