Forums → WEPR → What do you think of the world around us?

You think that, for some reason, an entire generation has a poorer memory from technology?

Maybe I should write it down?

i never said anything about any generation.
plz. do not put words in my mouth that i didn't use. (you should know that by now)

2nd yes we use our brain less then people did 40 year ago.

3rd plz. go and ignore me again. i liked that better then your bs comments.

you said you would ignore me.
plz. do so and ignore me.
i see you write bs all the time and i ignore it.
plz. do the same.

sorry i'm not going to lower myself to you again.
next time remember what you say if your so smart.

This is a topic of literature and probably problems with people today.

This has nothing to do with technology (even though it causes problems, which affects the old world and modern world). Well, I guess I can include the topic of technology on people's lives here.

Just like partydevil, other teens dislike reading. They think ,"What is the point of reading?, To learn? To have more homework? To waste time?". There are many possiblities why teens and possibly some adults dislike reading.

So, back to the topic of technology. People pretty much abuse things like cell phones, school supplies (caculators, computers, etc.), cameras (which is one of the worse things to abuse, etc. People can do inapproiate things with them or probably hurt people with those tools (which is supposed to help us). Computers has some usefullness. To do research, to communicate people all over the world, to get rich and much more.

Here is an obvious answer. Technology is both a nuisance and a helpful tool in the worlf community.

What is the difference between reading books and reading on the internet? Kids are reading far more then people in the past, they are just reading different mediums then the old ones. There is no reason for them to be different.

Teens have always disliked reading. There was no golden age where people were all bookworms. All those classics we like to hark back to? Those were read by scholars and the like. Not the average teenage population.

You claim that people dislike reading. Yet millions of books are being sold; it is estimated that a new economics book is published very three minutes. And the ebook industry is booming vastly; it seems that technology is encouraging the spread of reading since it's much more convenient now.

Technology's effects all depend on how we use it. Social networks aren't always destructive, they do trivialize relationships sometimes but they do let us get in touch with old friends, or plough through huge numbers of articles and current news. School supplies? How are they now objects of abuse? As our syllabus gets harder, it's only fair and sustainable to allow students access to tools. I've seen the primary education math papers in my country and they are a handful if you're forcing students to so brute force arithmetic.

Cameras being abused? Yes. But not everyone does it. For every example I'm this black and white dichotomy we have counterexamples by the load. Cellphones allow much faster business deals, they afford us communication, entertainment.

You're sounding more and more like a Luddite. Just saying.

There never were any good ol' days; they are today, they are tomorrow. It's a stupid thing we say, cursing tomorrow with sorrow.

Anyway.

Do you even realize how conceited it is to to find fault with people simply because they do not have the same literary tastes as you? There is nothing wrong with preferring modern material. As many of noted, there isn't anything wrong with preferring different reading mediums.

The thing is, classic literature, or whatever, is a niche. And as with all niches, it is foolish to expect the majority of other people to care about it. I don't complain about how people don't know anything about real analysis or differential forms or whatever. Because why would they?

there is a sentence by aristo. he said that "the youth of today is not the youth of yesterday. they read less and care much more about goofing around that about learning. all there life are go around girls, and not about studieng or practicing".
he actualy said it {not the best translation, but he said it something like 2600 years ago.

Ironically that only serves to emboss and impress upon us that the last wasn't the "halcyon days" of knowledge that some people like to claim. There have always been youths who prefer to play. And what's so wrong with that if they balance it?

i honestly think that if the lion king came out today it would be ranked as 8+ (years old of course) because people now underestimate children and their ability to understand that life isnt as shallow as the shows they watch today.

Anyway, one thing that can be attributed to this topic is that no, not every teen likes to read, but in the past, teens were less rebellious on a whole. There was work to be done, work which was not completed by sitting down. The old trades, such as fletchers, architects, builders, stonemasons, smiths, and weavers, all required the user to learn from a young age. The trade of sailing taught teens and young men to obey orders, and in turn be rewarded for doing so.

Well said. As a young kid, my entertainment consisted of my parents and the animated movies available to me. I am not saying I understood all the parts, all the intrigue the directors and animators and writers had put in, I have re-watched them and understand now, but that's not so say I would prefer something shallow. Those films taught me what the message in them was, and I have since carried that knowledge.

Anyway, one thing that can be attributed to this topic is that no, not every teen likes to read, but in the past, teens were less rebellious on a whole.

There was work to be done, work which was not completed by sitting down. The old trades, such as fletchers, architects, builders, stonemasons, smiths, and weavers, all required the user to learn from a young age. The trade of sailing taught teens and young men to obey orders, and in turn be rewarded for doing so

Now, with less things to occupy them, teens often waste their time being social, or unsocial, with the massive communication software and hardware that connects us, but also separates us.

So your angry that we got made child labor laws, then?

How is studying a book for an hour even work?

Think about the contexts. It's all about the circumstances; calling it child labour when you're already a full fledge adult at 15 seems parochial. Kings took power personally even younger than that; and peole dropped dead before they grasped at a fourth decade of life. It would be supremely unfair to claim that such work in the past was child labour. It's also rather foolish to jump on what Forger said and claim he is seething at child labour laws. That's an incredible leap you made, and it didn't make a modicum of sense in lambasting him.

Of course due to the caprices of the global economy and our perceptions of social structure due to longer life spans and changing social roles, this has all
changed so your my point of us having little reason to be angry at teens spending time so "frivolously" might hold water and is defensible. But it is abit tiring seeing you take an unrelated point and spin it into something insidious.

All changed, so your* point.