If any of you follow the theVerge.com or the books Jonathan Brockman edits then you know the premise.  Every year they take some of the big thinkers that regularly contribute and ask them one big open-ended question.  Guys like Brian Greene, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Ray Kurzeweil and more.  

So I ask you What Are You Optimistic About? Why Things Are Good and Getting Better?

I think rather quickly, we're developing into a more educated world. I'm not talking about access to education in obtaining a degree in a bid to get a job.

With the sheer volume of information available today, anyone with a mildly above average IQ can understand the basics of almost anything within a few hours thanks to the internet. What it does is, it allows for greater conversation, debate, etc. And generally a greater perspective and understanding of the world. And that's a good thing. 

Mar 3, 2018 10:51:02 GMT NATH45 said:

I think rather quickly, we're developing into a more educated world. I'm not talking about access to education in obtaining a degree in a bid to get a job.

With the sheer volume of information available today, anyone with a mildly above average IQ can understand the basics of almost anything within a few hours thanks to the internet. What it does is, it allows for greater conversation, debate, etc. And generally a greater perspective and understanding of the world. And that's a good thing. 

I kind of think it’s the opposite: I think we’re over-informed and under-educated.

Mar 5, 2018 0:02:36 GMT KJ said:

Mar 3, 2018 10:51:02 GMT NATH45 said:

I think rather quickly, we're developing into a more educated world. I'm not talking about access to education in obtaining a degree in a bid to get a job.

With the sheer volume of information available today, anyone with a mildly above average IQ can understand the basics of almost anything within a few hours thanks to the internet. What it does is, it allows for greater conversation, debate, etc. And generally a greater perspective and understanding of the world. And that's a good thing. 

I kind of think it’s the opposite: I think we’re over-informed and under-educated.

No, maybe over opinionated.

Mar 5, 2018 7:29:26 GMT NATH45 said:

Mar 5, 2018 0:02:36 GMT KJ said:

I kind of think it’s the opposite: I think we’re over-informed and under-educated.

No, maybe over opinionated.

Again, I respectfully disagree. I think intelligence is belittled these days. It’s not revered like it once was.

I can't help but think the internet is having a weird negative effect on people's intelligence. Seems like people don't read like they used to and attention spans are generally far lower than ever before. I listed a truck for sale on some sites with clear descriptions about it with pictures, I have gotten a startling amount of messages and texts asking how much, what color, etc when all the info is right there in the listing, it's like WTF!?!?

I don't know if it's one of those "Things have always been this way you are just now seeing it because of the internet bringing it to light" deals or what but to me it feels like people are getting dumber in general and humanity is very slowly devolving backwards ever since iphones became a thing. 

One of the most influential books I have ever read was Abundance by Peter Diamindis. Here is a good graphical summary. It also spoke similarly to what NATH45, spoke of. The sum of all human knowledge is reaching millions of more minds and millions of voices are speaking and connecting every day. www.diamandis.com/data

Of course there will always be stupid people.

However the sheer volume of information today, so redily available is unlike anything seen by any previous generation.

With intelligence partly defined by the ability to acquire information, surely in time, those seeking information, those with a somewhat interest in the world would benefit from it and those people would outweigh the stupid... eventually.

Anyone with an above average IQ, a question to ask and a smart phone, will never not know an answer. Similarly, a Sunday afternoon, you could learn more about the history of the world today, than in a semester of High School History a generation ago.. without leaving the couch.

Theoretically that's great, but in practice there's just so much misinformation out there that people will fall for anything. Of course if you know where to look it isn't a big deal, but if you want to retain information simply by reading info off your phone it isn't going to happen. That semester is going to be far more valuable in the long run because you got those reps in and applied that knowledge.

It's a useful tool, but like a calculator, it's a short-cut we rely on too much.

I could argue the point, in school you are trained to retain information for a passing grade. Not because you are interested in a subject. Dates, names, places.. that's High School History. And there's certainly subjects I passed, but have had very little impact on my adult life nor care enough to call on, or could, despite the repetition in learning it 20 years ago.

This isn't about building a social or political perspective either.. this is simply, " How does a internal combustion engine work " - in less than a few hours, without leaving the couch, I can gain some basic understanding of how and why it does what it does. And if I discover I could care less about engines, within minutes I could be knee deep in European history or the Arts, or the science behind any number of things. You of course need to invest the time, as with any sort of study.

But the point is, it's there. And for an intelligent individual, it's ripe for the picking.

Sure, some subjects were more useful than others, but studying multiple subjects makes for a more well-rounded experience and prevents students from developing tunnel vision. You maybe an expert on history, but have no idea how to share that information because you're reading and writing at a 3rd grade level.

Don't get me wrong, when it's used to it's potential, the internet can be an excellent tool. However, I disagree with the notion that you can just study something for a few hours and get as much out of an entire semester. The repetition just isn't there and you're not applying that information as thoroughly as you would in a learning environment. Especially in most cases where one tab maybe dedicated to a fascinating study and the other is twitter, facebook, pornhub, youtube or whatever have you.

I just don't think we'll ever get to a stage where you can learn as much in one afternoon as you would in an entire semester. Unless you went to a horrible school or actively didn't apply yourself, there is no way the average person would be able to retain that much information or grow.

Nothing.

Another drawback of the rise of the internet is this whole cloud business, physical media is dying, everything is going to be digital over the next 20-30 years and then it could be like what they talk about on Bladerunner 2049 where something happens and everything is wiped and lost forever. Maybe this has already happened before, it's like what Graham Hancock says we're like a species with amnesia.

If the hard drives of the world get wiped, I'm trekking to Texas and watching some VHS at Shin's house. I'll buy some creepy van and live the nomad life.

Mar 11, 2018 2:24:14 GMT Kilgore said:

If the hard drives of the world get wiped, I'm trekking to Texas and watching some VHS at Shin's house. I'll buy some creepy van and live the nomad life.

Okay, revision. This is the only thing I'm optimistic about. Wife has always maintained she wouldn't survive any post-apocalyptic scenario. So, if that should prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, count me in on the Mad Max road trip to Shin's neck of Texas.

Come on boys, we can watch Mcbain together.

Seriously though I have a few tapes from 1986-1988 and I'm surprised at how well they hold up.

While we are on the subject my mind was blown a few nights ago when I found out that they actually made HD VHS technology:









WTF!?!? I NEED this.

I took some video production class in high school and everything we shot was on something called SVHS (Super VHS!), and the resolution was significantly greater than VHS. That format was used for man on the street news reports in the 90's, although Beta and Super Beta was much more the standard. Betamax failed as a consumer product but succeeded in professional capacities. When you shot film, unless you wanted to edit on a bulky ass film bed, you would get a tape transfer, always Betamax. These looked like (at least) DVD quality.

If you think anything recorded in the 70's/80's/90's, it was recorded on tape and there's now HD versions of it. ECW is actually a great example. Low budget motherfuckers and their footage looks crystal clear on the WWE Network. Footage like that was recorded and archived on HD tapes (although I doubt they called it that) and were able to get digitized as such at a later date.

If DVDs didn't come around HD tapes probably would have become more of a thing. They probably got cocky and thought, "We beat Laserdiscs, we'll beat this too!"

Mar 11, 2018 1:24:38 GMT shinobimusashi said:

Another drawback of the rise of the internet is this whole cloud business, physical media is dying, everything is going to be digital over the next 20-30 years and then it could be like what they talk about on Bladerunner 2049 where something happens and everything is wiped and lost forever. Maybe this has already happened before, it's like what Graham Hancock says we're like a species with amnesia.

The digital master of one of the Toy Story movies was almost lost this way. Digital memory is so finicky.

Years ago I worked in the magazine industry. I am talking 15+ years ago. Early internet, pre tablet era. Guess what folks, magazines are still here today and regularly gaining titles.

Mediums rarely fully die. Books are still being published. The television didn't kill radio. Videos didn't kill radio. Vinyl is still a big business despite technology.

Mar 11, 2018 22:28:08 GMT theend said:

Years ago I worked in the magazine industry. I am talking 15+ years ago. Early internet, pre tablet era. Guess what folks, magazines are still here today and regularly gaining titles.

Mediums rarely fully die. Books are still being published. The television didn't kill radio. Videos didn't kill radio. Vinyl is still a big business despite technology.

What about newspapers?

Is there a difference between thriving and surviving?

What about surviving and slowly dying?

#optimism

Oh there are huge differences between thriving, dying and surviving. Oddly this page shows an increase in circulation revenue. So even as the overall circulation is weak it still seems profitable. I guess people are willing to pay for their papers but the advertisers are not.

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation-and-revenue-fall-for-newspaper-industry/

Either way,newspapers oddly are way not dead yet.

Mar 3, 2018 10:51:02 GMT NATH45 said:

I think rather quickly, we're developing into a more educated world. I'm not talking about access to education in obtaining a degree in a bid to get a job.

With the sheer volume of information available today, anyone with a mildly above average IQ can understand the basics of almost anything within a few hours thanks to the internet. What it does is, it allows for greater conversation, debate, etc. And generally a greater perspective and understanding of the world. And that's a good thing. 

I'm almost the opposite -- you are absolutely correct in that someone can learn the basics with a couple of hours of reading on the Internet, but the issue is that inevitably that someone will feel they are as much of an expert in the field as someone who's been studying it for years. I took a semester of karate in college and I learned how to throw a punch but it in no way qualifies me to fight in the UFC, but on the Internet there's no shortage of self-described PhD's who got their degree from Wikipedia.

I seen a documentary somewhere about Orangutans. They had a mechanical one set up using a saw to cut into some wood, a real live one seen it and grabbed another saw they had laid out and kind of copied what the mechanical one was doing. They were trying to see if the real Orangutan would use the saw to cut the wood but it just didn't understand what was going on or what the saw's purpose was for. This is pretty much humans with this internet thing, so much knowledge and a lot of people put it to good use for sure but for the majority we're like monkeys with the saw, sure we can use it to a certain extent but the full benefit of this tool is just beyond our comprehension, nobody wants to read anything longer than a paragraph and nobody wants to watch anything longer than 3 minutes long.

shinobimusashi,just for the joke but also in truth, you ever see how many views a 3 hour Joe Rogan podcast gets? Two dudes talking ends up a Peter Jackson movie and a million people will watch.

Pot, I tell ya, powerful stuff.

Lol theend I was just about to post my theory that..

shinobimusashi actually IS Joe Rogan. The Marijuanna, The MMA, bobybuilding..,Joe Rogan was just talking about primates the other day and Shin just so happened to watch a documentary about them?
Rogan also watches wrestling as well, as seen when discussing Ric Flair. The only thing I haven’t seen Joe explicitly talk about is Sega...why is that? It would be too obvious.

Have you ever seen Shin & Joe Rogan in the same room together?
Exactly. Being from Texas is just a ruse.

I really have grown to dislike Rogan over the past few years. The big difference between me and Rogan is that I've actually stepped into the cage for 9 fights and he just carries himself like someone who has. He's one of those soft handed California boys, he couldn't wear my rig for even a day.

I'm not surprised his podcast gets so many views though, he's worked hard to appeal to internet folks, he's like a living breathing Twitter feed.

In the grand scheme of things, Joe Rogan's 2 million views is really nothing. It takes nothing away from the point that most of the internet is used for shorter, stupider things.

Especially if you consider analytics. I'd be surprised if more than 100,000 people actually watched the entire video.

Mar 14, 2018 2:16:42 GMT Big Pete said:

Especially if you consider analytics. I'd be surprised if more than 100,000 people actually watched the entire video.

Micro sample size, but I just checked out the three most watched ECW videos I've uploaded on YouTube and it's pretty enlightening.

People can't make it 92 seconds for a home video ad, most tapping out after 46 seconds. The money shot of the thumbnail happens at 75 seconds, so most don't even make it to that! Like why click on the video at all, horny wrestling fan dudes?



Music videos, most don't make it 2 minutes into a 4 minute clip.

I just figured it was people trying to stimulate their mind while doing mundane work.