this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
830 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
58138 readers
4489 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think this is largely a consequence of the rate of change.
Going from 50 generations back to 40 generation back (call it 750 AD to 1000 AD) very little would have changed for people, especially those limited in their means of transportation. I think this is largely, if not exactly, true of any generational gap (the exceptions I feel can be found at those bridging the rise and fall of empires)
Meanwhile, 10 generations ago (call it like 1750) wouldn't recognize the world today. Hell, 2-3 generations ago (thinking of those born ~1925-1950) barely recognize the world of today.
The way I see it, the rate of change we experience in the world today is simply beyond the rate of change we were bred for over the bulk of humanity's history.
With that perspective in mind, it feels wrong to hold it against people to resist parts of that change.
Yeah, in my ideal world, we'd all get along and be able to deal with these things in a civilized manner, but that feels super dismissive of the Human Condition and the real lived experience of people in the real world.
Looping back to the point I want to make: coming at people hard for having a negative reaction to a changing world doesn't make their acceptance of the changing world any better.