Back to the Golden Age of Radio for Entertainment: Happy?

Cafe Society
1

If you were born and raised in virtually the same environment as the one you were, except without Internet, television or home video entertainment of any type*, would your life be significantly different today? Would you be happier, less happy, or about the same on the happiness scale? Would society be better or worse off? Elaboration on your answers is encouraged.

  • *Entertainment would be as it was during the Golden Age of Radio: radio at home, moving pictures at the theater. Technology, otherwise, is unchanged (e.g. GUI computers/cell phones, etc., just no video.
2

I’d really hate if that happened. I’ve listened to a lot of the “golden age” radio shows, and I’m generally disappointed. Despite all the nostalgic love, many of them were incredibly simplistic and not all that well written. Even adaptations of plays done on the radio don’t come off all that well. There were a few bright spots (science fiction dramas on radio were surprisingly sophisticated and experimental – they adapted works that nobody’s ever tried to do on TV).
I get the impression that British radio dramas were much better than those in the US. Those I’ve heard certainly suppport that idea, but, then again, I think the ones I’ve heard were culled from the best.

3

I would definitely be less happy without the Internet, and this isn’t some trite thing about how entertaining it is, etc.

When I was in my early twenties I was still suffering a lot from the unexpected discovery of my adoption. Online I found tons of support networks with lots of adult adoptees, with tons of stories about people who found out at traumatic times. These people helped me with their stories, they helped me realize it wasn’t my fault, I never did anything wrong, and most importantly, that I was not alone.

That right there is the beauty of the Internet - you are not alone. On a lighter note, I am surrounded by people, for example, who have never heard of Terry Pratchett or Arthur Clarke, who wouldn’t watch or read sci-fi if their life depended on it, who think action hero movies are stupid and not really fit for girls, and who pretty much assume the only video games girls play are Wii Sports Resort.

On the Internet I find tons of girls who do all of the stuff I do. And I find lots and lots of childfree women, which is something that is still pretty rare IRL.

ETA: I think society would be far worse off. I think the Internet has its flaws, but the biggest thing it’s doing is letting us talk to people all over the world, and making people realize we’re all the same. That guy over there has a family and kids, just like me, he wants to put food on his table, etc. I think as time goes on and more of the world gets Internet access it will be progressively harder to demonize our enemies. Note I didn’t say impossible.

4

Moving poll and thread from IMHO to Cafe Society.

5

I only use the internet at work (like now!) and do not own a computer, nor a televisoin.

I own lots of movies, but I spend most of my time reading. I reckon I’d be OK.

Do we still have vinyl LP’s ?

6

What do you mean “if”?

Okay, we did have television when I grew up. Black and white. With two channels. But no internet or home entertainment.

7

Considering the fact that I work at an Internet Data Center, my life would be pretty different.

As far as the entertainment aspect of the question goes, I’d be quite happy going back to reading more books.

8

People were certainly not unhappy before these “new-fangled” technologies came into popularity. And even before radio and movies, there were grand parties, book clubs, social events, strolls in the park, concerts, plays and sporting events.

That said, I think the Internet has been a positive change. Yes, porn too. But more importantly, it allows people to get information quickly - whether it be health related, for studies, for political reasons - it is like having the best encyclopedia available, 24 hours a day, at your fingertips. For people who live in rural areas, or are isolated for other reasons, the Internet might be their only contact to people. We are only now starting to see some of the changes (good and bad) resulting from this, but if you think about many of the countries currently overthrowing dictators in the Middle East, many of these technologies have been invaluable at organizing and unifying the populace. On a much smaller scale, if I think about what I have learned and heard about just here on the SDMB, it has made me aware of trends/books/movies/foods/styles and informational sources I might never have heard about within my closer circle of friends and family.

9

Good answers so far.

I suppose the main angle I’m trying to explore is whether many people consider a significant amount of time they’ve spent (spend) on the Internet, television and other easily addictive forms of home entertainment to be time that they’d wish to have spent doing something else. Or, would they simply transfer that time to other, but equally sedentary and/or non-social forms of entertainment, like listening to the radio and going to the movie theater? Conversely, others may feel that the amount of time spent on home entertainment is pretty much as it should be—well-balanced and perhaps even advantageous.

For me: I’m probably about average, or even a bit below average for the amount of time I spend on home entertainment. But still, I would like to reclaim many of those hours. I feel that I’ve wasted too many hours on non-enlightening home entertainment simply because it was the easiest and most convenient thing to settle for, and I’d spend a greater percentage of that time doing more enlightening things if television, in particular, did not exist. I say this as someone who doesn’t spend all that much time watching television and often seeks out educational shows when I do.

To be sure, many people, myself included, would listen to more radio and go to the movie theater more often, as people did before the advent of television and Internet, but not nearly to the same extent, I believe. The question is, what would you do with those reclaimed hours? What would society do with those reclaimed hours?

It’s not a binary good/bad scenario. One can certainly learn much and broaden horizons with the Internet and television. But, on balance, I think it’s somewhat more wasteful than beneficial for most people. This, of course, is contingent on what they would do with those hours if not spent on television and Internet. Patronize the symphony orchestra? Socialize more with friends and family? Get fatter on junk food? Get healthier with more exercise? More time on charity? Turn to petty crime out of boredom?

Perhaps I’m just romanticizing about the idea of living like a modernized Walton Family unencumbered by mind-numbing high-tech time wasters, gathering nightly around the big RCA radio, listening to an Obama Fireside Chat, strolling down the dirt road to Godsey’s Grocery for guacamole dip and a bottle of Grey Goose, going to bed tired and content each night: g’night Chip; g’night Brittany; g’night Josh-boy; momma, what’s that plastic thing in your drawer that vibrates?..g’night Emily!

10

The problem is, that radio was considered to be a “mind-numbing high-tech time waster” by some people when it first came out in the 1920s and '30s. Same for movies when they came out a decade or so earlier. :stuck_out_tongue:

“Young people don’t have to use their imagination to ‘hear’ the characters in a book or short story like when I was a kid! People sitting around the living room listening to Rudy Vallee or ‘Amos & Andy’ aren’t chatting like families did when I was a kid! And don’t get me started on movies with sound – you can just sit back and do absolutely nothing!” (Hypothetical old geezer circa 1930, not me – I was born in 1972. :wink: )

The lens of nostalgia is the only reason radio and movies seem any less a distraction than television or the 'net. I’m sure books looked like a high-tech time waster to the town story-teller. :wink:

11

I’d be a lot worse off without the internet - partly because, ironically enough, it’s my source for all of the Old Time radio shows that I love so much. (gotta love archive.org)

Video I could probably do without, and I stopped watching TV years ago anyway.

12

Oh, but wouldn’t the absence of television, especially, itself mean that the environment was a lot different?

Really? Can you point to anyone in that time who actually said any such thing?

I don’t think so. I tend to agree with Neil Postman that there is a real, qualitative difference between the prevailing culture of the television era and what came before–the preceding culture being that of the “typographic mind,” with radio being more akin in mind to writing and oratory than any of those is to television.

13

There are two possibilities:

(1) The more entertainment sources are available, the more time will be wasted.

or

(2) The more entertainment sources are available, the better use will be made of that time that would be “wasted” anyway, by devoting it to things that one really enjoys or is enriched by, rather than whatever happens to be available.

I suspect that, in reality, it’s a combination of (1) and (2), but you can make it far more (2) than (1) if you choose to (and have the self-control to follow through).

So, I voted “I’m happier now.” I have no reservations about this vote, but one thing I do miss is the societal cohesion: there was a lot more commonality and shared experience across society when everyone had to share the same few entertainment options available.