Nonsense. Define “immature” first, then make a compelling argument. I predict whatever definition of “immature” you use will leave you without a compelling argument, because that is the wrong way to approach it.
Technological advancement is inevitable once evolution created humans the way it did. Read “Understanging Media” by McLuhan.
Huh? I am not exactly pro-gun, but huh?
3 year olds have and have had pistols since pistols were invented. Most of them are toys, or imaginary. Most of the rest are unloaded. Handing a 3 year old a pistol is not “Likely” to get someone shot. Your terms are being defined by you to make your point, but in doing so you are limiting the terms to the breaking point. That is not persuasive as a rational argument, although it may be fine as propaganda.
That again is your speculation. And I am sure, even beyond my anecdote below, is demonstrably false.
I personally feel far more connected to people outside my friends and family in 2009 than I did at any time past, precisely because technology for managing the connections is improving and widely available.
People have always felt lonely (close to home) and sought to improve communications in order to reach out to people on a economic, diplomatic, or personal scale. It is the nature of being human.
If you want to point out a time when people were not lonely, and being disconnected on all levels was beneficial, and that you would like to go back to, and you can propose a way it can be reached as an equilibrium, go ahead. But personally, I see laments like this (not just here on the SDMB of course) and think it is just that - a lament - rather than something deep or practical.
No because there never was any “community” absent “networks”. See McLuhan.
That is precisely the OPPOSITE of what others have been saying, that people have become cogs n the wheel for the benefit of broader society but at detriment to themselves.
BFD - in the old days we phoned, wrote letters, or did without. How is this any different?
Speak for yourself. Not “We”. I see plenty of human contact everywhere, and I recall the same arguments being made in the 60s and probably always. That was probably what led McLuhan into looking into the patterns of technological innovation and communication throughout history in the first place.
Really, this is a universal lament across history, and that is why I suggest that if you were to undo it, it is a reductionist argument and you would be left with a “pre-history” state of affairs, hence the “hunter-gatherer” society.
There was no other time which even has the potential of satisfying your lament. I would argue that pre-history doesn’t either, but at least that is the base so I acknowledge the potential would be worth discussing.
If you are speaking for yourself, than probably the “first person singular” is the better choice. You are not talking for me, your experience is not mine, so “first person plural” is the wrong choice.
Really?
For 5 generations, you would have us stop asking questions about stuff and making sense of our world?
How pray tell do you plan to do that? Who would measure it, police it, enforce it, store today’s knowledge to be unlocked for 2110?
Again with the undefined terms: “humanity” and “catch-up”.
How will that happen if we are not allowed new knowledge, awareness of patterns? Some kid shouldn’t grow up to try to predict the weather better, or learn how to fill a pothole in a road with a material that will last longer?
How are you going to teach 5 generations that they are not allowed to synthesize existing knowledge and observations into something new? To me, the ability to do that is precisely what “humanity” is, as opposed to being “non-human”.
So what do you think is going to happen in that 100 years exactly?