cs.universityname.edu link

reminded me I had to read this for a Computer Science class too! Figured I'd post for nice discussion, but I did read this awhile ago and am going off the Wikipedia summary as a refresher, so please forgive any misrepresentation of the piece or bad assumptions I make about what it has to say.

I think I had the same perspective then that I do now. Still a certified hater of the "omg we're replacing nature (GOOD) with artificial (BAD)" bits, as someone who hates bugs and dirt and would never be caught hiking, and likes my artificial first-world comforts of air-conditioning, soap, and medically-necessary pills. Fully aware a lot of human innovation takes inspiration from how nature accomplishes things, and okay with that—why not copy a proven successful strategy? But I'm way more likely to align with "ripping life out of the jaws of cruel nature, thriving in spite of it" narratives, probably influenced by the way I've seen myself and others get screwed over by medical issues we were born with, and get helped by man-made treatment. (Yes, I understand humans live in this world, and if we want to keep having nice things that we construct out of Earth stuff, we have to treat it right and be sustainable and not pollute. And also not create unexpected side effects for us down the road by messing with complex ecosystems we do not fully understand. "I have a dim view of nature" still goes with "we must be responsible about our use of the environment" for me.)

But the blind machine worship, not being aware of the human influence that made it let alone how to repair it? I thought that was idiotic of the characters to have gotten to that point, and only now have I gotten to a point where I see that type of behavior. Not sure if I was more oblivious to the world when I read the piece, or if there was genuinely less of it, or if there was that behavior but it wasn't as written-about as it is today.

Absolutely see the bit about repeating others' ideas secondhand, not getting firsthand experience in my own life. I do not know how much of that is healthy. On one hand, I think it's correct, actually, that I listened to my mom saying "do not touch the stove, it is hot and will burn you" as a kid. I took the experience or knowledge my mom gained (not sure if she learned firsthand, or if she also listened to her own mom on that, or if she saw a sibling get burnt) and acted on it instead of trying firsthand and getting hurt. I had a period in my life where I tried to read about other peoples' experiences. Trying to broaden my horizons, but also to gain lots and lots of secondhand experience with which to avoid having to learn the hard way firsthand, instead, using the knowledge of others as a cheat code for an easier path. I still think this was healthy, and don't know at which point this type of behavior needs to stop before it becomes an issue like in the story.

For what it's worth I think TheMachineStops!andioop would probably be an underground sheeple the story is arguing against, able to tell you all the many ways the air is toxic and the environment is harsh and as such that is why I'd rather stay underground, figuring going outside to see it for myself is pointless. I do hope I wouldn't give into machine worship, but who knows?