Do we need information faster than our predecessors?

[Doktor Howl]

Personally I would find it refreshing if I could make nerds to to pushups just by answering incorrectly.

Then all you gotta do is enlist and spend 3-6 years getting some stripes.  It's easy.

[Frontside Back]

Personally I would find it refreshing if I could make nerds to to pushups just by answering incorrectly.

Oh, you're one of those people, huh.  I remember your type from high-school.

If you mean by that I'm posturing to hide my own nerdiness you are absolutely correct.

[LMNO]

Possibly relevant.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/3/18624687/conservatism-liberals-internet-activism-jen-schradie

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

To the initial question, the answer is "no". We've always needed information this fast, it just hasn't been available this fast until now. That's why technology advanced so slowly for most of history. It's also why we have racism; for thousands of years most people were reliant on unreliable fifth-hand information for their information about other cultures, and cultures were more different from one another because different cultures would solve the same problems at different times and in different ways. Most of the instances where the native americans got shit on wouldn't have happened if european technology had reached them before the europeans did, instead of at the same time.

Regarding news specifically, there are definitely some historical battles that happened due to one or both sides not knowing that the war had ended, and faster communication would have prevented these (Sir Henry Morgan's assault on Panama, for example)

EDIT:
Slight correction to the end of the first paragraph, I mentioned "european technology" but was also thinking of firearms and those are technically a chinese and korean technology

[Pergamos]

Possibly relevant.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/3/18624687/conservatism-liberals-internet-activism-jen-schradie

She mentions, at the end of the article, that we need an open source social media network.  That already exists and it seems a shame to me that she's unaware of it.  It's still coalescing from a plethora of options, but they, mostly, share with each other.  It's called the federation, or the fediverse, depending on how you center it.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Can it still be defined as "information" if it's bullshit?
It's not the speed that's problematic. Getting an Amber alert or a tornado warning on your phone instead of maybe eventually hearing about it from somebody who heard it on the radio is a good thing.
It's the shit. So. Much. SHIT.

[The Johnny]

Im reading some book, and it like, directly spoke to me about this thread, but only in a single sentence :

"We are drowning in information, but without the power to understand, select, and analyse we cannot use that information well."

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

very little of it is survival-related, so it's probably not a "need"

What happens when information becomes integral to the survival mechanism?

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

I'm not sure how much students are taught "how to learn". And how reading a piece of info is not enough, it has to be received in the right conditions, elaborated on, felt internally, in order for it to become knowledge.

The ideal environment is one that allows the request of information "on demand", provided the information is subject to public scrutiny. The basic rules of logic and the guidelines of critical thinking should be a part of the learning process much earlier than they are. You can never be disinformation-free, but you can learn to know that it's okay to not always know anything for certain.

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

Can it still be defined as "information" if it's bullshit?
It's not the speed that's problematic.

There is information, misinformation, and disinformation. It's all data; data can be bad. And you're right.