Hacker News Reader

I guess part of my argument is that, in moderation and with self-awareness, "surrogate activities" can be healthy and beneficial.

In fact I think they're especially beneficial when the "natural" means for getting that fulfillment does in fact cause harm. Or, even when the natural activity simply has no other costs or benefits, the surrogate version might be able to meet the fulfillment more effectively than the real thing.

In some sense, art's very purpose is to produce these surrogate experiences. I think they are essential to being a healthy, functioning human being.

"In moderation and with self-awareness" is the same argument typically used for the licitness of drugs, alcohol, nutritionally devoid food, and dozens of other externality-generating vices.

Yes, they frequently replace deficits in an individual's life with something that would otherwise cause them to disrupt the status quo. The question remains, at what cost? Is it sustainable? Are these activities robbing some humans at the expense of others?

Consider a YouTube video: Water Bottle Flip 2. It's about five minutes long and has been nominally viewed 300 million times, plus change.

That's approaching 3000 years of human time spent for a single video on a single service. The audience was probably entertained for that period but at what cost? What could have been in that lacunae? What else could have been accomplished or learned with that 3,000 years? What was the opportunity cost? For the countless children who watch it, what part of the pre-Internet childhood shared by all human history is being sacrificed for it? What part was sacrificed for the 23,000 years spent on Baby Shark?

I don't disagree that there is a place for moderation and art, but what we're seeing on a grand scale is that the ascendancy of cultural forms that enable moderation are themselves being consumed or otherwise blanketed out with dopamine levers that are the first thing many people touch in the morning and the last thing they touch at night. That's not playing guitar, restoring vintage computers, or collecting Magic cards. That's a massive undiagnosed public health crisis.

> That's approaching 3000 years of human time spent for a single video on a single service

> What else could have been accomplished or learned with that 3,000 years?

A video does not become more or less of a waste of time, per person, based on how many people watch it.

You could identify a different statistic, say hours watched per person, and make a different "scale of video watching is wasteful" argument.

Civilization is a surrogate activity factory. Language and literature makes people's lives more hollow, less connected, less human, but in exchange, gives them the illusion that they are living principled, meaningful lives, living in caves[1], like brains in a jar.

[1]: figuratively speaking. Technically it's what got them out of living in caves, but bear with me here.

quoting the unabomber, wow

http://xahlee.org/p/um/um-s06.html

as a countering antecode, everyone I know uses the utilities of the internet to no major ill effect. and like you can point to many valid criticisms of modern tech and it's usage, but painting entertainment sources like discord and social media platforms like Facebook as "destroying the very notion of being human" sounds a tad exaggerated

First, I think it's super important for anyone working in technology to read, understand, and think really hard about Kaczynski-style arguments like this one.

> If you're making useless things, you have a surrogate activity. We use the term “surrogate activity” to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the “fulfillment” that they get from pursuing the goal.

The concept of "surrogate activity" breaks down once you understand human action. Whether in pre-historic African savanna or in modern-day NYC, people always act to improve their present conditions. Humans are different from animals in that we can initiate voluntary conscious action.

Kaczynski doesn't differentiate between involuntary (animal) action in response to stimuli, and purposeful human action, which is not and never was about mere "biological needs."

> At root, it's not about "making the world better", it's about professionals looting the commons to live in fancy bubbles where the only competition is staying ahead of others in the bubble. Hacker News is not the place to say this, as it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Because humans prefer wealth to poverty, much of human action is about creating wealth. You can create wealth without "looting" others. In fact, it's a lot easier to corporate with others, trade, and help each other build wealth than it is to steal.

Humans will work first to obtain their basic needs, such as food and shelter. Some may complain that there are people on welfare, who have these basic needs provided, so that they no longer need to make an effort for these things. But for these people, how would they provide for their basic needs, if they were forced to? They can't just go out and grow food, because they don't own any land. They can't build a house, because they don't own land or have access to building materials, skills, or the right government permits. Their only option would be to go out and get a job, but what if they don't have the right background, training, experience, and nobody wants to employ them?

In any case, once humans have satisfied their basic needs, one way or another, they can then do what they want. Some will want luxuries, like expensive and visible possessions or travel and fancy meals. Others will accumulate wealth to try to obtain power and control over others, or at least financial independence for themselves so they can opt out of employment. Some will just relax and play games all day, or follow other hobbies or sports as they prefer. The latter are what you are classifying as "surrogate activity", but I don't know if there's really any harm in it.

No that's not what's meant by "surrogate activity," not in the way OP quoting Ted Kaczynski meant to mean. They define anything other than the most basic, like hunting and gathering, as a surrogate activity. So anything that we call a career today where you can work, make progress, and maybe even enjoy is, in their opinion, a "surrogate activity." I suggest reading TK, it's a very cynical worldview, but there is some truth to some of the arguments, and definitely something worth taking seriously.

Human populations are too large today to rely on hunting and gathering, but perhaps you could replace it with subsistence agriculture. But in the modern economy, it shouldn't really require anybody to work more than 10 or 15 hours a week to satisfy basic needs such as food and accommodation: otherwise, they are likely being swindled. So it leaves the problem of what to do for the rest of the time.

Of course there are movements that say science, technology, industrialisation are things to be avoided, such as the Amish or primitivist anarchists.

> The concept of "surrogate activity" breaks down once you understand human action. Whether in pre-historic African savanna or in modern-day NYC, people always act to improve their present conditions.

Have you read Jacques Ellul (i.e. the ur-"Kaczynski-style" argument)? Ellul defines technique as "[..] the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity." I don't think you can reasonably state that Ellul nor Kaczynski fail to "understand human action".

In this case, the problem isn't that people are maximizing their own self-interest. The problem is that they aren't. Yes, they're making a "voluntary" "choice" to use an addictive technology and a liberal, market-based society is providing individuals with what they actually "want" rather than what they think they want. What those people without antibodies "want" are Skinner Boxes and the market is happily providing them, all up and down the line. This does not seem to be resulting in a functional civic society.

> Humans are different from animals in that we can initiate voluntary conscious action. Kaczynski doesn't differentiate between involuntary (animal) action in response to stimuli, and purposeful human action, which is not and never was about mere "biological needs."

Where is the evidence that there is such a thing as "voluntary conscious" or "purposeful" action" and not "mere biological needs"? If there were a difference in principle between the two, how exactly does that invalidate the argument that "voluntary conscious action" is not triggered when people aren't bored and have meaningful hurdles to overcome in their own lives?

> Because humans prefer wealth to poverty, much of human action is about creating wealth. You can create wealth without "looting" others. In fact, it's a lot easier to corporate with others, trade, and help each other build wealth than it is to steal.

I'm sure that some members of every society that reached an equilibrium with their environment that was later disrupted by the intrusions of foreign markets would disagree. "Staying competitive" is a more compelling explanation for as to why "humans" "prefer" "wealth" rather than that all humans are naturally materialistic and acquisitive. If you don't run faster than the slowest member, you will be eaten. If you don't think faster than the slowest member of the tribe, you will be sacrificed. If you don't adopt, you will be enslaved by those who do. That's a great way to optimally allocate resources, but once again, this dynamic and addictive technology does not seem to be creating a functional civic society.

You forgot the attribution.

Uncle Ted aka unabomber.

Ted Kaczynski got the bulk of his ideas from Jacques Ellul and the Technological Society. Ellul was emphatically a pacifist, an anarchist, and a well-respected intellectual.

> They (family members, parents included) don't know how to cook, how to learn, how to grow as humans.

Guessing about their age, your parents' development likely predated mass computing. Their inability to do these things is not caused by computers...

Would you be any more charitable or engaging with the entire argument if I replaced "don't know how to", an implicitly ambiguous phrase that entertains both forgetting and lack of mastery, with an explicitly cumbersome variant? "My parents and siblings have forgotten how to cook, how to learn, how to grow as humans, where my nieces and nephews never learned"?

I don't buy the unsubstantiated argument that computing is the root cause of people's willful ignorance -- if anything, we have more unfettered access to information, and that appears to have a substantial impact on reducing extreme global poverty. See other response:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23597096