The Bovadium Fragments: Together with The Origin of Bovadium | Hacker News Reader

The Bovadium Fragments: Together with The Origin of Bovadium

kirkcenter.org

45 pointsfreediver27 comments

Tolkien was probably right in that he would have hated to live in 2026. We are literally building machines designed to replace people like him.

And yet, I can't help thinking that I would hate to live in Tolkien's time. When I was around 10, in 1975, I built a giant computer out of a cardboard box. To me, a computer was the same as a spaceship--something I would never own. Then in 1978, I saw an ad for a TRS-80 personal computer, and my world flipped.

Even now, in my 60s, I can't wait to sit down and start programming (with or without AI). I've had a long, fruitful, and extremely fun career with computers, and I can't imagine what I would have done without them.

Does that mean it's all relative? Whatever we're used to, that's what's good and any change is monstrous? Or is there really such a thing as progress and degeneration? Is it possible to say our time is better or worse than Tolkien's in some absolute sense?

I don't know. I think if you take a Rawlsian perspective, and imagine being a random person of the era, I think being born today is far preferable to being born in 1892. On every measure--childhood poverty, violent deaths, even air quality--2026 is better than 1892.

And that improvement is due almost entirely to technology--to the machine.

One of my favorite movies as a kid was Explorers (1985) where kids built a spaceship from a Tilt-A-Whirl and other parts. It was an inspiration. Like you, I enjoy programming, but I haven't built a spaceship yet. Hehe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorers_(film)

That movie was really incredible, right up until the part where they ran out of money making it and it took a right hand turn into being absolutely terrible.

When I was young I only saw the first half. Decades later I got to finish it ... what a letdown after all this time.

I heartily agree with you except for the ongoing childhood-screentime pandemic where kids aren't going outside to play, but instead are staying inside, alone, and maybe playing with others virtually, but with more exposure to harm (e.g. gambling). This is clearly going to cause some serious long term generational fallout.

Agreed--we're already seeing some of that, and I fully support minimizing kids' exposure to that.

I probably should have been explicit that I don't think technology has no downsides--it most certainly does. It's just, IMHO, the benefits outweigh the risks. And, over time, we figure out how to ameliorate the downsides.

I'm grateful that I got the best of both worlds. When I was young I could play outside with freedom and climb around on highly dangerous playground equipment and now that I'm older and more fragile I get to stay inside on the couch and play amazing video games all day.

It's a shame that kids today don't get the option to do crazy kid stuff while they're young and healthy enough to bounce back from injury. I can't blame the tech for that though. It's parents who don't restrict screentime and our society that thinks it's okay to call the police on parents who let their kids walk down the street unattended.

> and I can't imagine what I would have done without them.

You're falling into the trap of saying I could've only been happy if I did X. But humans aren't like that - even garbagemen find happiness in their work. The brain adapts to baseline no matter the field.

The second trap you're falling into is saying look how abundant things are compared to 1892. We have every statistic proven and locked down that abundance does not equal happiness.

Ages ago, I used to draw using pencils and having to ink drawings and then once 3 views were done, do all the work to make a 3D rendering --- while I appreciate Marshall MacLuhan's warnings concerning each technological advancement resulting in a matching amputation, the freedom and expressiveness which modern CAD affords is nothing short of miraculous --- it was pretty rare for there to be a draftsman whose artistic sensibilities allowed them to escape from the overnight drafting shift to making their own designs.

But happiness wasn't mentioned. There was "fun", "I can't imagine what I would have done without them", and "preferable". If happiness is not the goal, your point about being happy with garbage is irrelevant.

Do you believe that all work is equivalent? That no matter what job I chose, I would be equally happy? That is hard for me to believe.

Do you believe that, on balance, the world is no better today than in 1892? If so, that's where we disagree.

> Do you believe that, on balance, the world is no better today than in 1892? If so, that's where we disagree.

I think that the floor has been raised and the ceiling has been lowered for the typical person. There's far less suffering, but absence of suffering is not the same as happiness. In that respect I think a random 1892 person may have actually been happier. South Korea has 30x more suicides than Syria; the UK more than 3x Sudan; France more than 4x Afghanistan.

The lowered ceiling is much more within the agency of a person now than in 1892. That we are not is far more of a choice for most people now that so many more have food and shelter security, not to mention antibiotics.

> even garbagemen find happiness in their work.

Citation definitely needed.

The ones I know find happiness in their relatively high pay for an 8hr/day, no GED-required job, with the job security that the first few days are blindingly difficult for anyone to adapt to, even highly fit college athletes (source: 40+ garbageman whose son couldn't hack two days of it).

No, certain people will be a good fit for most jobs, but many jobs would leave you miserable even if you never knew anything else. People born into slavery weren't happy about it. What we know is that there is an amount of money/possessions that people need to be safe, secure, healthy, and satisfied and that abundance beyond that does very little to improve their happiness.

> When I was around 10, in 1975, I built a giant computer out of a cardboard box.

In around 1976, when I was five, I followed a smaller design: mine fit entirely inside an egg carton, with the tops painted various colors representing buttons. I had a roll of punched paper tape as a souvenir from my aunt, who worked in accounting for textile company. I fed that tape into the egg carton as input.

And so here we are ...

Tolkien really was a serious reactionary.

I’m not a fan of cars or environmental damage but the idyll that he puts on a pedestal just didn’t exist for the vast majority of humans in Britain (let alone elsewhere in the world)

The Cotswolds documented at their tail end (ended by the motorcycle and car) by Laurie Lee in "Cider With Rosie" had about the same existence for centuries.

I would push back on that concept a bit. I think if you lived in the Cotswolds in say 1920 you would be agog with the pace of change. Bicycles, industry, exploration the world even literacy. Everything around you was changing and the idea that this place was unchanged is simply not true.

Somebody in 1820 might not be able to read but by 1920 literacy had hit 96-97% (numbers for the UK in general), books became far more common etc etc

Change is the only constant.

Laurie Lee was born in 1914 and as a child, witnessed these changes, but he could also know from interacting with those much older, how little the basic rhythms of life had changed up until then.

Literacy in earlier years, from a quick search, still seems to be debated as the line for literacy is whether the person could sign their name to the marriage register, which is a low bar.

Ok, so I guess the litmus test is asking someone born in 1814 did they think they were living in a place that was changing fast - and I think you'd find a very similar answer, thats my point. Industrial revolution - was a very very big deal and changed society permanently including the Cotswolds.

Tolkien and Lewis came by their luddism fairly, having both survived the horrors of trench warfare.

Tolkien continues to be quite prescient then. The Automobile has been an unmitigated disaster for mankind, the environment, and society. It destroys the environment, it makes cities less pleasant to live in, it kills people, it causes extra friction to social interactions that damages social bonds.

> The Automobile makes cities less pleasant to live in

In 1900, there was a major manure crisis in all large european and north american cities. The swarms of flies were inescapable.

Although certainly the new roads required by increased population caused disruption.

It's fair to say that after all the descriptions of the shire vs isengard etc in the LoTR, his position on mechanization and cars isn't very surprising, but it's quite extraordinary for this to show up.

Wow what a treat, previously unreleased tolkien satire on one of my own hobby-horses. Put in an order with my local bookstore, so excited to read this!

This concept of "machine worship" reminds me of E. M. Forster's The Machine Stops.

Is it possible for a tech-oriented ideal to escape "machine worship"?

As we strive to refine our "machines" ever further, and our "machines" become ever more capable, where does that lead us?

The Machine Stops is incredible, it has influencers and everything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com