Summary in the first 1:45.... Opinion. Opinion. Reading does what? .. Charged-language about Politics. Opinion. Critical about Charged Language. Anyway He Wins you over.
You summarized the creation of the 20th century far to quickly. You summarized the media to quickly. Your questions do not enlighten any positives.
Microphones. Helps your problems and Hurts my ears. From there on out its Technophobic answers.
@datascatter absolutly non sense ! I support Direct Democracy, yes, but it has nothing to do with what you just posted...
:) I am not a spammer, as you can see I am interested in this discussion.
I wrote a lot about the new technology and how it affects the power structure in society. You cannot write an entire argument here, so I link to more info...
"what new sources of economic and political power will emerge?" This is an important question. To understand who the new digital technology is fundamentally transforming our society please search "Multitude Project"
He said, "I don't if much can be done to moderate the cultural changes that media entrepreneurs will enforce, but citizens ought to know what is happening, and keep an attentive eye on such people."
Although I'm amused by Postman's ability to polarize people, I often think those who are negative to his message are missing the point. He is not a technophobe. He is simply raising our consciousness to some of the most important questions of our time.
If he were still with us, he probably wouldn't ask us to stop using YouTube - he would ask us to reflect on it.
Thanks to Neil Postman I've made a habit of reading more books, and for that I am eternally grateful. Rest in peace, Neil.
Yes! And I think when he appears/sounds like he is making statements that are technophobic, they are actually just consciously assertive statements "against" technology to make us reflect. He is only being so assertive to counter our society's assertive tendency of not reflecting on technology
@pietrosammarco And also, this youtube video of "Neil Postman speaking" in 1998 (02/07/1998 top right of the video) should be understood/reflected upon in context of that year, and the technological ecosystem of that time. Imagine what the internet was like back then. I think Postman would want us to NOT take the denotative value of what he was saying in this presentation as a bible of "literal truth", but as words conveying a message.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, because time proved him wrong on most everything. Or do you really wanna get rid of the internet, because "no one needs so many tv channels"?
And if he would just take a quick look into history, he would notice that the majority of our useful inventions came from something no one would have predicted to be useful. Check out James Burke and his show "connections. He has much smarter things to say :D
From this clip i can't see where history has proven him wrong and I don't think he want's to get rid if the internet because no one needs 40 tv channels. He tells people to think about what problem a new invention is solving. And states the fact that new solution might cause new problems. A new technology give something to the people but some other thing is being taken away. Usually the thing given means more then what is lost.
My comment was a year old, so I cant remember the details and wont watch it all again. But for one: He mocks the funding of the internet (by Gore). He would have not supported it. IMO we would have lost the greatest invention of the last 100 years.
He also demands that we assess beforehand what problem a research solves. But the internet and other history shows: its not possible to foresee future uses. Electricity comes in a way from the discovery that you can make dead frogs twitch their legs.
@tokotokotoko3 No, no, no. Electricity was used to discover that there are electrochemical processes going on in muscle tissue. They applied an ELECTRICAL circuit to the frog's legs. Jeez, the stupidity.
Summary in the first 1:45.... Opinion. Opinion. Reading does what? .. Charged-language about Politics. Opinion. Critical about Charged Language. Anyway He Wins you over.
You summarized the creation of the 20th century far to quickly. You summarized the media to quickly. Your questions do not enlighten any positives.
Microphones. Helps your problems and Hurts my ears. From there on out its Technophobic answers.
JustATheist 11 months ago
This entire speech ought to be required viewing.
vintagedesert 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be a part of Russian ladies community gettop5.info
TaylorWmh 1 year ago
@datascatter absolutly non sense ! I support Direct Democracy, yes, but it has nothing to do with what you just posted...
:) I am not a spammer, as you can see I am interested in this discussion.
I wrote a lot about the new technology and how it affects the power structure in society. You cannot write an entire argument here, so I link to more info...
TiberiusBrast 1 year ago
"what new sources of economic and political power will emerge?" This is an important question. To understand who the new digital technology is fundamentally transforming our society please search "Multitude Project"
TiberiusBrast 1 year ago
(take-away:)
(4:30)
What is the problem this thechnology will solve?
Whose problem is it?
What new problems will be created...?
What people and institutions will be most seriously harmed?
What changes in language are occurring as a result...?
What new sources of conomic and political power will emerge?
wda013 1 year ago
Did he just say... "moderate the cultural changes"?
wow. Did the irony escape everyone else?
MadsterV 2 years ago
@MadsterV
He said, "I don't if much can be done to moderate the cultural changes that media entrepreneurs will enforce, but citizens ought to know what is happening, and keep an attentive eye on such people."
929myohmy 2 years ago
oh okay then, I thought it was weird and I got lost in the sentence
MadsterV 2 years ago
maybe the most important thing he has encouraged is we need to ask questions.
kskunk 2 years ago
Although I'm amused by Postman's ability to polarize people, I often think those who are negative to his message are missing the point. He is not a technophobe. He is simply raising our consciousness to some of the most important questions of our time.
If he were still with us, he probably wouldn't ask us to stop using YouTube - he would ask us to reflect on it.
Thanks to Neil Postman I've made a habit of reading more books, and for that I am eternally grateful. Rest in peace, Neil.
darkhorserider88 3 years ago 14
@darkhorserider88
Yes! And I think when he appears/sounds like he is making statements that are technophobic, they are actually just consciously assertive statements "against" technology to make us reflect. He is only being so assertive to counter our society's assertive tendency of not reflecting on technology
pietrosammarco 1 year ago
Comment removed
pietrosammarco 1 year ago
@pietrosammarco And also, this youtube video of "Neil Postman speaking" in 1998 (02/07/1998 top right of the video) should be understood/reflected upon in context of that year, and the technological ecosystem of that time. Imagine what the internet was like back then. I think Postman would want us to NOT take the denotative value of what he was saying in this presentation as a bible of "literal truth", but as words conveying a message.
pietrosammarco 1 year ago
This lecture is a synopsis of his book "Technopoly."
djm99001 4 years ago
definitely, it's disappointing that only 1/4 of the people who viewed the first part viewed the last part as well, and telling
scoliosispony 4 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Makes sense - its not a smart lecture. Especially if you see it from the perspective of the time passed.
tokotokotoko3 4 years ago
How do you mean?
typeclash 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, because time proved him wrong on most everything. Or do you really wanna get rid of the internet, because "no one needs so many tv channels"?
And if he would just take a quick look into history, he would notice that the majority of our useful inventions came from something no one would have predicted to be useful. Check out James Burke and his show "connections. He has much smarter things to say :D
tokotokotoko3 3 years ago
Tnx for the tip, I will check into James Burke. If I wan't to get rid of the internet, hmm, ask me again in 25 years :).
typeclash 3 years ago
From this clip i can't see where history has proven him wrong and I don't think he want's to get rid if the internet because no one needs 40 tv channels. He tells people to think about what problem a new invention is solving. And states the fact that new solution might cause new problems. A new technology give something to the people but some other thing is being taken away. Usually the thing given means more then what is lost.
typeclash 2 years ago
The thing about internet is that it gives us so much at many different aspects of life but it's hard to say what is being lost in the process.
typeclash 2 years ago
My comment was a year old, so I cant remember the details and wont watch it all again. But for one: He mocks the funding of the internet (by Gore). He would have not supported it. IMO we would have lost the greatest invention of the last 100 years.
He also demands that we assess beforehand what problem a research solves. But the internet and other history shows: its not possible to foresee future uses. Electricity comes in a way from the discovery that you can make dead frogs twitch their legs.
tokotokotoko3 2 years ago
@tokotokotoko3 No, no, no. Electricity was used to discover that there are electrochemical processes going on in muscle tissue. They applied an ELECTRICAL circuit to the frog's legs. Jeez, the stupidity.
wompeter1 2 years ago
great lecture. it's deserving of more views.
soulstice99 4 years ago 3
or at least it deserves some reflection
typeclash 3 years ago