And we see that it clearly has a very negative impact overall so idk what kind of argument is that.
"everything sucked so we destroyed our environment and enslaved ourselves to machines to make it bearable"
You're talking about AC? Surely the climate dialogue hasn't devolved to the point of "uses energy == bad". We can reflect on its role in shaping society/living spaces and its costs and benefits without being so reductionist.
AC has had an extremely positive impact. Simple uses energy == bad reasoning hasn't.
Humans are just really good at externalizing costs on the environment and on each other.
And enough humans are driven by motivated reasoning so that entire organizations are devoted to disrupting any attempts at fixing things.
Those are human problems. Facebooks social problems are not caused by the evils of digital scrapbooking with reliable write/read coherence over shards. They are the evils of humans redirecting information based on perverse incentives, taking profits from others pain.
>“There’s this piece of art that goes around the internet of this dystopian kid in a corner, drooling, with goggles on with rainbow pictures and it’s a terrible looking place,” Carmack told Rogan. “And people say, ‘This is the world you’re trying to build, people plugged into virtual reality and ignoring the world around them.’”
>“Is his life really better if he takes them off and he’s in this horrible place?” he asked. “I live in Dallas. It’s 100 degrees there. We change the world around us in all that we do. We live in air-conditioning. People don’t generally go, ‘Oh, you’re not experiencing the world around you because of air-conditioning’ … That is what human beings do, we bend the world to our will.”
I guess it's a matter of perspective but I will say this: I had to isolate myself for months during covid, because of chronic issues that increase the risk of getting ICU'd. And while I missed social contact and leisurely walking under the sun, I can't say that I ever felt imprisoned. If anything, in times like these I would love to have even the emulation of the experience that is walking through a forest without having to worry about my allergies, my joints, snakes or getting lost.
What this all means is that, you're not "better" or "worse" than me for wanting to go in the countryside. You're only different. The whole notion of "you have no life if you work in front of a computer most of the time" was absurd to begin with. How is doing something that I enjoy doing "no life"? The solution to that is simple: Instead of applying societal pressure by pointing out that someone refuses to have a life by focusing too much into games, programming, anime or whatnot to inspect the reasons why they're not attracted to what you claim to be as "having a life".
What I'm saying is, getting out once or twice a week to get my sun exposure for some vitamin D works just fine for me, and I hope people will stop pointing out that "I don't have a life because I prefer X over Y". It's wrong, it's borderline "no true Scotchman" and pivots over the real issue that is respecting people's preferences without feeling that you have "more life" than others.