Are we addicted to new?

[Flintlockecole]

New? The newest thing, actually I should say modern thing's would be my my computer, T.v and some of the wiring. I don't get the constant "I need this *random crap* even though the stuff I have works fine as is"

[draconix]

 

First thing's first, I doubt anyone will be able to become nostalgic of thing in the era when people died at 30 of the Bloody Flux (dysentery). Unless said people are immortal, I doubt they'll have experienced said era, it being hundreds of years ago. I think most people here are referring to the 1950s, where in many aspects, life was better, even though I've never experienced it. You know what this era has done that the 50s era didn't? Made us lazy.

 

Back in the 1950s, people were actually willing to learn, willing to work hard. They didn't have the technology we take for granted such as dishwashers, computers, etc that make our lives so much easier, and also make us lazier. People back then were hardier, tougher and just got on with what needed to be done. The new generation that has experienced nothing but the easy life in comparison are mostly now just a bunch of whiners. Rather than get on with it, we just complain about it instead.

 

Also, children back in the 50s were much better behaved. Family was closer and people generally respected each other more. Back in the 50s, most schools didn't have "inclusion units" (disciplinery rooms), these days, nearly every major high school has one.

 

I was born in 1991, and as such am part of this generation that seems to go crazy over the latest trends, technology, etc. To be honest with you, there are many things, such as what I listed above, that I wish were still here today. So no, this generation isn't exactly all glossy and awesome, and has many flaws, possibly more so than the older generations.

 

Two things:

 

First, your response didn't touch upon the argument that I put forth regarding "our addiction to new," so my argument for "no" is still perfectly valid.

 

Second, nostalgia does not have to be experienced first-hand. It can be passed down from generation to generation through stories and tall tales, each retelling more grandiose than the last. This is why I referred to the distant history. Also, later you bring up the 1950's, as if the people in the 1950's didn't have, or want anything new. It doesn't take more than a quick glance at the automotive industry to invalidate that. The 1950's had Radio, TV, and Rock & Roll. So I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to make here regarding "our addiction to new." So that part was pretty much a red herring.

[McclaudEagle]

I was referring to his part:

 

This gives a person the perspective that life is going to hell in a hand-basket, all the while there is objective proof that quite the contrary is happening.

 

If you're thinking this world isn't going to hell, you're quite wrong. Yes, we may be getting all these new things, but there are things back then that either didn't happen or are much worse today. Here's a good list:

 

9/11 (2001 USA)

War Against Terrorism (2001 - 2011 Iraq/Afghanistan)

7/7 Bombings (2005 London)

Norwegian shootings/bombing (2011)

Libyan Uprising (2011)

Egypt Uprising (2011)

Gaza War (2008 Gaza vs Israel)

al-Qaeda

Taliban

Hamas

Global Economic Crysis (2008-2009)

 

List could go on. If that isn't the World going to Hell, I don't know what is.

 

Anyway, I've also already explained as to some of the things that were better than and are worse now (e.g. laziness)

[LadyMilla]

I was referring to his part:

 

This gives a person the perspective that life is going to hell in a hand-basket, all the while there is objective proof that quite the contrary is happening.

 

If you're thinking this world isn't going to hell, you're quite wrong. Yes, we may be getting all these new things, but there are things back then that either didn't happen or are much worse today. Here's a good list:

 

9/11 (2001 USA)

War Against Terrorism (2001 - 2011 Iraq/Afghanistan)

7/7 Bombings (2005 London)

Norwegian shootings/bombing (2011)

Libyan Uprising (2011)

Egypt Uprising (2011)

Gaza War (2008 Gaza vs Israel)

al-Qaeda

Taliban

Hamas

Global Economic Crysis (2008-2009)

 

List could go on. If that isn't the World going to Hell, I don't know what is.

 

Anyway, I've also already explained as to some of the things that were better than and are worse now (e.g. laziness)

 

Hm.

 

Cuban Revolution in 1959

Cuban Missile Crisis (world was close to becoming a Fallout universe)

Vietnam War

Six-Day War in 1967

Yom-Kippur War in 1973

Suez Crisis in 1956

Korean war 1950-1953

Revolutions in Soviet satellite states during the 50's

 

It seems the world was always on a straight road to hell.

 

[McclaudEagle]

True, but there's a difference between war and terrorism. Back then, war is pretty common as it always has been, always is and always will be. Terrorism on the scale it's been happening is a relatively new concept, with the exception of the IRA's attacks on the UK back in the 70s or 80s. Back then, it'd be almost unlikely that a terrorist group would plow 4 planes into buildings and a field. The point is that the World is much worse now than it was a few decades ago, and things are probably only going to get worse for the foreseeable future.

[marharth]

True, but there's a difference between war and terrorism. Back then, war is pretty common as it always has been, always is and always will be. Terrorism on the scale it's been happening is a relatively new concept, with the exception of the IRA's attacks on the UK back in the 70s or 80s. Back then, it'd be almost unlikely that a terrorist group would plow 4 planes into buildings and a field. The point is that the World is much worse now than it was a few decades ago, and things are probably only going to get worse for the foreseeable future.

I don't think the problem is terrorism as much as it is the worlds reaction to terrorism.

 

That's probably conversational to say and I am ready for a ton of people replying to me saying I am wrong.

[draconix]

True, but there's a difference between war and terrorism. Back then, war is pretty common as it always has been, always is and always will be. Terrorism on the scale it's been happening is a relatively new concept, with the exception of the IRA's attacks on the UK back in the 70s or 80s. Back then, it'd be almost unlikely that a terrorist group would plow 4 planes into buildings and a field. The point is that the World is much worse now than it was a few decades ago, and things are probably only going to get worse for the foreseeable future.

I don't think the problem is terrorism as much as it is the worlds reaction to terrorism.

@Mcclaud:

Terrorism is just a name slapped on any group of people acting against a country, and it's by no means something new. Terrorists are the same as Guerillas, are the same as insurgents, are the same as revolutionaries, are the same as rebels, are the same as a band of merry men. "Terrorism" is the buzz word of the new millennium. Nothing has changed. Also, we're way off topic. I still have valid points awaiting rebuttal.

 

And I agree with Marharth. The way that information spreads now is such that we hear about everything bad that happens, for better or worse. News outlets are trying to sell papers or get viewers, so the more shocking the headline the better, so we are bombarded much more heavily by the crazy crap that goes on in the world. Also, the word "terrorism" has been thrown around by the media so much that ironically, it could be argued that the media are the ones currently terrorizing the citizens of the United States. It's ironic, and disturbing.

 

At any rate, this "Debate" isn't really supposed to be about terrorism.

I've decided to refrain from posting any more in this topic until it returns from this tangent. If someone here wants to debate the origins of terrorism, I'd recommend starting a topic on it.

 

Once again, to re-state my currently unopposed argument:

We are not addicted to "new" because it's only "addiction" when it affects one's ability to function in everyday life. To the contrary, the want of "new" is what drives us to function in the first place.

Edited July 25, 2011 by draconix

[Aurielius]

Once again, to re-state my currently unopposed argument:

We are not addicted to "new" because it's only "addiction" when it affects one's ability to function in everyday life. To the contrary, the want of "new" is what drives us to function in the first place.

 

I like a strictly framed argument, so lets take the case of modern cell phones. Most people replace their cell phone long before it's functionality ceases simply because there is a newer version with more capacity available. Is the incessant use of cell phones addictive? Well find me someone under thirty that does not text constantly as a means of rapid communication with their peers, there are now laws on the books prohibiting the use of cell phones that are not 'hands free' while driving, if it was not addictive why the necessity to attempt to multi task when your attention should be on the real task at hand..driving safely. Second case..PC's all of us here are using a PC of some form, but how many of your PC's were replaced because of machine failure? Most upgrades come from a desire to stay current with the technological wave instead of the lack of functionality of your old machine. Next lets look at the American fascination with cars, most cars are traded in within four years long before their real use has been used up.

Now lets us look at women's fashion, how many women will buy the latest fashion regardless of the functionality of their current wardrobe? The additive qualification for all the above is the monetary outlay when the 'new' is acquired when it would be more prudent to not to spend the money.

[grannywils]

Once again, to re-state my currently unopposed argument:

We are not addicted to "new" because it's only "addiction" when it affects one's ability to function in everyday life. To the contrary, the want of "new" is what drives us to function in the first place.

 

I like a strictly framed argument, so lets take the case of modern cell phones. Most people replace their cell phone long before it's functionality ceases simply because there is a newer version with more capacity available. Is the incessant use of cell phones addictive? Well find me someone under thirty that does not text constantly as a means of rapid communication with their peers, there are now laws on the books prohibiting the use of cell phones that are not 'hands free' while driving, if it was not addictive why the necessity to attempt to multi task when your attention should be on the real task at hand..driving safely. Second case..PC's all of us here are using a PC of some form, but how many of your PC's were replaced because of machine failure? Most upgrades come from a desire to stay current with the technological wave instead of the lack of functionality of your old machine. Next lets look at the American fascination with cars, most cars are traded in within four years long before their real use has been used up.

Now lets us look at women's fashion, how many women will buy the latest fashion regardless of the functionality of their current wardrobe? The additive qualification for all the above is the monetary outlay when the 'new' is acquired when it would be more prudent to not to spend the money.

 

You have not been in my house lately, A. Admit to a little weakness when it comes to the computer stuff (mainly because my husband is a computer tech); but don't own a cell phone, have a car and a truck both with close to 200K mile on them, and not even looking at new ones. Have not bought any new clothes since I moved to New Mexico in 2006. However, in spite of that, I agree with what you say with respect to a majority of the younger population. Seems a bit tragic to me in some way though....

[draconix]

I like a strictly framed argument, so lets take the case of modern cell phones. Most people replace their cell phone long before it's functionality ceases simply because there is a newer version with more capacity available. Is the incessant use of cell phones addictive? Well find me someone under thirty that does not text constantly as a means of rapid communication with their peers, there are now laws on the books prohibiting the use of cell phones that are not 'hands free' while driving, if it was not addictive why the necessity to attempt to multi task when your attention should be on the real task at hand..driving safely. Second case..PC's all of us here are using a PC of some form, but how many of your PC's were replaced because of machine failure? Most upgrades come from a desire to stay current with the technological wave instead of the lack of functionality of your old machine. Next lets look at the American fascination with cars, most cars are traded in within four years long before their real use has been used up.

Now lets us look at women's fashion, how many women will buy the latest fashion regardless of the functionality of their current wardrobe? The additive qualification for all the above is the monetary outlay when the 'new' is acquired when it would be more prudent to not to spend the money.

 

Alright! That's what I'm talking about!

By offering these scenarios your intention is to show that we are addicted to new by showing that it affects our ability to function in daily life. It is therefore my duty to defend my stance. For ease of reading, I'll simplify your scenarios for labelling only, I'll be responding to the original post directly.

 

1.1 People regularly trade in functioning cell phones for newer cell phones regardless of their functionality.

1.2 People are addicted to their cell phones based on the way they use them, often illegally, which one could say does affect their ability to function in everyday life.

2.1 People regularly replace PCs with newer PCs regardless of their current functionality.

3.1 People regularly trade in functioning vehicles for newer vehicles regardless of their functionality.

4.1 Women may regularly update their wardrobe, even though their older clothing is not damaged or worn out.

5.1 All of the above (except 1.2) requires the spending of a lot of money, unwisely, which is what affects our ability to function in everyday life.

 

So here are my responses to each scenario:

1.2: This has some truth to it. Often times people will use their phones illegally, however if we were to apply this logic elsewhere, we can see where it falls short. If a man regularly speeds 5 miles per hour over the speed limit, (which I do,) is this indicative of a man being addicted to his vehicle (the object which is being used to break a law)? If a serial killer shoots several people with the same gun, is this because he is addicted to the gun? You might have better luck stating that the man is addicted to speed, and that the murderer is addicted to murder. The person on the cellular phone may be addicted to communication, but I'd hesitate to concede that they were addicted to their phone. Even so, being addicted to a phone does not necessarily mean that person would be addicted to a new phone, as old phones are perfectly capable of texting and communication whilst driving as well.

 

5.1: This one is kind of tricky. It is a fact that buying too much can affect daily life. This is clearly evidenced by "shopaholics," a serious mental condition, more formally known as Compulsive Buying Disorder. However, most will not deny the fact that not everybody who buys a new cell phone, car, or clothing has CBD. In fact, only about 6% of people in the united states have this disorder, and of that 6%, something like 80% of them are female.* It stands to reason that anybody who does not have CDB is not addicted to buying new things.

 

1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1: Each of these scenarios implies that replacing an item before it's beyond use is frivolous. However, these implications only relate to the current debate in the instance that 5.1 is true, which I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated to be false. If not, please explain how, and I'd be happy to continue this debate further. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/thumbsup.gif

 

*These figures come from Wikipedia which some may consider to be unreliable, however my argument does not rely on these figures for soundness. These figures were added for supplementary support to add further credibility to a commonly held belief that not all buyers of new products have CBD.

One last note: Thank you so much for bringing your challenging argument to the table. I was starting to lose hope that I'd see a good debate in this topic. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif