DISQUS

Great point, Matt. Thanks for this very interesting article. I was unaware of KaChing but my sentiments about the need for more reason and responsibility when it comes to the stock market are closely aligned with yours.

I agree that this is true. It's troubling to me, though, that even as we consume, we do not often question how advertising can affect us morally or spiritually. While we may have the freedom to express ourselves in many ways as consumers, we also should question our needs vs. wants and ask ourselves how advertising addresses these. I feel that advertising primarily addresses our wants rather than our needs, and it seems that, in general, the marketing process does not build us up as humans but instead appeals into our deepest flaws of greed and insecurity. I guess I just wish businesses and advertising as whole cultures would spend more time figuring out how to help us become better humans, instead of being satisfied when we become worse ones.

HMM, this is all very interesting! Have you read the article connected with my last post, "Death of the Humanities, a reply to Stanley Fish" ? In it, I mention an article in the New Yorker, entitled "Twilight of the Books." Give it a read, if you don't mind a little more light reading. I can send a hard copy your way if you don't have the kindle yet.

Mac, thanks for the comment! While I agree with you that it might be impossible to ever pursue some types of progress without the advent of new information, I would argue we might still make progress in other areas outside of the bubble of the "fractal, ever-expanding web of new information,"...theoretically of course, and we might not be able to continue far into the future without it...

The bigger question I have, and indeed, the one raised in the Postman article as well, is whether or not we need new information to help us become better humans or citizens (this requires a subjective analysis, I know). Take this into consideration, though: Could I be a better friend or neighbor, a more committed or loyal spouse, a more thoughtful voter, or could a someone become more selfless or altruistic (and continue to become so) without new information changing the culture in which we interact or the ways we interact? I believe they could. For example, Facebook has allowed me to have a more accessable network through which I can communicate with other people, but does it necessarily make me a better friend? In fact, maybe it makes me a more ambivalent friend because I use a less-personal means of communication than I used to. I argue that while information can empower us, and help us or cause us to change in myriad ways, we should realize that to improve our lives in some of the most essential areas, especially in how we relate to one another as humans, we may not require new information at all, but rather we could look to what our ancestors did before many of the technological advances we have today: they spent a lot more time together in groups, building tightly woven communities, and their hearts were put at ease by simpler pleasures.