2006-07-31 16:37:27 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Take a history lesson and take a look back in the 1800's. People were happy with what they had. At the time they had the latest innovations and things like the internet, tv, and radio were obsolete and they were no affected by it because they did not know about it. Which makes you think, if technology has come this far, where do you think it will take us in the next 100 years. Life would not be as exciting but we would not know about it.
2006-07-31 16:45:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
These world media devices are all double-sided swords in that they are all controlled to some extent. Television and radio, like newspapers, are determined by the current government to show material that supports their point of view. Murduch's fox is a great example of how politics is so influential on the media.
The internet, on the other hand, has much more diverse angles or points of view to share, although it is limited by the growing lack of authenticity many websites have- where the information contained is usually as one-sided or moreso than tv, radio or newspapers.
Having more life, as in more people alive, wouldn't be caused by any of these media devices. It would depend on education and the political power in government. But if you mean more or less OF a life, as in more time to do other things, it becomes a problem of overpopulation. If there is nothing to do and you are with your partner, sex is the only viable thing to do after you've exhausted the chatting, debating, cooking and cleaning. That is why the reproduction rate lowered as the television came out, rised when television showed much more skin, and lowered again as the ratings and bannings were instilled.
If people living in the city did not have these forms of communication, numbing their instincts and minds, there would certainly be much more war, aggression and boredom, because there is not enough land for all men to cultivate, thus keeping their "idle hands" busy.
2006-08-01 00:06:00 · answer #2 · answered by canguroargentino 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even if every person spontaneously combusted 20 minutes from now, it would not have a statistically significant effect on the amount of life. (less vs. more).
When you start adding up the number of bacteria (not varieties, each individual entity), viruses, dust mites, plankton - that sort of stuff - the numbers are so big that the number of people wouldn't be visible as a percentage of the total, even out to like 15 decimal places.
So, I say neither.
2006-08-01 00:17:08 · answer #3 · answered by party_at_lake_vostok 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think it would be a different life. i think people would actually spend time together rather than watch tv or play on the computer. if you look back before the world became technologically advanced i think you find there were alot less overweight and suicidal people. (no offense)
2006-08-01 03:52:07 · answer #4 · answered by elizabeth k 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would be less children having children, going out drinking, and doing drugs. There would be more time to spend with friends and we wouldn't fry our brains staring into a computer screen or TV.
2006-07-31 23:54:33 · answer #5 · answered by usa_grl15 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The flow of information these forms of media allow would be hard to replace with something that good. We would all lead much more insular lives without some form of mass communication, and I think we'd all be worse off for it.
2006-07-31 23:44:44 · answer #6 · answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there would be a lot more babies born!!!!! That would certainly be more life. HA HA
2006-08-01 02:51:44 · answer #7 · answered by Leigh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be cool to not have all this stuff.
2006-07-31 23:52:06 · answer #8 · answered by Rob 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋