1289: Simple Answers

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
(Redirected from 1289)
Jump to: navigation, search
Simple Answers
'Will [     ] allow us to better understand each other and thus make war undesirable?' is one that pops up whenever we invent a new communication medium.
Title text: 'Will [ ] allow us to better understand each other and thus make war undesirable?' is one that pops up whenever we invent a new communication medium.

[edit] Explanation

This is Randall's commentary on some of the baseless skepticism and equally baseless optimism directed at new technologies. Related: 1215: Insight and 1227: The Pace of Modern Life. While it's always healthy to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of cutting-edge tech before blindly diving in and adopting it, it's not healthy to base that evaluation on unrealistically high standards and expectations. New developments will have pros and cons, and it's hard to tell whether they make the world a better place or not.

Randall has set up a Q&A for this kind of questioning. Most of the them are straightforward, but we'll provide some commentary on selected questions.

Will [ ] destroy whole industries? Yes. A widely adopted technology usually causes another to gradually phase out, and industries will rise and fall as technologies do. This is a bit of a loaded question because "destroy industries" sounds negative, and only covers half the effect — instead of merely destroying them, we're also replacing them with something (hopefully) better.

Will teens use [ ] for sex? Yes. Were they going to have sex anyway? Yes. Sex is pretty important to almost everyone, so it'll find its way into most generic technologies. Hormone-crazed tech-savvy teenagers are a particularly strong intersection of the two. Parents fearing teen sex might be worried about how their kids would use the technology, but the second question refutes these concerns quite concisely. This might also refer to Rule 34 which states that if something exists, it will also be used inside porn as well.

Will [ ] destroy music/art? No. Every new technology for reproducing musical and artistic works (such as player pianos and video cassette recorders) has been accompanied by warnings that it will destroy the industry that supplies it content. The reality is a special case of the "destroy industries" question - old business models will fall but new ones will arise in their place, and art and music as a whole will survive.

But can't we go back to a time when— No. Elderly people express their disapproval of today's technological luxuries, nostalgically longing for a time before Foo or Bar came around. That's just how the stereotype goes, but there is a large helping of truth to it. Usually, their sentiments are not a fair judgement, but an emotional attachment to the olden days and a resistance to change.

The final answer is a depressing and strangely beautiful comment on human nature: Will [ ] cause widespread alienation by creating a world of empty experiences? We were already alienated. Skeptics may be concerned that a new technology will make people's pleasures and interactions more artificial and shallow; Randall comments that this is already something well known in our society.

[edit] Transcript

The simple answers to the questions that get asked about every new technology:
Will [ ] make us all geniuses? No
Will [ ] make us all morons? No
Will [ ] destroy whole industries? Yes
Will [ ] make us more empathetic? No
Will [ ] make us less caring? No
Will teens use [ ] for sex? Yes
Were they going to have sex anyway? Yes
Will [ ] destroy music? No
Will [ ] destroy art? No
But can't we go back to a time when- No
Will [ ] bring about world peace? No
Will [ ] cause widespread
alienation by creating a world
of empty experiences?
We were
comment.png add a comment! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!


The title text question is not answered, but I would guess "no", mainly because I don't believe wars would stop even if we understand each other completely. On the other hand, it talks about "make war undesirable" ... isn't "making war undesirable" what nuclear weapons did? -- Hkmaly (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Can't think of a time was really was desired. Isn't war and mass death already usually undesired? 21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This is just further info on the next-to-last question, and Randall's answer is thus "no". 12:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
If nuclear weapons made war undesirable, then what is the US army doing in the middle east? If anything, I think nuclear weapons just caused us to change the mechanics of war, as many weapon advancements have done in the past. And sadly, I suspect that better understanding won't make war any less desirable (as others have said already). =( -- 14:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
You are trying too hard. Nuclear weapons doesn't fit in "new communication medium" referenced in title text. That could be telegraph, television, phones, e-mails, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, etc... I think the question is not answered to make everyone think in what really cause a war. Although a better communication can make we understand reasons and have better dialogs, they do not eliminate the roots of war like selfishness, no compassion, greed, etc... 21:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that technology only helps us understand about each other. Technology cannot help us to understand each other in the sense of appreciate each other. And to go further, understanding about each other can increase the likelihood of war. Grahame (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Grahame

rule 34 applies everywhere. 14:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools


It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal or Bitcoin?