@crashedpc - Haifisch: the second novel in a three part series? why pick it out when you'll need something decent to tempure the stench of all that burning crap.
@Klebert L. Hall: I think you're being kind of cavalier about it. If by the internet crashing you mean youtube and io9 and such, yeah, not a disaster. But there's a lot more to it than that. Even assuming it didn't screw over things like telephone network, it would mess up all the social and commercial and governmental infrastructure that's moved to the web.
It'd tear the crap out of all financial markets, for one thing. Most trading nowadays is super-computerized; something like 97 percent of NYSE trading is on electronic networks (1). The implosion of all that would make the recent financial problems look tiny. And that's just one facet of the problem.
Think of all the things that would really go of the rails if the internet just stopped. All electronic commerce, of course (goodbye Amazon), but all kinds of other things, too. The DMV or your insurance company wouldn't be able to access any of your records; the police wouldn't be able to use any criminal databases. Any company that uses electronic inventory tracking or management (ie, every large company, nowadays) would have operations grind to a halt, at least for a while. Half the time HR, accounting, etc is all online now too. And, anecdotally, every federal office I've ever seen runs on email. Internet failure would be a clusterf*ck of epic proportions.
And that's even assuming all the peripheral systems like phone systems and wire transfers and credit card transactions and ATMs were unaffected (and how many people do you know that don't carry cash anymore?)
Now, I'm not saying it would be the end of civilization as we know it. We'd deal. But a sudden, prolonged internet shutdown would be a massive disaster, and unless you live totally and entirely off the grid, it would probably disrupt your life in all kinds of ways.
@VisibleHand:
Most of the things you describe wouldn't affect me directly, and many of them I would see as positive.
For example, everyone loves Amazon, and everyone hates WalMart. However, they are exactly the same thing. The death of Amazon would please me greatly. The world financial system shutting down? That's what should have happened last year - at least then the people who caused it would be suffering along with the rest of us, instead of raking in bonuses.
The world ran just fine before the internet, it's loss would be a speedbump.
-Kle.
@Klebert L. Hall: I'm not saying internet collapse would bring about The End of Modern Civilization. As you rightly pointed out, we're not nearly as dependent as the people in the story. I am saying it would make a big mess, totally screw a significant minority of people, and make life harder in many ways for the majority of people. It is conceivable that you personally would be one of the few not substantially affected.
The world ran just fine before the automobile, too, yet if they all stopped working suddenly, it be a colossal disaster affecting pretty much everyone- even those without cars. To borrow your metaphor, hitting a speedbump is fine if you see it coming and brake accordingly. But a sudden internet failure would be hitting a speedbump at 90 mph with your foot on the gas.
My main point, above, was that a lot of the infrastructure underpinning every aspect of modern society has moved online, even the core things like managing supply lines for food and basic services. And yeah, we could probably move it all back off again if we planned it out and had warning. But if everything ground to a halt unexpectedly, I maintain it would just shut down huge swathes of every industrialized society. Which would a) cause a lot of damage to society as we know it, and b) worsen a lot of people's lives individually.
[Aside: I picked Amazon simply because it's a big, recognizable name. The same, however, applies to the mom-and-pop couple selling hand-knitted baby clothes online, or the small engineering firm that's a collaboration between ten people on three continents. And ecommerce is ALL peripheral damage; the real harm would come from the fact that every other company uses the internet a lot these days too.]
Now, I don't know your circumstances; it's possible that you live on a farm and grow your own food and really wouldn't see any change in your life except using mail and TV any more, and economic collapse is something that happens to other people. If so, good for you. Most people in the industrialized world aren't so lucky.
But your last post above seems to suggest "it's not a disaster if everyone's life is ruined equally". I don't buy that. Or the idea that it's not a disaster because some good comes of it. ("Hey, a plague killed everyone over age 40, but guess what? No more Alzheimers!") In seriousness, it's possible a world without the internet might be a better place. That doesn't mean that suddenly stopping it right now wouldn't cause a colossal clusterf*ck.
@VisibleHand:
I don't think the world would be a better place w/o the internet.
I do think that people use the internet for all sorts of amazingly imprudent purposes - and I think that if people suffer for making decisions a child could have told them were stupid, just because they are convenient, it's funny.
The world financial system (for example) shouldn't rely upon the internet, because the internet is inherently unreliable and unsecure. People shouldn't really manage their money electronically, because of the above reason, and the simple fact that banks are out to screw them.
Here, this xkcd should explain my position pretty clearly:
@Klebert L. Hall: Ok, I agree with your last comment, by and large. But many big societal-infrastructure systems do rely on the internet, without adequate backup plans, even if they shouldn't- and thus, a sudden internet breakdown would likely result in more disruption in your life than your initial comment seemed to acknowledge. Just because even if you, personally, do not take excessive risks for the sake of short-term convenience, a big chunk of the society you live in does.
It is funny when someone's obviously boneheaded decisions catch up with them. It's much less funny when you get hit by collateral damage from their bad choices.
@VisibleHand: "It is funny when someone's obviously boneheaded decisions catch up with them. It's much less funny when you get hit by collateral damage from their bad choices."
Yeah, but I'm willing to take the hit, if it wakes people up. Same with the current economic troubles; I don't think there should have been a bailout.
alternate summary:
'i am make science! i tame machine for use for man!'
'you go to far! you am play gods!'
'no, am progress! am automation! machine work for man!'
*machine fails and no one can fix it
'me am play gods!'
@tetracycloide: all kidding aside. the story seems silly to me. who made the machine? what happened to them? why was their knowledge never passed down? what happened to the individuals who would have been unhappy with a life of complete complacancy?
i mean it's easy to look around and see complacancey everywhere if that's what you're looking for but it's just as easy to look throughout history and notice that there have always been individuals who would never have been satisfied with such a life. they would never have created a machine capable of these things to use it themselves because they would have been to busy making something newer and cooler. edison didn't invent the light bulb and then bask in the glow of his invention for the rest of his life. no, he went on to experiment with newer and more interesting things in addition to leveraging his invention to his own social, political, and financial advantage. that's what people do, not create things and then think 'well i'm done i'll just do nothing from here on out because i can.'
Good point about Magic Realism. I've always thought that if you took nearly any Ray Bradbury story (ok, one without rocketships) and changed all the names to Spanish or Brazillian equivalents you could pass it off as a piece by Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Moacyr Scilar. #magicalrealism
@Grey_Area: Funny, I had a similar experience reading that recent collection of stories from 60 years of FANTASY & SCIENCE FICTION. Mrs. Overclock (etc.) asked me what they were like (no doubt trying to decide whether to abscond with it for her own reading stack). I told her: "Slipstream is not a new idea." #magicalrealism
Advanced as we think we are, we decide that such conventionally unexplainable phenomena are the province of the superstitious, backward, third world, unenlightened.
Following this logic, Marquez, Borjes and Isabel Allende are backward and unenlighted? Let's remember that it was a Venezuelan writer that coined the term. #magicalrealism
@BadUncle: That may be true, but "magical realism" has become very trendy among writers/critics of European descent as a way of categorizing a whole swathe of fiction with supernatural elements. These days, it's sort of fetishized, or at least that's what Reyes seems to be saying. #magicalrealism
"Advanced as we think we are, we decide that such conventionally unexplainable phenomena are the province of the superstitious, backward, third world, unenlightened."
I think this speaks to the widening fracture between science/technology and everyday experience...we don't really experience science/technology - we experience it's effects.
understanding the science of TV is harder than believing in the "magic-vision-box"...and less instinctive. A flat earth is what we experience, not a sphere rotating at a 1000mph orbiting a star at 70000 mph.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/19/09
Well, that's a bit much, isn't it?
These people depended entirely upon the Machine for their existence. The internet is mostly an entertainment medium, and a convenience.
My life would go on pretty much normally w/o the internet, I'd just use the TV, telephone, and mail more often.
-Kle.
11/19/09
It'd tear the crap out of all financial markets, for one thing. Most trading nowadays is super-computerized; something like 97 percent of NYSE trading is on electronic networks (1). The implosion of all that would make the recent financial problems look tiny. And that's just one facet of the problem.
Think of all the things that would really go of the rails if the internet just stopped. All electronic commerce, of course (goodbye Amazon), but all kinds of other things, too. The DMV or your insurance company wouldn't be able to access any of your records; the police wouldn't be able to use any criminal databases. Any company that uses electronic inventory tracking or management (ie, every large company, nowadays) would have operations grind to a halt, at least for a while. Half the time HR, accounting, etc is all online now too. And, anecdotally, every federal office I've ever seen runs on email. Internet failure would be a clusterf*ck of epic proportions.
And that's even assuming all the peripheral systems like phone systems and wire transfers and credit card transactions and ATMs were unaffected (and how many people do you know that don't carry cash anymore?)
Now, I'm not saying it would be the end of civilization as we know it. We'd deal. But a sudden, prolonged internet shutdown would be a massive disaster, and unless you live totally and entirely off the grid, it would probably disrupt your life in all kinds of ways.
1) [arstechnica.com]
11/20/09
Most of the things you describe wouldn't affect me directly, and many of them I would see as positive.
For example, everyone loves Amazon, and everyone hates WalMart. However, they are exactly the same thing. The death of Amazon would please me greatly. The world financial system shutting down? That's what should have happened last year - at least then the people who caused it would be suffering along with the rest of us, instead of raking in bonuses.
The world ran just fine before the internet, it's loss would be a speedbump.
-Kle.
11/20/09
The world ran just fine before the automobile, too, yet if they all stopped working suddenly, it be a colossal disaster affecting pretty much everyone- even those without cars. To borrow your metaphor, hitting a speedbump is fine if you see it coming and brake accordingly. But a sudden internet failure would be hitting a speedbump at 90 mph with your foot on the gas.
My main point, above, was that a lot of the infrastructure underpinning every aspect of modern society has moved online, even the core things like managing supply lines for food and basic services. And yeah, we could probably move it all back off again if we planned it out and had warning. But if everything ground to a halt unexpectedly, I maintain it would just shut down huge swathes of every industrialized society. Which would a) cause a lot of damage to society as we know it, and b) worsen a lot of people's lives individually.
[Aside: I picked Amazon simply because it's a big, recognizable name. The same, however, applies to the mom-and-pop couple selling hand-knitted baby clothes online, or the small engineering firm that's a collaboration between ten people on three continents. And ecommerce is ALL peripheral damage; the real harm would come from the fact that every other company uses the internet a lot these days too.]
Now, I don't know your circumstances; it's possible that you live on a farm and grow your own food and really wouldn't see any change in your life except using mail and TV any more, and economic collapse is something that happens to other people. If so, good for you. Most people in the industrialized world aren't so lucky.
But your last post above seems to suggest "it's not a disaster if everyone's life is ruined equally". I don't buy that. Or the idea that it's not a disaster because some good comes of it. ("Hey, a plague killed everyone over age 40, but guess what? No more Alzheimers!") In seriousness, it's possible a world without the internet might be a better place. That doesn't mean that suddenly stopping it right now wouldn't cause a colossal clusterf*ck.
11/21/09
I don't think the world would be a better place w/o the internet.
I do think that people use the internet for all sorts of amazingly imprudent purposes - and I think that if people suffer for making decisions a child could have told them were stupid, just because they are convenient, it's funny.
The world financial system (for example) shouldn't rely upon the internet, because the internet is inherently unreliable and unsecure. People shouldn't really manage their money electronically, because of the above reason, and the simple fact that banks are out to screw them.
Here, this xkcd should explain my position pretty clearly:
[xkcd.com]
Most things that are important to the function of society, that rely on the internet, should not.
-Kle.
11/21/09
It is funny when someone's obviously boneheaded decisions catch up with them. It's much less funny when you get hit by collateral damage from their bad choices.
11/22/09
"It is funny when someone's obviously boneheaded decisions catch up with them. It's much less funny when you get hit by collateral damage from their bad choices."
Yeah, but I'm willing to take the hit, if it wakes people up. Same with the current economic troubles; I don't think there should have been a bailout.
People rarely learn w/o pain.
-Kle.
11/18/09
"Magical Realism" is just Spanish for science fiction and fantasy.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
'i am make science! i tame machine for use for man!'
'you go to far! you am play gods!'
'no, am progress! am automation! machine work for man!'
*machine fails and no one can fix it
'me am play gods!'
11/18/09
i mean it's easy to look around and see complacancey everywhere if that's what you're looking for but it's just as easy to look throughout history and notice that there have always been individuals who would never have been satisfied with such a life. they would never have created a machine capable of these things to use it themselves because they would have been to busy making something newer and cooler. edison didn't invent the light bulb and then bask in the glow of his invention for the rest of his life. no, he went on to experiment with newer and more interesting things in addition to leveraging his invention to his own social, political, and financial advantage. that's what people do, not create things and then think 'well i'm done i'll just do nothing from here on out because i can.'
11/18/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/18/09
I like Slipstream even though I can't define it. And any new story by Ted Chiang is definitely worth my time.
11/17/09
Following this logic, Marquez, Borjes and Isabel Allende are backward and unenlighted? Let's remember that it was a Venezuelan writer that coined the term. #magicalrealism
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
[en.wikipedia.org]
They feed off the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses; hence the irony of her trying to become pregnant herself.
Also, ew. #magicalrealism
11/17/09
I think this speaks to the widening fracture between science/technology and everyday experience...we don't really experience science/technology - we experience it's effects.
understanding the science of TV is harder than believing in the "magic-vision-box"...and less instinctive. A flat earth is what we experience, not a sphere rotating at a 1000mph orbiting a star at 70000 mph.
11/17/09
-Kle. #bookvortex
11/17/09
11/18/09
You are correct, that's also awesome.
-Kle.
11/17/09
Now that's the kind of alliteration that will stay with you. #bookvortex
11/17/09