Sober Philosophy: Convenience (vs. Community?) (Huyen presents, AZF)

Convenience (vs. Community?)

Technology, especially since the Industrial Revolution, has enabled us to get necessities, goods, and services with ever greater convenience. By increasing the ease and accessibility of obtaining those goods or services, that convenience saves us time, effort, energy, etc. It makes sense that convenience sells. No one wants to walk 20 minutes to the closest well to get water, or be forced to wait for business opening hours to do a basic banking transaction on the other side of town. Time is at a premium, and individuals like the freedom to decide what they want, and how to get that thing on their terms, with less effort.

One could argue that each step of increasing convenience, however, is at the expense of community interaction and cohesion. For many things, this has been a progressive treadmill of individual customization and convenience chipping away at collectivity. For example:

***

Step 1: Movies are a new invention, and are only available at the town cinema, shown at specific times during a limited run.

Step 2: Movies are shown on TV (after an initial movie theater run), in the convenience of your home, shown at a schedule set by the TV network. There are only a few TV channels available. TV shows are also shown at set times, released one episode at a time.

Step 3: VHS (and later DVD) is invented, so you can watch whatever movie you like, whenever you want, but they are only made available about four to six months after the movie theater run. This is also possible for older TV shows, but not current ones, which you can only watch on TV. TV channels are much more numerous thanks to cable.

Step 4: Movies go from cinemas to streaming within a few weeks, and most series are released direct to streaming, bypassing TV, often dropped in season-sized batches you can binge and watch on your own schedule. The number of choices is so vast that few movies or shows have near-universal viewership. Even people who watch the same show are not necessarily watching it at the same pace.

***

This arguably applies to many other technological and social developments: the rise of remote work, the advent of the automobile and suburbia, food/grocery delivery services, etc.

There are obviously advantages to all of this. The elderly and disabled have greater access to goods and services. Not everyone has the privilege of a supportive family or community they can rely on for help or companionship. Some people are naturally more comfortable in solitary settings, or are homebodies. The near-infinite internet and the rise of micro-cultures and micro-genres mean that people can easily pursue media & content tailored to their individual interests and personalities. Convenience can also free up time and resources for the types of connections we care about more (e.g. remote work giving employees more time with family and friends).

But what is lost, when we chip away at these collective spaces and experiences?

***

Suggested Questions:

1. What does it mean though, when people get less interaction (physical or not), and have fewer shared experiences?

2. Is solitude a problem, or only involuntary solitude?

3. Is there value in “involuntary community” (e.g. interacting with a cashier, being around other riders on public transit).

4. What conveniences in your own life have increased your freedom, and which ones may have reduced your sense of connection with others?

5. Is convenience inherently individualistic, or can convenience also strengthen community? (e.g. group chats, neighborhood apps, online forums around an obscure hobby.)

6. Should societies intentionally design friction to preserve community?
(e.g. walkable cities, restricting big chain stores, Sunday business closing laws [which is a point of debate in Switzerland today])

7. Could too much convenience eventually create a desire for deliberate inconvenience?
(e.g. slow food, vinyl records, meeting in person as opposed to online)

8. Is there a “happy medium” between convenience and community? Is such an equilibrium sustainable under the pressure of technological advances and the free market?

9. All the above is based on a whole bunch of simplifications and presuppositions. Is it possible that the entire framing above is fundamentally flawed?

Symptom-free people with the capacity to listen considerately to diverse viewpoints are invited to attend after successfully RSVPing.
We begin the discussion at 1:00 pm sharp in the mezzanine above the lobby of the Graduate Hotel in Seattle's University District. Feel free to come up to 30 minutes early and hang out with us beforehand.

AMAZON FORMAT (AZF):
At the beginning of the meeting we will take turns reading lines from the above texts (excluding the suggested questions) aloud.

OPENING ROUNDTABLE FORMAT (ORF):

1. The topic presenter begins the discussion by explaining why they are interested in the topic and some introductory thoughts on it.
2. Each participant in turn going clockwise from the presenter describes their general thoughts on the topic.
3. If one is not ready to speak they can just say “pass” and the next person speaks.
4. After we've gone around once anyone who passed will get a second chance to comment.
5. Once everyone has given opening remarks or passed twice, Opening Roundtable is completed and the meeting shifts into its main format.

TIMED DIRECTION FORMAT (TDRF>4):
If there are more than 4 people present we will use the format below.

1. We will divide up the timed direction discussion time by the number of participants plus one (for a buffer). A timer will be set for this amount of time.
2. Each participant in turn will become a Discussion Director and lead the group discussion.
3. If one is not ready to direct they dimply say “pass” and the next person becomes the Discussion Director.
4. Anyone who arrives after step 1 (above), may participate but will not get a turn as Discussion Director.
5. The Discussion Director can make statements or ask questions, or interrupt or redirect the discussion at their discretion.
6. The discussion participants can state their own opinions only when asked by the Discussion Director, not Interrupt others and accede to the Discussion Director’s interruptions or redirections.
7. When the timer goes off the person speaking finishes their thought and then the next participant clockwise becomes the next Discussion Director.
8. After we've gone around once anyone who passed will get a second chance to direct.

At the end of the meeting, participants will have an opportunity to vote on the topic and format for the following meeting.