has technology made you happier?

No.
Relevant piece:
https://belate.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/heidegger-modern-technology/

Happier no, but more grateful.
I have most of the worlds knowledge at my fingertips and ready to go in about a second. And all i use it for is looking at pictures of boobs and kittens.

>>17832187
It's probably allowed my brain to release more pleasure hormones in 25 years than, say, my grandfather experienced in his entire life.

Ultimately the answer is no. I love technology, I despise the lack of harmony we've been able to achieve living alongside it.

>>17832187
>>17832187

>>17832220
>I have most of the worlds knowledge at my fingertips and ready to go in about a second
This. Things are a lot more convenient for me than they were for my parents, but it's not such a huge thing that it replaces any of my basic needs and makes me happier.

I'd be happy if she sat on my face.

>>17832187
Is this the modern ho?

No
It made me more aware of my problems but it's too hard to do anything about it so I just use technology to distract myself.
>so just get rid of your internet and computer
The damage is already done

I wish I was a normie so I could actually function in life rather than being a big faggot

my gf has made me happier

Nah, just more distracted really.

>>17832187
I got to know my bf online, so that's excellent. But besides that? I wouldn't want to live without it, but I wouldn't be surprised if i'd be happier off without it.

>>17832187
on the long term probably not, because I became an aspie like computer addict, but on short term yes. Technology gives me the freedom to isolate myself from the real world.

>>17832187
Yes
I'm still a sad piece of shit
I'm less of a sad piece of shit now tho

Yes. Yes it has.
If society would just accept that we are reaching or have already surpassed a point in technological advancement where not everyone has to work for a living, i would be even happier.

Also, i love Stefania Ferraria.

>>17832597
If you don't have to work for a living you wouldn't be working already
If you don't support yourself someone else does, imagine we develop the technology to keep a million people alive why would we ever pick you?

>>17832187
Happiness is such a dumb concept, I'd say it improved my life a lot.

As a kid I was pretty poor and there wasn't even a library around, now I can get any piece of entertainment I could even wish for free, can look up the most obscure data in moments and have the ability to waste some time with people around the globe, without even the need to pay real attention to them. And there is the whole "experience" sharing aspect, where it's some faggot making picks and telling a story about how he got drunk or climbed Mount Everest. Modern technology is damn amazing, and the only downsides are that some community turn into echo chambers, killing the most amazing part about it.

>>17832604
>If you don't have to work for a living you wouldn't be working already
A big issue are the social consequences, not resources or anything. Once most people realize that their purpose in life isn't to slave for somebody, the change will be pretty rapid.

> imagine we develop the technology to keep a million people alive why would we ever pick you?
Ignoring effects on society, altruistic nature for humans and all the shit, there is still practicality. Humans are an unexplored potential (even some fatty NEET jerking off to pedo anime all day long) and letting them die would be pretty dumb if we have the spare resources.

>If you don't support yourself someone else does
This is also generally very short sighted. Nobody lives in a bubble and everyone supports everyone, work is a ridiculously small factor of it.

Say we got a NEET, who won't get any support anymore. If he's dumb, he'll turn into crime and might even cause more damage (say raping or killing some genius). One way to minimize the chance would be investing into police but that could eventually create a police state (and ignores the stress crime creates for total outsides, far away from it). Another way would be throwing some change at the idiot, allowing him his passive lifestyle.

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

>>17832606
Echo chambers have a tendency to happen regardless of level of technology.

Ya, got a GF from using the Internet

But it has made me a shut in since then.. I am back to being a shut in lifeless guy. It has done a lot of bad but has also done a great amount of good. It's up to me to put the computer or phone down and live life at this point.. can't blame electronics.

>>17832187

Technology for myself, yes, absolutely. I love having so much information available to me. I love computer-generated media. I love being able to communicate with old friends easily. I even enjoy all the complex programming and numerical mathematics and machine learning that I can use with modern hardware.

Urbanization and globalization, no, absolutely not. Every job now requires being social and political all the time, all the nice high-paying loner jobs have been offshored or automated, giant corporations are attempting to reduce us all to poverty to equalize wages against poor countries with much lower living costs, politicians have become much more corrupt and detached, everything is more competitive and inhuman e.g. job applications and dating, etc.

There is no way in hell I am having kids. The only people who should right now are extraverts. The entire world is turning into the equivalent of a big coastal city. My ancestors were farmers and skilled tradesmen, not Jewish merchants with 5000 business associates or nobility whose ancestors had been in politics for a thousand years.

>>17833225
>nice high-paying loner jobs
These never existed. At best loners could be artists but even then they still needed contact to more social competent people if they had any aspirations not to die poor.

>giant corporations are attempting to reduce us all to poverty
This doesn't make any sense. For one, corporations work against each other more often than not. Other than that, corporations only care about their profits, they couldn't care less where these come from but for it to come from somewhere, so reducing everybody to poverty wouldn't do them any good. First world wages and living costs were simply inflated and now it normalizes. Why the fuck would you earn 100 times as much as some Asian kid doing the same job better and for longer?

>politicians have become much more corrupt and detached
Where did you get the idea? Or is there any data to back it up? At worst it seems the same as last century and clearly better than before.

>everything is more competitive and inhuman
That's kinda true since industrialization. Though when it comes to dating it's a plus, one has a much larger pool.

>>17833269
>First world wages and living costs were simply inflated and now it normalizes. Why the fuck would you earn 100 times as much as some Asian kid doing the same job better and for longer?
Why should you earn any money at all once we have strong AI? Why shouldn't you just die like a dog at that point? Or maybe we should consider the social implications of technology-- such as the fact that QE has vastly inflated western housing prices at the same time western wages are still stagnant or falling due to foreign competition.

>>17833269
>Where did you get the idea? Or is there any data to back it up?
The Eurozone bureaucrats. The massive amounts of corporate cash in the U.S. political system. The rise of a stable legislative class in the U.S. over the past certury or so, where someone can sit in e.g. the Senate for 30+ years in a gerrymandered safe district. Etc.

>>17833269
>>nice high-paying loner jobs
>These never existed.
Fuck you, you lying revisionist. My grandfather was a farmer. Land didn't cost $2 million a square mile back then and farming didn't require $1 million worth of gigantic machines. He rode it up and got rich but it doesn't exist as a job path for new entrants anymore. It's all machines and a tiny number of hereditary land barons now. Skilled trades used to make far more money; now they're all Mexican illegals. Factory work mostly automated and remaining roles now tightly integrated systems-oriented operational teams. Engineers used to be able to work in relative peace and quiet with lifelong job security, now they work in shitty loud open-plan offices with loads of meetings and can be fired over politics or laid off 10,000 at a time by their corporate masters every few years and become too old to hire again at like age 50 but end up living to be 85+ (conditional on living to 50, your life expectancy is higher than it was at birth). You are either a liar or clueless.

>>17832187
how the hell would I know? We've been living with it since we were born

>>17833225
This

>>17833269
>>everything is more competitive and inhuman
>That's kinda true since industrialization. Though when it comes to dating it's a plus, one has a much larger pool.
Totally, if you're in the top 20% of males by physical appearance, there has never been a better time to be alive. Otherwise, get used to sending a dozen or two dozen messages to get a single date, spending hours and hours for someone to even acknowledge your existence, having her rush off to the next one right afterward, etc. Oh and all our civic organizations don't exist anymore-- churches, bowling leagues, etc, so there's no community to be noticed in anymore. Except work, but trying to date coworkers is career suicide, because it's totally normal to put people into communities and then forbid them from any kind of normal human behavior for 60 hours a week. Which also takes away the time to be in those civic organizations, which is why they are fading away. And both spouses have to work now, because wages have been flat while housing costs continue to explode, so I hope you never cared about having a family life.

>>17833311
Another: this

But anon you have to understand that the more humans population increases, the more things are going to cost?

>>17833314
I'm 21 and I'm already sick of it.

>>17833269
In summary, you're full of shit. The people who are prospering right now are people who are genetically super social and super attractive and super analytical. Everything is becoming completely winner-take-all. Everyone is a replaceable object to be sorted (and often just discarded) by gigantic societal-level machines. And it keeps getting worse. I am genuinely worried that we are heading toward a combination of a William Gibson novel and something like this; it's already starting at e.g. Amazon warehouses etc:
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
Even the captchas on this site are being used to try to put 2 million truck drivers out of work, one of the last remaining decent-paying loner jobs.

>>17833287
>Why should you earn any money at all once we have strong AI?
There still will be jobs, just different ones and ideally not forced as they are now. Check the history of the word "robot". AI will simply replace the slave class from ancient times.

>Why shouldn't you just die like a dog at that point?
Because it's illogical to kill off humanity for our AI overlords.

>such as the fact that QE has vastly inflated western housing prices at the same time western wages are still stagnant or falling due to foreign competition.
Because we're still in period of change, and some parts are not finished synchronizing. Also it's not simply foreign competition, the entire market completely evolved. Depending on the period domestic competition had the same effects on the wages - living cost discrepancy.

>The Eurozone bureaucrats.
How are they more corrupt than leaders of European countries before? Thatcher didn't need the EU to sell off UK.

>The massive amounts of corporate cash in the U.S. political system.
Was always a huge part of US of A. At least the legislature pretends not to be corporate bitches now and calls it lobbing now. Back in 1902 (Coal strike) Murica acted like the direct servant of the monopolist.

>He rode it up and got rich
He become rich by farming all by himself? Seriously?

>Skilled trades used to make far more money
They still never were "high-paying" jobs. Just simply better paid than now. And not really a loner job either.

>Factory work
Not really a loner job back in the day, and still relatively well paid for retarded labour if you work in a decent industry. (Auto is teh shit)

>engineer
Pretty much the same now, simply needs a certain skill level for stability. Which is given when education is more widely available.

Also what's even the logic behind the argument? Supply and demand change all the time. What worked at one point, can't work at another. Just think about the poor horses.

>>17833366
>He become rich by farming all by himself? Seriously?
Yes. Almost all from asset price appreciation driven by technology and interest rates, but also from a few key land purchases early on when it was cheap. Many decades ago. He started with nothing. His father had lost his farm in the Depression over unpaid taxes, so I really do mean nothing. Things were just a lot cheaper back then.

>>17833366
>>Why shouldn't you just die like a dog at that point?
>Because it's illogical to kill off humanity for our AI overlords.
Oh, they wouldn't actively kill you. They just wouldn't need to pay you anymore. I'm sure you could figure something out after that! After all, the world is full of opportunities for people to use their natural talents at failing to be cheaper than machines and Vietnamese people and illegal Mexicans.

>>17833331
Ugh, these memes. Funny how it changes from 5 to 20%. I have yet to met a semi decent guy who couldn't get a semi decent girl; and it's very unlikely that all the males I know are the top 20%.

>get used to sending a dozen or two dozen messages to get a single date, spending hours and hours for someone to even acknowledge your existence
If you have to do any of this, it never had a chance.

>having her rush off to the next one right afterward
Always happened. Everybody wants the best mate. Now it's simply easier to find one instead wasting decades with the wrong one and doing the Perdo, the gardener.

>churches, bowling leagues
Still tons of these and clubs for almost every sport, communities for the weirdest shit like furries, etc, etc. Sure, sometimes they aren't as local but traveling is faster and cheaper than it ever was.

>And both spouses have to work now
Basic jobs are still about 8-9h. Leaves enough for family and whatever else.

>>17833351
Better people usually had better results. The difference now is that even ugly idiots got a solid chance for a decent life now. Back in the day they would be left behind to die.

Also let's not overestimate the effect of genetics here.

>>17833383
IT jobs offer people a similar chance now. Look how many semi skilled people made billions with simple apps. Hell, by just creating a loop of ads and blogs, every idiot can make nice cash with barely any work.

>>17833392
>They just wouldn't need to pay you anymore.
So who would buy the shit AI produces?

No, actually technology boosts my paranoia and ruins my life.

>>17833366
>There still will be jobs, just different ones and ideally not forced as they are now. Check the history of the word "robot". AI will simply replace the slave class from ancient times.
Too few of them.
Also the slave class will be the last to go. It's better to automate away the higher-paid professions first. Like tax accountants, lawyers, truck drivers, etc. Sure, *some* lawyers and accountants (using complex software to aid them) survive and handle the most difficult and complicated work, usually for rich clients, but most just become redundant. Unneeded. And yeah, you'll still want a few tv anchors and media producers and political workers etc, which incidentally are all highly social roles, but that's a tiny number of jobs. Etc.

Read Player Piano.
Read Neuromancer.
Read Manna.

I don't know how else to make this clear to you but the global economy and particularly the west are in a serious macroeconomic crisis right now that has been masked with 8 years of monetary policy attempting to keep the system propped up. The future is looking exceedingly grim for the majority of the population who aren't rich and/or highly extraverted.

>>17833398
Capitalism makes money by selling goods and services to people with money in exchange for some of their money. In other words, it only has to care about the people who have money to pay for its output. The rest just get marginalized out and ignored by the system. What is a homeless person? What is a typical African? They are irrelevant to modern global capitalism; it only needs to sell things to the middle and upper classes that actually have money, and occasionally the working poor. No one else matters; no money to spend. Now look at Latin America, look at Brazil especially, or Russia -- tiny upper class owns the vast majority of wealth in the country, thin middle class in professional roles, huge underclass that barely gets anything. This is the future.

>>17833397
>IT jobs offer people a similar chance now.
Corporate? See:
>>17833311
>Engineers used to be able to work in relative peace and quiet with lifelong job security, now they work in shitty loud open-plan offices with loads of meetings and can be fired over politics or laid off 10,000 at a time by their corporate masters every few years and become too old to hire again at like age 50 but end up living to be 85+

App/blog economy? Totally winner-take-all, a couple random guys who got in early or were incredibly skilled make millions, everyone else gets far too little to live on. And you have no way of knowing a priori if it will make any money at all before you spend 6 months on it.
>everything is more competitive and inhuman


Look how many semi skilled people made billions with simple apps. Hell, by just creating a loop of ads and blogs, every idiot can make nice cash with barely any work.

>>17833406
>Read Player Piano.
You realize, it's satire, right?

>Read Neuromancer.
Sci fi cancer.

As for jobs, by freeing up the work force from useless mundane stuff, they simply can do something else. It's pointless to apply the same rules we have now on future society. How many projects are there on kickstarter now? How many more will come up once people have the free time to think about it? The most useless member of society can keep consuming media and give it ratings. (Kinect had solid patents how it could be done without input from user)

You already get tons of free stuff via ads, soon NEETs can earn money by jerking off to porn. And then there is a whole world of basic income and the likes.

> it only has to care about the people who have money to pay for its output
This would leave it stagnating. The most important part for capitalism is growth and there is no growth in cutting down your own market. Why do you think Amazon is cool with making almost no profit and some companies are willing to sell shit at a loss?

> What is a homeless person? What is a typical African?
A possible source of profit and enterprise.

>huge underclass that barely gets anything
Important point is that they get SOMETHING, getting rid of them completely by killing their jobs, would lower the overall profits.

>a couple random guys who got in early or were incredibly skilled make millions, everyone else gets far too little to live o
Depending on the effort spent, they can improve their earnings. Although obviously millions will be limited for the very best. As it always was. The difference is that unskilled people have an opportunity at all.

>>17833431
>Look how many semi skilled people made billions with simple apps. Hell, by just creating a loop of ads and blogs, every idiot can make nice cash with barely any work.
Should have been greentexted.
Anyway, the answer here is "none". There are no app billionaires who did not launch big companies (rich and/or super-extraverted). There are very few who are even millionaires, and most of them simply managed to get in early and hold on tight enough to cash out. Luck. Try making your money in the app economy like that when it will take 6 months to launch your first product and you need to pay your rent and have no way to know if it will make money.

>>17832187
Technology in moderation made me happy, but now we have a society connected 24/7 and it's way too much. I blame smartphones. They're a nightmare for someone like me with ADHD. I was talking to my girlfriend about getti g rid of mine and getting a basic cellphone. That actually bothered her, even though I could still text her non stop all day everyday :^) like she wants me to.

>>17833440
>>Read Player Piano.
>You realize, it's satire, right?
Which is totally why everyone in the Silicon Valley VC community or AI community is familiar with it and advocating for basic income right now, right?

And if you had read Neuromancer instead of mocking me with no argument, you would recognize that it is already more true now than 20 years ago. Rise of giant multinationals, their progressive usurpation of governments, shrinking ultra-high-pressure wageslave upper-middle-class, decline of formal employment, rise of a gig economy and decentralized networks of hustlers, widespread use of simulations and virtual worlds to try to escape from the misery of daily life for most people, rampant urbanization, rise of strong AI developed by the largest few corporations, etc. It is already happening. The future is cyberpunk. Even the present increasingly is.

>>17833441
>There are no app billionaires who did not launch big companies
That comes afterwards.

>make app
>it makes nice money
>you want to make much more
>start a company
>make billions
>be Rovio

Hell, take the Flappy Bird guy. There is no need to make anything complicated or original. Hell, one can just flood the market with semi decent clones of popular shit if chance isn't on your side right away. Obviously it'd be a harder option now but with time another market or hype shit opens.

>you need to pay your rent and have no way to know if it will make money
One can still hold a job, study or simply go the welfare way. Tons of options. What could a person with pretty much no valuable skills do back in the day?

>>17833454
>is familiar with it
It's a good book, by a popular author ... this doesn't mean you can take the content serious. Next you're going to tell how The Prince is legit too.
As for basic income, it's a pretty logical evolution even without full automatisation, no need to combine the both.

>And if you had read Neuromancer
But anon, I did. Regrettably.

>Rise of giant multinationals, their progressive usurpation of governments, shrinking ultra-high-pressure wageslave upper-middle-class, decline of formal employment, rise of a gig economy and decentralized networks of hustlers
>+ rampant urbanization
Was always the case.

>widespread use of simulations and virtual worlds to try to escape from the misery of daily life for most people
Sci fi cancer elements.

>rise of strong AI developed by the largest few corporations
That's pretty logical. It need resources. Also "few" is quite an understatement. Pretty much every car company invests in AI now, and it's given than tech companies would do it too.

>>17833440
>You already get tons of free stuff via ads, soon NEETs can earn money by jerking off to porn. And then there is a whole world of basic income and the likes.
Can't get food as ad-supported content. Can't get housing as ad-supported content. I'll admit you're right about college classes, but there's already an oversupply of college-educated labor and people are having to get shit jobs even with engineering degrees unless they're at least top X% of their class-- much less e.g. econ degrees -- again, *unless* they have great social networking skills, which can largely be predicted by how popular and well-liked you were among your fellow students in high school and college.

>Basic income
Cool, now that everyone who is introverted is equally worthless, you get to live in the trailer park next to Cletus and Jamal. You will spend your time playing MMORPGs and filling out surveys for pennies. No woman will ever want you; the guys who still have jobs will simply have multiple gfs instead. Ugly girls will end up as NEETs with the introverted guys. Oh wait this is already happening too. And it's also in Neuromancer.

It's almost like you're in denial or something.

>>17833473
>>widespread use of simulations and virtual worlds to try to escape from the misery of daily life for most people
>Sci fi cancer elements.
Are you fucking kidding me? This is a huge proportion of the under-27 population in the west even at this very moment. Head right over to /r9k/ to see some of the worst of it if you want.

>>17833451
This.
I loved 2000-2008 when I could spend all day fucking with computers and stuff and having a blast but still going out and being totally disconnected
Now it's permanent wired and it's not even fun cyberpunk shit, it's just OMG RECORD IT AND TWEET IT AND SNAP IT AND WHY ARENT YOU DOING ALL THIS STUFF ANON

>>17832187
absolutely

if i'd been born a few years earlier would not have gone into computer career & most likely had an even more miserable life

>>17833474
>Can't get food as ad-supported content. Can't get housing as ad-supported content.
Yet. With AI the cost of food will fall even further, by giving faggots free food and using their reaction to rate the popularity of it, you can do dirt cheap marketing. "25% of the population love our new coke zero"

By offering free housing, you can establish communities how ever you want to, which offers more marketing and study opportunities. There are too many fucking options to mention, and that's just when sticking to capitalism basics of supply, demand and growth and ignoring social factors like trying to lower crime and unrest.

>everyone who is introverted is equally worthless
If you can't create or do anything of worth sure ... but what's wrong with it? Instead of playing MMOS, you could volunteer to take care of old people or dogs and kids, make period blood art or whatever else. Maybe use the free time to come up with something cool or at least learn awesome skills to impress chicks. Besides, AI will make finding the right NEET gf even easier.

>>17833485
r9k and the likes are an extremely small part of the population. As for virtual worlds cancer, just check the ridiculous low number of units sold. Most people manage to waste time on vidya and lead normal lives.

>>17833366
>Also what's even the logic behind the argument? Supply and demand change all the time. What worked at one point, can't work at another. Just think about the poor horses.
I love how you're comparing the >30% of the population that just happens to be introverted and uncomfortable with corporate politics to literally a farm animal. I mean I can tell from your arguments that you don't care if we all end up enslaved and then discarded. But OP's question was simply:
>has technology made you happier?
At a personal level, yes. At a socioeconomic level, no, because it is turning the entire world into the economic equivalent of a giant coastal city and having super-great social skills is now a borderline requirement to avoid poverty. So no. I'm glad you're doing ok, or at least seem to think you will do ok, but things are absolutely not getting better for people whose personalities don't fit smoothly into this hypersocial EQ-driven automated mechanical society, especially if they happen to be disposable-males.

>>17833522
>30% of the population that just happens to be introverted and uncomfortable with corporate politics
A much larger number of population is probably uncomfortable with waking up at early or late times (depending which is needed for their job) The amount of people who are completely socially stunned and unable to function, is much lower than 30%.

>we all end up enslaved and then discarded
A future with basic income (aka. no worries about basics) sounds much better than what a social stunned person could ever achieve. This gives them the opportunity to work on whatever they want undisturbed ... or get therapy. Sounds like win-win.

>>17833496
>As for virtual worlds cancer, just check the ridiculous low number of units sold. Most people manage to waste time on vidya and lead normal lives.
Video games are the virtual worlds to which I was referring. NEETs, which are >20% of U.S. youth, >30% of central European youth, and ~50% of Spanish/Greek youth, just to give some examples, tend to either live lives of parties and drugs and hookups if they are social/extraverted and thereby at least slightly lucky, or video games (immersion in escapist video games) if they are introverted. These are dead-end lifestyles. They do not lead to marriage, family, children, etc. For the introverts they do not generally lead to any meaningful human affection at all since they now have neither game nor money and are thus useless to women.

>>17833550
Just because someone doesn't have a job doesn't mean they waste their life away. There is volunteering, working on personal projects and meaningful hobbies and helping family and friends, all nominally NEET things but enough to make you a viable person for all the marriage crap.

Also all this things are doable for introverts too. You make it sound like there is a huge gab and probably mix up people with mental issues with people who don't want to spend too much time with other people.

>>17833542
>sounds much better than what a social stunned person could ever achieve
Again, completely wrong. There used to be plenty of decent paying jobs for such people. They could afford houses. They could find wives, even, if they went to church or met someone from their hometown; they didn't have to stand out from a huge number of competing guys and they used to have social value from their jobs. If you can't see the difference here you either are in denial or are lying. There is no therapy for being a high-introvert. There is no therapy for autism-spectrum conditions, and these people used to do just fine as engineers but now have an 80% unemployment rate among Aspies and even higher for the less-capable ones (who used to be able to work in factories and actually be pretty good at it, it's all repetitive mechanical work). There is barely even any decent treatment for ordinary social anxiety. Psychs mostly just exist to take your money and help pharma companies take your money, when the real problem is simply your society being mismatched with your DNA. Fucking go ahead and ask me how I know this. Go ahead.

>>17833577
>There used to be plenty of decent paying jobs for such people.
And there still are.

>They could afford houses.
And they still can given decent job + saving up.

>They could find wives, even, if they went to church or met someone from their hometown
If there was not a single non socially retarded guy, which is unlikely unless it was a fucking village. Besides, switch up the roles and realize how unfair the situation was for bitches.

>There is no therapy for being a high-introvert. There is no therapy for autism-spectrum conditions
That's simply bullshit. Maybe you misunderstand therapy as in "changing the condition" while it simply teaches people how to function with it.

>used to do just fine as engineers but now have an 80% unemployment rate among Aspies
That's combining a lot unrelated shit together.

>who used to be able to work in factories and actually be pretty good at it, it's all repetitive mechanical work
Wasting efficiency and slowing down progress for everybody else, lovely. While we're at that, let's give blind guys a chance and hire some as pilots.

>Psychs mostly just exist to take your money and help pharma companies take your money
Social anxiety rarely even requires meds. Mental care being a fuck up in Murica is a completely unrelated issue.

The only thing that noticeable changed is that socially retarded people got a way to run away from learning how to interact with people thanks to Interwebz.

>Fucking go ahead and ask me how I know this. Go ahead.
Applying your personal experiences on the big picture, and using "I am so introverted" as a justification for your own failings. Been there, done that.

Besides, that's all CURRENT situation. Basic income takes care of money and housing. Neither things will be too relevant for your chances with ze wimin, whether it was in the past, present or the future.

Happier, not really.

I'm slow to adapt. I know next to nothing about technology, although I'm apt in biology.

Today, I told someone "I grew up when it wasn't weird to not have a cell phone at 16".

I don't see how I could be less depressed without it if that's what you mean. I hardly talk to anyone irl, I couldn't imagine not being able to post shit online.

>>17833613
>If there was not a single non socially retarded guy, which is unlikely unless it was a fucking village.

>What was Germany before mass immigration, and when social pressure and religion still enforced monogamy?
>What was Japan before gaijin-hunting became a thing and when women could still marry at 22 and it didn't take 2 incomes to survive?
>What were farming villages full of German immigrants?

Fuck you. I'm done with this discussion. You ignore all of history for a supposedly-utopian scheme that in reality will have the effect of reducing much of the poulation even further toward absolute subjugation, for the benefit of the rich and the popular. You sound like a fucking Jew. I'm done discussing this. But mark my words: if this situation continues to leave pluralities of entire generations with no hope for the future, some people are going to die very prematurely. I wouldn't assume they will all be suicides.

>>17833673
t. Sam Hyde

>>17833673
Neither of your examples favored socially retarded people. Specially in Japan you always had to conform to social norms ... and "Germany" had a lot migration through it's entire history. It's how it managed to remain relevant.

Now your arguments goes down to "waah, women aren't forced to settled with absolute losers anymore, that's not fair!"
Even marriage rape isn't legal in most countries anymore, shit sucks, eh?

>>17832187
who is this girl

I met my GF of 2 years over the internet and im loving every single day with her. She's a blessing and i have technology to thank for that! Damn right it has made me happier.