Pundits and bloggers are addicted to decrying the supposed cell-phone addiction of Americans. Surely, we are told, this is the final stage of capitalism in which we ignore our brothers and sisters walking next to us but instead talk through electronic means to some distant party, and talk about what? About nothing. Actually, there is a rational explanation for why we observe so much cell-phone yammer and why we find it so alarming. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/3729/the-myth-of-the-cell-phone-addiction/
The Myth of the Cell-Phone Addiction
Previous post: EU Antitrust for Africa?
Next post: Working Paper on Jared Diamond
{ 24 comments }
Doesn’t Mises in Human Action define technology itself as a worldview? Both worldviews and technologies are tools that allow men to make better informed decisions as they engage in action. (I think that is how he addressed the issue.) That is the *economic* relevance of both, although both are relevant in other ways.
The implication is that if the State were to start limiting cell phone use (as it limited landline usage for decades), then it can be motivated not only by supposed market-failure grounds as by the need to suppress a worldview that makes it somewhat less relevant. Technologies and worldviews often have that effect.
As an aside, I think I am last person in the US to have never owned a cell phone.
Please don’t forget the negative impact from cell-phone radiation on the health of people,
especially on the health of children.
http://www.buergerwelle.com/body_science.html
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cell-phone+and+children
By melodramatizing the alleged opposition to
cellphones you actually carefully slip over
the obvious abuses of these devices.
People who drive talking into them SUCK at the
wheel, okay?? Every damned person knows it. It’s
“folklore”. Second, there are people who interrupt
social engagements to talk to a myriad of people.
They’re important. You’re not.
The cellphone won’t end the world as we know it
but it is often used in narcissistic and vain
ways — to say nothing of the manners. Gee,
Mister, I really want the whole room to hear
about your oh-so-special biz deal.
Cellphones have become a comic outgrowth of
our increasing national vanity. Not a cause
but a manifestation of our shallowness.
Yeah, right, let’s NOT be in the present — let’s
be somewhere else on our cellphone. After all,
we’re IMPORTANT. You’re not.
John Perry
The real solution is to give people control of
their own personal “airspace.” How you ask ? By
Legalizing Part 15 power level Personal Cell
Phone Jammers. The main objection to cell phone
jammers is that they block 911 calls. The
“criminal world” will use them for evil ends. This
is the same argument used against guns. A person
could move a few feet to escape the range of a low
power cell phone jammer.
If my correspondence this morning and some of the comments above are any indication, it seems that I might have underestimated the anti-cell-phone frenzy. I’m being told that cell phones should be banned for the common good. It strikes me that most of these commentators lack is an old-fashioned sense of tolerance and liberality, to say nothing of lack of appreciation for the capacity of society and economy to manage just fine without the intervention of bureaucrats and brow-beaters of all sorts. Such an intensely frenzied reaction against cell phones suggests why it is so difficult for libertarians to make headway in harder cases such as drug legalization and the like.
Jeff, I grant you your whole case about efficiency, pricing, liberality, etc., but your passing observation, “truly people could learn some manners here,” fails to address the severity of the relevant disutility.
Many like myself, who unfortunately do not have the leisure to do all of their study in libraries, feel the loss of many precious minutes — and peace of mind — in public venues acutely. At least ten times a day I find myself thinking, “Again, but for cell phones, my reading on this bus, train, or park bench, could have continued.” Greater efficiency for others has meant less for me. Yes, one could ask the person whether he or she must talk so loudly, but you know very well what one risks by doing that in an urban setting. My reading does not interfere with what they’re doing, but what they’re doing interferes with me.
And they couldn’t care less. And why should they, any more than I should care that they are (probably) using their time unwisely according to my standards? My options, however, are to close my book, or leave, or risk an altercation.
Intellectually, I will adhere to libertarian principle in this matter, more or less as you have articulated it. I cannot pretend, however, that the net psychic outcome for me is anything but negative. — Tony
I think the fact that a lot of people do things that are rude, ignorant, inconsiderate, obscene, foolish, etc etc should not blind us to the fact that cell phones are a huge leap forward for mankind. The ability to talk with anyone anywhere anytime is something kings in the past would have killed for. Not every social development from technology is 100% desirable
More of my thoughts on this issue are posted at Austrian Addiction.
I will agree that cell phones are a big leap technologically, and that I have used them (to explain why I was late! en route). But I also have to agree that they do increase the accident rate for anyone using them while driving, which imperils ME, and that I perceive most cell phone users as extremely rude. Yes, I do ask myself if they HAVE to speak so loudly. DC has made it illegal to use a cell phone while driving, and I think that may spread. The research I read says that using a headset makes no difference – that the increased accident rate is due to taking one’s attention away from the task of driving.
See http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=106009
I’m very conflicted about this – I do support licensing drivers in the interest of public safety, and I don’t think it’s a huge violation of individual liberty to prevent people driving from talking on cell phones…
The difficulty with cell phones is the same with the nuclear bomb. A new technology gives power – for good or ill. A nuke in the hands of a wise and benevolant dictator who will use it to destroy the ninny-nanny government corruption and impose justice and liberty is good. But it more likely would end up in the hands of a foolish and malevolant dictator who would use it to destory justice and liberty and impose ninny-nanny government and corruption.
Cell phones tend to expose the fact that society is now very uncivil. Or to quote, “rude, ignorant, inconsiderate, obscene, foolish, etc.”.
Since I tend to maintian that liberty is limited by virtue, it isn’t a good sign. If people won’t be considerate on cell phones, they won’t forego even an illusory government promise to fix things if we just give them more power. They can’t sacrifice or delay gratification.
Tony, I take public transportation to and from work, and like you I generaly would like to read (or sleep). Have you tried earplugs? Also, one does not even have to involve cell phones; some individuals just plain talk too loudly in their normal non-cell-phone conversations. As far as transportation is concerned, the providers would exhibit good business practice if they had “quiet areas” or “quiet cars”, but since most public transportation is government-owned, this common sense modification will likely not happen too quickly.
And of course, as Jeff as excellently pointed out in his article, a relatively minor problem that could easily be solved by market and property rights measures, is blown completely out of proportion by the statists, with loud calls for some new government restrictions.
I realized that Jeff has quite a series here, which I have dubbed “The Joy of Everyday Things”. See a list of all the articles in this series.
Thanks so much Stephen, but until you drew my attention to it, I had no idea I was writing the same article over and over again!
Dennis, I agree that I could add “inserting earplugs” (or iPods) to my list of coping mechanisms, but my point remains. I’m forced to cope or suffer. I’m worse off even if “social utility” goes through the roof.
Why do I say this? Because the frequency with which I now have to cope with rude behavior is much greater than it was in the past. Cell phone conversations distinguish themselves by their grating “one-sidedness.” The present party must speak generally more loudly to the absent party to compensate for (a) a poor connection and (b) the irrelevance of body language to carry a message.
I’m for free markets uncompromisingly, but any delight I may have in knowing that millions are completing their to-do lists more quickly and are feeling better about life just because they now have no unspoken thoughts cannot compensate me for my pain their rudeness inflicts on me. The logical answer to me is: Tough on you, Tony.
While I disagree with most everything that John Perry posted above, I do agree with him and Phillip Conti that cell phone users could use that little touch of “Think before you speak” that would disarm pretty much all of the nay-sayers: Speak quietly.
Japan had cell-phone mania long before it hit the US, I believe because such a physically small country was easier to wire with towers. Universal service happened much sooner, something that hasn’t even happened in the US yet. However, the Japanese take peace and quiet much more seriously than Americans.
Even the cheapest Japanese cell phone has a “politeness” toggle. It ups the gain on the microphone (and changes the ring to vibrate only) so that the speaker can lower their voice even further and still be understood by the other end.
When I talk to someone who is on a cell phone in the US, invariably they are yelling. They could speak in a whisper and I could understand them, a gentle conversational tone is more than enough. But no, since the microphone is not actually touching their lips they think they have to speak LOUDER than they would if I was walking next to them. There are a couple of people who I talk to that I have to hold my phone away from my ear because they talk SO LOUDLY into their cell phone.
However, this is a symptom of familiarity. Most people don’t understand that modern microphones are very efficient. Americans are not used to effective small things. As time passes, I expect this will change. People will learn, maybe slowly, but it will happen.
Not to worry. Soon, neural induction or direct neural interfacing will happen, and people will be able to send/receive their messages silently. Again the sounds of birds will fill the air, and not the chatter of …. chatter.
Jeffrey, keep writing! They may seem like “the same article” to you, but like Seinfield’s jokes it’s often what people take for granted that needs the illuminating light of inquiry most!
Very nice, Jeffrey. I am surprised at the negative reactions to cell phones displayed in these comments. Here’s my personal other-side-of-the-story anecdote:
Devoting an evening hour at home with my husband to talking to my mother (and driving my husband nuts; apparently it’s painful for some people to listen to one side of a conversation) used to be a chore. Then I started ‘dropping in on’ her via cellphone while on the bus or driving home from work, and it became a way to pass time. Now I often ‘invite her along’ via cellphone for an evening walk with me and the dogs, and it’s an absolute pleasure.
Wasn’t it “conversation” in general, and not just specifically cell phones, that lead to those auto accidents? You should be pushing for a ban on in-car speech.
Sheesh.
As for those of you long suffering the abuses of others in public spaces… that’s the tragedy of the commons. The article spoke directly to this in terms of property owners allowing or disallowing cell phone usage depending on which is best for them. Perfumes, drunkenness, bad body odor — there are plenty examples of issues in public spaces that trouble me far more than some loudmouth in the next seat.
The anti-cell argument is little different than those used in the campaigns on cigarrettes, alcohol, and other drugs. “Social utility” is a non-issue if basic property rights are observed.
So what if you feel inferior if someone ignores you in favor of a cell conversation? Disassociate yourself from that person until he learns enough manners to warrant an investment of your time and effort. Let party guests know why you won’t be inviting them back.
I see cell phone rudeness more of a symptom than an issue in itself. There have been plenty of postings about the general lack of politeness in the modern society of our US democracy. And Curt had a good point about familiarity as well.
Jeffrey,in your article you pointed out that while driving a vehicle weighing several thousand pounds is one of the perfect times to pull out a cell phone. I couldn’t agree more! After all, why waste precious minutes driving from point A to B, when you can multitask! Among those tasks accomplished: putting everyone on the road at risk of serious injury or death. What an efficent way to utilize your time. Forget about concentrating on the road. How brilliant.
Cellphones on planes actually harm astronomers using radio telescopes.
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn7493-astronomers-criticise-plans-to-allow-cellphone-use-on-planes.html
It appears most cell-phone haters posting here are actually annoyed at rude behavior rather than the cell phones themselves. Here are some tips on cell-phone etiquette from Yahoo!:
* Speak softly. Cell phones are usually more sound sensitive than regular phones, so you don’t need to yell to make yourself heard. And no amount of shouting will improve a bad connection.
* Respect the personal space of others by taking your conversation 10 or more feet away from people. Ideally, take your phone call into a private space. Refrain from using your phone in a place where others can’t escape your conversation, such as in an elevator or on public transit.
* Do not interrupt a face-to-face conversation to take a cell-phone call. The person you are actually with takes priority. If you have a phone conversation in front of that person, you’re showing that he or she is unimportant to you.
* Keep private matters private. Nobody wants to hear you fight with your spouse over your cell phone. If you use the phone for business, you could leak company-confidential information when talking in public.
* Turn your cell phone off during weddings, funerals, movies, live performances, sports events, business meetings, classes, and dates, and in places of worship, restrooms, restaurants, libraries, museums, and doctor or dentist waiting rooms.
* Be wary of novelty ring tones. Not everyone will appreciate hearing the latest Britney Spears tune or Beethoven’s Fifth every time you receive a call. Try using your phone’s “vibrate” function instead of the ringer in public.
Most of these are common sense, but I have to try to refrain from answering a call while conversing with someone else, if only to say, “Can I call you right back?”
This article clearly and lucidly brings a very broad point to a specific subject and I find it odd that people that agree ‘intellectually with the author’ find it to be damaging to them personally that people use mobile phones. There seems to be a disconnect between the ‘intellectual theory’ of Austrianism and the practical application (no wonder libertarians can’t overcome the Demo-Publican political cartel). Manners when doing anything like talking on the phone, walking or chewing gum are taught by parents; since the government has taken much of that job from us, you are left with a majority of Americans with poor manners (including newly indoctrinated immigrants) – a natural result of state intervention. Blaming technology for poor manners is the same as blaming it for workers losing jobs because they don’t want to get new skills to keep up with the creative destruction of less efficient enterprises. Not very Austrian at all.
Fear of an automobile accident resulting from a mobile phone call is unfounded, unless the fear stems from a driver doing ANYTHING other than driving, in which case anyone who cannot afford a personal chauffeur should not ever be using a personal car. Why are mobile phones more of a problem than the radio, CD players, other passengers, coffee, Egg McMuffins, flying insects, cigarettes, trees, bumper stickers, emergency vehicles, general human thoughts, etc.? Give me a break – if you cannot handle minor distractions while driving – get off the road. If you cause an accident, live with the consequences and carry enough insurance.
As for the utility and productivity – isn’t that what life is about? A better use of your limited time spent in the productive pursuit of your personal happiness. Living in fear is no fun, especially when your fear is about something as small as a telephone.
Thank you for your cogent argument. Oh, I have to stop typing so that the noise of the keyboard doesn’t piss-off my neighbor and I find myself without a computer.
Marwan
What a fun discussion. I have to add my two cents to add further controversy. Firstly, I am convinced that i see more boneheaded driving by people talking on their cell than not. If we see someone driving oddly, we always look to see if he’s talking on the phone and boy, it just seems he always is. But that’s not a scientific study, mind you.
I think Jeffrey would argue, and I would agree with him, if roads were privatized, then this problem would be solved. Perhaps road suppliers would cater to people who wanted cell phones allowed and those who didn’t. I would guess there would be a premium to be paid to drive on a “no cell phone while driving” road (or maybe the premium would go the other way) and perhaps it would be a premium I’d be willing to pay, or maybe not. But that would solve that. The market, at least will have spoken. The problem isn’t really cell phones. It’s there are way too many public places. I recommend more private property and less public property and services to solve this and many other social issues of these complex technologically advanced days.
Talking on a cell phone increases the risk of accidents while driving. So does listening to music. So does being over 65, or under 25.
Everything in life contains some element of risk. Individuals decide what level of risk is acceptable for them by comparing it to the benefits that they would receive while exposing themselves to that risk.
The phenomena has nothing to do with cell phones but with the nature of the female half of the population. After observing the general population for 65 years, two daughters, and two daughter-in-laws I have concluded that a majority of the female race is compelled to continually talk.
I Thank God for a wife who is biased towards silence althought on a rare occasion it generates a minor dispute. We’ve been together since ’55.
Comments on this entry are closed.