If this is a thread about science, well, philosophy of science isn't completely off-topic...
To (at least try to) keep things unpolitical, I'll simply evoke a few of the most used ones : pre-retirement, help for repurposing in other jobs, progressive transition to automation to give more time to the others solutions, effective and adapted education system...
Of course, this list is incomplete, and those solutions aren't always available - this is just to point out that solutions exist.
Yeah, me too. As I said, I do think Internet (as other evolutions) is worth it.
But I would think you are too optimistic about the ability to triage and criticize information for most of us. Personally, I have yet to find a general news website that is better than those on more traditional media, despite the very little opinion I have about those. In fact, the biggest ones are either simply online versions of paper ones, or just as bad.
Maybe it's better for English-speaking news websites, but somehow I doubt it.
Similarly, I've found that crackpots and hate-brewers are doing fine on the Internet. Some can be very convincing, and we have a natural tendency to believe what is said to us (unless we think they have something to gain from it, or that they are repeating something from someone else - and crackpots do generally neither). Even more, we want to hear that the Problems are simpler, that it's Their fault, that there is Purpose and Intent instead of random chances, incompetence and petty corruption.
Just look at all the rumours on the internet that won't die, despite how ridiculous they are. They existed before, but the internet amplified the phenomenon.
And it can serve as resonannce chambre : people who have a vague, mild opinion about something find passionate, feverish people saying that they are Right, that Things must be Done about it, and that the Others want to Stop Us from being Right (or the opposite)... this can be very polarizing for one's opinion.
I'll give an example, from the news. I doubt it is the most widespread one, or even maybe the most problematic one, but it is interesting nonetheless. In my country, authorities have a problem with people going to Syria to fight with (specifically) the hardline Islamists, and come back indoctrinated and battle-hardened. Even worse, they may not even be 18. And many use the internet to learn about it and organize it.
And that's despite the actuve efforts of one of the world's most efficient counter-terrorism services.
Now, they aren't that numerous (at most a few hundreds for dozens of millions), and some would still have gone in the '80s. But without the internet, they would be quite less numerous.
I'd argue that it's not just that. While there are similarities with old lynchings, the internet gives them means they didn't have - if you're living in Anchorage, you wouldn't take a plane to Boston just to lynch someone.
But it is also the "Internet is trying to help" mentality, similar to SETI, or protein folding, or more recently when they tried to find plane debris on satellite images - albeit twisted and with potentially dramatic consequences.
I didn't know Athens worked that way. Interesting, I'll have to conquer a few countries and try that out - Mad social science is the best mad science!
Then again, as I said, those progresses, while potentially disruptive, are globally a good thing. It's just that we have to be sure to not underestimate the others problems they create, amplify or bring back in new flavours - or we won't be able to adress them.
Pretty much. I would say that technology allows us (directly and indirectly) to access more information, and among it more wisdom from others, so it can help. Inversely, it gives us access to more "fake wisdom", which has the opposite effect. And it gives us more means to act upon it in either way.
True. People tend to confuse both, though, so it always saddens me when very intelligent people do very unwise things. In fact, one of the stupidest things I've recently heard was said by one of the most brilliant minds I've heard about.