That reads like a rant from the 1950s. People have been complaining about that since the introduction of television. Before television, entertainment was a scarce resource. After television, anyone with a receiver could obtain more entertainment than they could consume.

About a dozen years ago, ABC, the TV network, had a promotion to the industry with banners around the Hollywood area. One on Wilshire near Beverly Hills said "All we ask is five hours a day". That refers to the average TV viewing time of Americans. That number has dropped since, much to the annoyance of the TV networks.

We may have passed peak cell phone overuse. I see fewer people walking around while looking at their little screen. It's been several years now since someone walked into me while looking at a screen; in the early days of smartphones, that happened often in stores. I'm no longer seeing people on the California Coastal Trail watching little screens. Society seems to be dealing with this.

I've recently given up a big temptation/distractor in my life. I packed up my gaming desktop and gave it away, and now I just use my laptop which I long ago set aside as school-only. This thing couldn't even play games if I wanted to, but it CAN ssh and compile code.

I mean, after 9.5 years of playing DotA, what's the point? My grades have improved and I'm overall happier as I invest more time learning skills that I truly want to gain, all while traveling lighter.

I think I hit a breaking point when I was living in my last apartment. I had too much junk around that I didn't want, need, or use. And because there was enough of it, I didn't have a real place for anything and didn't feel like cleaning it. My apartment wasn't dirty, but it was perennially untidy. I did not like that at all.

I don't think the author should be using the "we" pronoun. He's welcome to talk about himself but it's a step too far in generalizing that everyone has those behaviors and tendencies.

Second, he needs to take a deep breath and relax. There is a balance that can be achieved through focus and discipline. How about changing the discussion to educating parents on these distractions and nipping the false sense of anxiety at the bud? How about having a psychology class in high school that confronts these desires and shows how artificial they really are?

I think the author uses the term "we" when he should talk about himself.

He presents distraction as an insurmountable problem, and it is not. Society develops antibodies for everything, including novelties in the later century like propaganda and media mass control, advertisement and even TV.

As tools things like cinema, TV or Internet, or cell phones give us much more options that what is taken from us.

For example, going to the cinema for two hours made people understand places and people living far away much better than any book theater or picture could.

Now if you want to solve distraction finding people that have solved it and developed effective techniques is only a touch away, if you really want to solve it instead of ranting about "we sinners" on Internet.

Having said that "Man shall not live on bread alone". Some distraction in your life is necessary. People are not productivity machines. Curiosity is Ok. I "lost" time on HN, but I always "gain" from things I learn on it. I have cashed lots of money from this knowledge but hadn't I, I will continue reading it.

Using twitter or facebook for getting in touch with the people you love does not need to take so much time and could be very useful.

I would say the author's point about buying things and distraction from being connected is pretty weak. There's actually a tension there: why buy other stuff when you only ever interact with your phone?

You can be a complete minimalist, live in a house with nothing in it, and just lay on the floor in the dark surfing the internet on your phone, chatting with friends on facebook etc, and all of the problems the author complains about will still exist.

Focus is a more valuable trait in this era. We spoil our mouth and stomach first. And it's mind's turn. Information diet might be a solution for most information consumers.

> I don’t want to offend anyone, and I’m saying this with absolute care and humility… but if only they hadn’t had that much stuff then they would have had an easier time evacuating their homes and focusing on making sure their families are safe.

I've never understood these "I'm not a racist, but"-type comments. This is offensive, and does not demonstrate care and humility. Someone who learns from such a tragedy principally that others shouldn't have so much stuff is, I think, learning the wrong lesson.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't mean that I don't understand the purpose of the disclaimer, but rather that, if not always then at least in a modern rhetorical environment, it seems like a poor way of achieving its goal. For example, if the author correctly recognises that his statement sounds offensive, and absent care and humility, why not explain why he thinks that perception is incorrect, rather than trying simply to deny it by fiat?

Have any of you seen this television ad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4GjGhAhCn8

Cox is the official sponsor of binge-watching.

Addiction sells (see Phillip Morris). The wonderful thing about selling Internet is that you don't create the content, you just provide access to it. As content gets larger and larger (320x240 -> 4K streams..) so do profits. It's bizarre to me how blatantly they want their users to be helplessly addicted.

I think the author is right about tangible things ("stuff") but could spend more time pointing out the intangible addictions: 1000+ RSS feed items to read, 100+ TV episodes to catch up on, 10+ news aggregators to check, 100+ new PNGs to arrow through, etc. These things don't pile up quite so visibly.

I think I'll take his advice and not buy the book, cause I don't need more stuff(even digital stuff).

The first half of the article is a genuine problem. There's just so much distraction going on right now, I wonder how people are being productive.

My favorite part of being a human is that I get to decide what stresses me, what makes me anxious, etc. So I make interacting with technology about me deciding how much I want to engage. Phones have silent. You can turn off email notifications pretty easy. You can turn it off on nights and weekends (I can't recommend this highly enough if you are in a position to do so).

Sure, I get peeved with folk obsessing over their phone's Instagrat feed. But then I remember that it's their life, their choice, and who am I to think it's inherently wrong?

I also couldn't help but think of this Louis CK bit the whole time reading this: https://vimeo.com/69662330

The ideas in this article:

1. Contain a grain of truth 2. Might be better understood by reading Csikszentmihalyi (or Heidegger, for that matter) 3. Come in sets of three

People should be masters over the technology, not the other way around. It's important to feel in charge and to retain the right to freedom of choice. Too many people are too worried not to keep up with everything new and shiny. But many people don't care and go their own way...

> In fact, it leads to deeper debt and needing bigger houses to contain all this meaningless stuff.

> It also becomes a cause of unnecessary stress, as it will take your precious money, time, emotion, attention, and effort to take care all of this stuff.

> The recent massive flooding here in Olongapo City is a testament to that. Visiting houses of families ravaged by the flood, I was reminded by how too much stuff is not a luxury – it’s actually a burden, a liability.

I am not rich. I am poor. The few possessions I have, that you might think are cluttering my rented apartment, I hold to them because I can't afford to replace them. Too many chairs in my living room, too many different knives in the kitchen drawer. I don't have a TV though. But I won't ditch my mp3 collection burned on CDs because I can't afford to listen to it on Deezer. I wish I could go on holidays with only my iPhone and my sennheiser headphone and just buy what I need on the spot. I'll drop some karma points to say this: "Fuck you".

TL;DR

As indicated at the bottom of the article, this is only the first chapter of a book in which he does offer solutions and strategies. http://www.raymundtamayo.com/p/simplify-life-and-make-it-cou...

Regarding use of "we". Clearly (at least to me) he is referring to societal trends that are fairly common. Not a specific groups of "we"s. So clearly there are plenty of folks who are not effected by these challenges. It's fairly pendantic to get hung up on this word.

I guess one of the things that occurs when one becomes aware of realisations like his, is the idea "oh my god, it's not just me, it's everyone!"

This happened to me too, years ago. And then I realised, "wait a minute, maybe I am just focusing on that side of my life." And of course on the side of life where more of like-minded people can be found: the Internet. And thanks to this realisation, the idea that everyone is like this, waned.

I do agree with what you're saying - not everyone is like this. I for one am not, I keep focusing on my belief that being in contact with others is not something you do with gadgets - it's what you do with focus. So I don't put much value in the technology, and the older I get, the less importance all this tech has to me.

But that's just me, and I do still often feel like the odd one out. And not only that: I'm also really disciplined in the pursuit of my idea, that the less you have, the more value the things you do have, are. Most of them immaterial too.

I think the author is perfectly entitled to use "we" for the phenomena he is both experimenting first hand and observing around his environment. I can say his experience seems uncomfortably familiar to me, and have talked with more people (both online and face to face) that see the same things and share the same concerns. So, there is a non trivial number of people inside that "we". If you don't experiment this problem in person, you might as well count your blessings.

Your point about there being a balance... it might be correct on the individual level. However, you cannot deny the problem at the society level. A large number of people (maybe the majority) never learn how to focus, because they grow up in environments that do not promote formation of discipline - either they are left to do as they see fit, or they are told what to do all the time, but only rarely are held accountable to own up the consequences of their own actions until very late in their upbreeding.

From Scott Alexander's post, The Eighth Meditation on Superweapons and Bingo[1]:

> But why would someone use "I'm not racist, but..."? It sounds to me like what they are saying is: "Look. I know what I am saying is going to sound racist to you. You're going to jump to the conclusion that I'm a racist and not hear me out. In fact, maybe you've been trained to assume that the only reason anyone could possibly assert it is racism and to pattern-match this position to a racist straw man version. But I actually have a non-racist reason for saying it. Please please please for the love of Truth and Beauty just this one time throw away your prejudgments and your Bingo card and just listen to what I'm going to say with an open mind."

> And so you reply "Hahahaha! He really used the 'look I know what I'm saying is going to sound racist to you you're going to jump to the conclusion that I'm a racist and not hear me out in fact maybe you've been trained to assume...' line! What a racist! Point and laugh, everyone! POINT AND LAUGH!"

Poor reactions to such disclaimers have gotten so bad that I'm now seeing disclaimers referencing that fact. "I know racists say, 'I'm not racist but...', but in this case..."

Most often, people who use such disclaimers really aren't racist. Or if they are, it's by accidental ignorance, not purposeful maliciousness. In any case, it's more productive to respond with civil discourse rather than claiming offense and biting their head off.

1. http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html

I agree with you in general, but specifically, how is this statement offensive? It seems pretty obvious to me that if someone has less stuff, they won't have to spend as much time taking care of said stuff, and that some people may make some bad calls to care for their valuable stuff in an emergency situation instead of focusing solely on their own safety or their family's safety. We see it so often that it needs to be mentioned in fire safety drills that you shouldn't dawdle around in a burning building to collect your stuff, and that you hear of people in evacuation areas staying behind because they don't want to leave their homes.

I was reading a book the other day about a guy who chose to sell most of his possessions and live in a van with his wife, and he had several stories of being able to simply drive away from emergency situations, where the people with more stuff were (or felt) stuck and had to suffer through it. He drove away from power outages, flood areas, fire areas, etc. For this and other reasons, he felt a lot happier and safer than when he lived a life with a lot more stuff.

This is an example of "procatalepsis" or "prolepsis" [1], a rhetorical device that is often used to try to defuse criticism. Authors often use this to try to slip something controversial by their readers [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procatalepsis

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2015/apr...

You're right that it's poor rhetoric. "Oh Woe" flagellation doesn't fit well in self help writing.

The ancient way of fitting a potentially offensive statement in is to write it esoterically, so that only the people who really want to analyze get the message. The modern way is to call everything a positive, I think.