'The Extinction of Experience' and the problem with books like it

A Kindle device displaying the cover of the book titled The Extinction of Experience: Being Human in a Disembodied World by Christine Rosen. The cover features an old-fashioned photograph of children running and playing outside.

I recently read The Extinction of Experience by Christine Rosen; another in an increasingly long line of books around the impacts of technology on the modern world. While most of these lean on the negative (think Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation), there’s also a rare few with a more nuanced approach such as Pete Etchells' Unlocked.

To be fair, I haven’t read The Anxious Generation because I know I will pre-judge it based on the over-reaction that book has caused; specifically the direct link to the political point-scoring law to ban social media for kids in Australia. For those unaware, basically a politician’s wife read the book, had a “think of the children” moment with her husband and now Australia is introducing a stupidly conceived, short-sighted and inconsistently implemented law.

However, my overall experience of ALL these books is two fold:

  • prodigious references to specific findings in studies to fit their narrative
  • leverage of anecdotal experience to support the more emotional arguments to get the reader aligned with their worldview

I find myself reading these types of books with a heavy eye of scepticism as a result. In general, as in many things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I’ve personally gone back and forth on my use of technology over the years. I can absolutely relate to being a technology optimist in the past, however in recent years I’ve gone through a continuous journey of evaluating and optimising my use based on what I need in my life at any given time.

After a rapid decade of evolution in the online space, specifically in social media; I don’t think I’m alone in re-evaluating the role of technology has in our lives. Not in a “let’s get rid of it all” over-reaction, but in a more measured way based on what is actually going to be useful to us individually moving forward.

I’m personally tired of the absolutists trying to argue one way or the other. The likes of Marc Andreessen are just as dangerous at influencing decision makers as Haidt has been; they are just playing the opposite sides of the coin.

In regards to this book specifically, I’ll refrain on providing a review of sorts cause that’s just not my forte. What I will say is that while the author tries to come across as not against technology itself, and occasionally has some honestly useful insights that people could use in their technology journey; the undertone throughout the book is clear: “we were better off before technology and social media”.

If you want to think the same way, read the book. If you don’t want to think the same way, don’t read the book unless you deliberately want to raise the blood pressure.


Google stopped being good for the Internet, and it just took us a long time to realise it

The latest Vergecast podcast episode is pretty great as a whole, but the first half was very interesting around the Anti-Trust cases against both Google and Meta.

The clip above is during the discussion around Google, and the title of my post was a sentence from David Pierce which has stuck in my head ever since. It is absolutely true that some have been calling this out for years; but I do think the phrase is true for many in the Tech industry, myself included.

While it seems as though the chickens have come home to roost for Google, who knows what the hell will happen in this crazy state of the world. It is true however that Google appears to be on increasingly unsteady ground as these Anti-Trust suits move against them, and the threat of breaking up the parts that drive the majority of their revenue become more real.