Our appetite for distractions
Your feature on our growing addiction to online devices (27 October) is appropriately illustrated by a photo of four young people sitting cheek-by-jowl, heads bent, sucked in by their iPhones. Such “smartphone zombies” are the most vulnerable to the prevailing tendency to feed what Aldous Huxley called “man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions”. Paul Lewis’s article says that Facebook can now actually identify teens who feel “insecure”, “worthless” and “need a confidence boost”.
Lewis aptly surmises that “tech companies can exploit such vulnerabilities to keep people hooked”. It is significant that those techies who have lately become aware of the monsters they have unleashed are in their 30s: old enough to have known when social media consisted mainly of plug-in phones and email. Youngsters today apparently do not have that option, and need to be educated about the dangers of falling victim to the powerlessness inherent in the latest manipulative technologies.
Richard Orlando
Westmount, Quebec, Canada
• The rise of the so-called attention economy is no surprise, as capitalism has always exploited our hands, hearts and heads in both the spheres of production and consumption.
In the 20th century, the exploitation was primarily on the basis of an eight-hour day for work in factories and offices, and regulated shopping hours in high streets for consumption. Capital particularly wanted our hands in the factories and offices and our hearts in the high streets as brand loyalty became the norm.
In the 21st century it’s out with the hands and in with the gig economy, zero-hour contracts, robots and artificial intelligence for production, and 24/7 for consumption, still driven by our hearts and brands but now intensified as our heads, our attention and our waking hours become a bottomless pit to be mined and moulded via our smartphones.
As for democracy, it limped and sputtered through the 20th century; it will probably do the same through the 21st, unless we start organising for better democracy and throw capitalism into the rubbish bin of history.
Stewart Sweeney
Adelaide, South Australia
Nobel prizes and gender
As an elderly, white, male long-retired biochemist, I fully agree with Hannah Devlin’s viewpoints in her Comment article (13 October) Why don’t women win more Nobel prizes for science? There are plenty of brilliant women scientists, whose research work is outstanding enough to make them eligible to win a Nobel prize, especially in Physiology or Medicine.
One need look no further than the review (7 July) by Peter Forbes of the book: A Crack in Creation, gene editing and the ultimate power to control evolution by Jennifer Doudna and Samuel Sternberg to see a future Nobel winner in Doudna. While it is technically intimidating, Doudna tells a fascinating story of the discovery of Crispr and its control of certain DNA-splitting enzymes. While Doudna’s discovery is relatively recent, her work is fully deserving of a Nobel prize.
Daniel Ellis
Hertford, North Carolina, US
Who is Bob Dylan?
Isn’t there something rather sad about Dylanology? (Devotees of Dylan find a shrine in an unlikely spot, 3 November). The word “shrine” is the key and Graceland perhaps the best example. In Dylan’s case, neither resurrection nor death is necessary for those worshippers who seek confirmation of self by owning a piece of their idol.
As to whether or not Bob Dylan deserves the Nobel prize for Literature, this pales into insignificance in the light of the employment opportunities created by the apparently insatiable need to understand the man and to place a definitive interpretation on his works.
I actually like Dylan’s stuff, but I don’t pretend to understand a lot of it. He is constantly shifting, adapting but always refusing to pander to his followers. At his last concert tour in Australia he had come to terms with a vocal range that has inevitably shrunk with the advancing years. However, he could still captivate.
Who is Bob Dylan? Who knows – does it really matter? I won’t be going to Tulsa to find out.
Noel Bird
Boreen Point, Queensland, Australia
The rich should pay more tax
The article Tax the rich more, says IMF (20 October) was very important. A crucial element of tax policy is redistribution of wealth. The capitalist system has a natural tendency to move wealth from the general populace to the 1%. The degree of redistribution has obviously been inadequate for about 35 years, leading to increasing levels of inequality. Research has shown that inequality correlates to many social ills, such as poor health outcomes, lower longevity, poor mental health, violence, crime and lack of social mobility. Redistribution of wealth must be part of tax policy. We will know if it is progressive enough when inequality turns around.
Don Kerr
Collingwood, Ontario, Canada
Briefly
• In the article Cambridge looks to decolonise syllabus (3 November), white male writers are mentioned. In this time of political correctness, let’s get it right: I like to look upon myself as a writer who is pink with purple blotches.
Rhys Winterburn
Perth, Western Australia
• Email letters for publication to weekly.letters@theguardian.com
.png?w=600)
