苏格拉底和柏拉图都并不着急。 无论是亚里士多德，也不赫拉克利特。 他们花时间深入思考。 早在24世纪以前，他们提供人类生存条件，性格和人格的见解和意见，因为他们当时是作为真正的今天。
Fast forward to our fast-paced society. Many people think if they talk faster, people will think they’re smarter. Talking fast is not talking smart. Evening TV news interviews of individuals may average five or less seconds, called sound bites, while they averaged about eighteen seconds in the nineteen-seventies. Standardized tests put a premium on how fast you can answer the questions, putting an emphasis on speed and memory rather than understanding. With standardized testing, deeper learning never really had a chance. Marketers aim for your instant gratification when selling you junk food and other impulse buys. “One-click ordering” has taken this system to a completely new level. Smart traders surrender to computerized trading, speculating in split seconds on the stock exchanges. I could give you ten reasons why this is a bad idea.
You can now hear the evening news on National Public Radio in just three or so minutes—an absurdity. There are radio segments called the “academic minute” and the “corporate crime minute,” dedicated to shrinking attention spans.
To state the obvious, there are fast food outlets everywhere—so many that a modest slow food movement is underway. Many hospitals have been known to admit women in labor and discharge these new mothers less than twenty-four hours after they have given birth – exhibiting a corporate form of “attention deficit disorder.” Advertisements for drugs and other consumables end with warnings of adverse effects that are described so swiftly that they are simply incomprehensible. A top sushi restaurant in Tokyo charges by the minute, not the amount ordered—running you about $300 for a thirty minute meal.
Ever count how many images flit by in an ordinary TV news show while it is being narrated? Play it again – does the viewer even have a chance to absorb and mentally react? TV advertisements are, of course, more emotionally charged this way.
Then there is Twitter with its limited 140 character tweets, the ping-pong exchanges of text messaging scores of times throughout the day, and the constant immersion in video games. Back in 1999, Barbara Ehrenreich, in her view of James Gleick’s book “Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything,” pauses to ponder: “What we lose, as ‘just about everything’ accelerates, is the chance to reflect, to analyze and, ultimately, to come up with moral judgments.”
Not quite everything in our society, however, is speeding up. Rush hour speeds have slowed to ten or fifteen miles per hour in many cities. Banks, in a computer age, deliberately take days to clear checks, maybe hoping to penalize you with a $35 bounced check fee. Try getting through to a business or another institution on an automated phone line. You may have to work through ten levels of “press one, press two…” After choosing, you may only have the opportunity to leave a voicemail message.
As a society, it has taken far too long to implement proven policies that could address and abolish poverty, including raising the minimum wage that has been long gutted by inflation. As a society, we are too slowly expanding mass transit, confronting climate change, converting to renewable energy, and improving the miles per gallon of our automobiles.
Except for Medicare reimbursements, physicians know how long it takes for insurance companies to pay up. Our companies and governments take a long time to clean up their own pollution or respond to complaints from consumers and citizens. These days, it’s looking like a contest of who can care less.
On the other hand, a bizarre, frantic emphasis has emerged to get the packages you order delivered faster and faster. Amazon is following through on their wildest dreams and even thinking about using drones to make deliveries. Likewise, Walmart is gearing up to deliver to your homes and businesses as fast as they can. Pretty soon, people won’t have to go to stores; they’ll just order everything online and never see any other shoppers or have chance meetings with friends and neighbors. Let’s hear the applause from those people who haven’t thought through these “improvements” and the resulting destruction of communities.
娱乐是一个等待破裂的泡沫。 人并不具有多于两个眼睛，两个耳朵，或在一天二十四小时。 在1950年代，有三个国家电视网。 现在，有数百个有线频道和过度的空气电视台，更不用说基于互联网的程序和改道的雪崩。 对于收视率的压力正在开始破灭其供应商。 在纽约时报八月31，2015发表了一篇题为“灵魂电视土地搜索，”记者约翰·Koblin，总结了“电视萎靡不振，这些天，”即，“根本就太多在电视上。”过多与太快了碰撞，我们的技术仙境磨损。
Hewlett Packard (HP) has just started an advertising campaign with the headline: “The Future Belongs to the Fast.” The text includes this message: “HP believes that when people, technology, and ideas all come together, business can move further, faster.”
By contrast, fifteen years ago, Bill Joy, the famous technology inventor/innovator wrote an article titled “The Future Doesn’t Need Us,” citing the oncoming converging technologies of artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and nanotechnology.
So which is it? Got a minute to think about it? Hurry! Oops, you’ve just lost 63 nanoseconds already trying to decide.
拉尔夫·纳德回头看着他的小城镇康涅狄格州的童年，并且塑造了他的进步世界观的传统和价值观。 一次大开眼界，发人深省，令人惊讶的清新动人， 十七传统 是一定要吸引米奇艾尔邦，蒂姆·拉塞特和安娜·昆德伦球迷独特的美国道德的庆祝活动 - 从这个无所畏惧承诺改革者，并在政府和社会的腐败现象直言不讳地批评一个意想不到的，最欢迎的礼物。 在广泛的国家的不满和失望已经带来了新的异议特点占领华尔街运动的时间，自由图标告诉我们如何每个美国人都可以借鉴 十七传统 并且，只有接受它们，有助于实现有意义的和必要的改变。
拉尔夫·纳德被大西洋提名为美国历史上最100有影响力的人物之一，获此殊荣只有四个活的人之一。 他是一个消费主张，律师和作者。 在他的职业生涯，作为倡导消费者，他创办的许多组织，包括中心研究回应型法，社会公共利益研究集团（PIRG），在汽车安全中心，公开公民，清洁水行动计划，残疾人权利中心，养老权利中心，项目的企业责任和 多国监控 （月刊）。 他的小组已经对税制改革，核能监管，烟草行业，清洁的空气和水，食品安全，获得医疗保健，公民权利，国会道德，以及更多的影响。 http://nader.org/