Originally Posted by Wight

Would have liked to see some more advances in robotics or genetic modifications, but it's not terrible, from my privileged, mostly Occident-influenced perspective, at least.

Can't really argue this one, because It's your opinion. Obviously well researched as well, and as always, Wight.

To an extent, yes, but that isn't necessarily a problem. Conversations had and relationships formed over a digital medium is no less "real" than face-to-face interactions, there is simply a difference in the accepted conventions and etiquette of the settings in question. A person may be unassuming in "real life", and abrasive on the internet, but neither of these behaviors reflect the whole of that individual.

I think that there is a problem here, maybe not a major one, but a problem nonetheless. It may also be a situational problem here, that I myself am only experiencing, but from observations I have made going throughout my daily life lately, I don't think it is. People are tending to pay far too much attention to those that they interact with digitally and their devices compared to those that they interact with in analog (Forgive me if i used that word incorrectly),or real-life, if you wish to put it that way. Granted, they are paying attention to something, but generally that causes problems in real-life. Lack of attention to detail and surroundings and absorption into technology is a common occurrence I see. Basically, I'm alluding to people walking, driving, eating, running, and working with their nose buried in their cell-phone. Addiction to technology is bad, would you not agree?

I agree with your consensus that people do not show their entire true behavior in both face to face and online conversation.

As for the other matter, I can only point to the fact that not everyone is comfortable in a face-to-face setting. Many introverts find that distanced, anonymous communication liberating, allowing them to more adequately express themselves, and actually bring them "closer" to other people than face-to-face encounters.

I agree, but I will also point out that there are people that do not feel comfortable in a digital, text based setting as well.

It has resulted in higher expectations from people as to whom they would like to communicate with. Rather than being limited to those in our immediate vicinity, we are free to choose from the many different personalities (I say this to emphasize that how a person chooses to act is more important than whom that person actually is) to fill specific niches. Smaller, micro-communities (or, "cliques", if you don't mind my using the term without its usual connotations) are a natural consequence of this selection process. Technology allows for certain people the chance to communicate, where in its absence they may never have done so, yet at the same time, there is an almost forced separation between different cliques of users.

This is a concern of mine. Granted technology allows us to create out own breathing space with a group of people that have similar interests that we may never have met, But it also draws rifts between your group and others, not always, but usually. Take players of Dota2 and LoL. They are at each-others throats constantly, and It's been going on for ages.

I have a question for you here Wight, because I value your opinion as a friend. Would you consider these rifts between two groups easier of harder to mend than those created in the real world? On average, because these confrontations often vary on intensity and determination (stubbornness).

Life will continue, innovations will be made, and mouth-breathers will continue to plague us, with or without the technology.