Questioning Our Computer Competence
24/05/11 23:03 Filed in: Human Nature
Douglas Rushkoff, on Think out Loud today, defended his view that we need to program or be programmed when it comes to computer technology. He had lots of interesting things to say about agency. In particular, he wanted to point out that, the less we know about the technology we use, the more likely we are to be programmed by it -- that is, that it will shape the way we make decisions or even think about what kind of decisions we can make without our knowing.
Rushkoff is not defending some luddite thesis here. He's making a clear point that we should carefully consider. He gave the example of a person using facebook. The person thinks that she is a customer of facebook, and the facebook is there to serve her interests. In fact, however, the person does not pay facebook. Advertisers and companies pay facebook so that they can market to the person using facebook. Thus, if we don't really understand what facebook is -- a means for marketers to reach potential consumers -- then we will more easily be tricked into making decisions we might have more control over under false pretenses.
We should not, also, dismiss this too easily as a case of false consciousness. We can have false beliefs about different things we use. Often, marketers work by causing us to believe false things about the products they market. We may even see through the marketing ploy -- do we really believe that drinking a certain beer will make us favorable to the hot members of the sex to which we are attracted? Yet, marketing and advertising work, and it often works because we are not careful about what we understand about the product.
Rushkoff is extending this idea to computers, computer technology, and new media. I think rightly so. Our lives are often constrained in ways we don't even bother to recogize. Take, for instance, the now famous debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Because of the way that Kennedy knew how to use the media for presentation, he easily was seen to have won the debate. The more the technology changes so fast that we cannot keep up with it, the more likely we are to fall to the influence of those who know how to use it. Another more practical example is birth: how does living in a technological society make us think about pregnant bodies? About birth?
So, the warning is simple: beware how you use technology? Ask questions to open up moments of agency? Here, we are our best defenders: asking questions and teaching our children to ask questions. Without questions, we might as well live in a brave new world.
Rushkoff is not defending some luddite thesis here. He's making a clear point that we should carefully consider. He gave the example of a person using facebook. The person thinks that she is a customer of facebook, and the facebook is there to serve her interests. In fact, however, the person does not pay facebook. Advertisers and companies pay facebook so that they can market to the person using facebook. Thus, if we don't really understand what facebook is -- a means for marketers to reach potential consumers -- then we will more easily be tricked into making decisions we might have more control over under false pretenses.
We should not, also, dismiss this too easily as a case of false consciousness. We can have false beliefs about different things we use. Often, marketers work by causing us to believe false things about the products they market. We may even see through the marketing ploy -- do we really believe that drinking a certain beer will make us favorable to the hot members of the sex to which we are attracted? Yet, marketing and advertising work, and it often works because we are not careful about what we understand about the product.
Rushkoff is extending this idea to computers, computer technology, and new media. I think rightly so. Our lives are often constrained in ways we don't even bother to recogize. Take, for instance, the now famous debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Because of the way that Kennedy knew how to use the media for presentation, he easily was seen to have won the debate. The more the technology changes so fast that we cannot keep up with it, the more likely we are to fall to the influence of those who know how to use it. Another more practical example is birth: how does living in a technological society make us think about pregnant bodies? About birth?
So, the warning is simple: beware how you use technology? Ask questions to open up moments of agency? Here, we are our best defenders: asking questions and teaching our children to ask questions. Without questions, we might as well live in a brave new world.
Comments
Philosophy is Dead, Long Live Philosophy
23/05/11 19:03 Filed in: Human Nature
The Telegraph reported that Stephen Hawking, the author of a Brief History of Time, told an audience that philosophy is dead. Hawking is quoted as saying
“Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead."
Why does Hawking make this claim? Because philosophers have not kept up with the findings of science, particularly of physics.
If we parse his comments, he seems to be confusing a few questions. He is confusing answers to "why are we here?" and "where do we come from?" with questions about "how are we here?" and "how did we come to here?" As Mary Midgley has said, most recently in The Solitary Self, he is confusing knowledge with wisdom and wonder.
Of course, Hawking's comments have stirred the bee's nest of philosophers. Most notably, Christopher Norris addresses Hawkings's views on the Philosophy Now website. Norris argues that scientists still need philosophers, particularly philosophers of science, because they provide clarity on terms like falsifiability and truth, and philosophers of science have rejected the Quinean-type relativism that marred 20th century philosophy of science.
Insofar as it goes, Norris' argument is fine. But notice that, despite warning against those philosophers who have given away too much by agreeing with some of Quine's theses, Norris also gives away too much. Where Hawking says that philosophy is dead, Norris focuses only on the philosophy of science and logic. Unfortunately, philosophers of the 20th century in the Anglo-speaking world have tended to focus on questions in epistemology and philosophy of science, thereby killing off almost any relevance philosophy as a whole has for the everyday person. But focusing on technical terminology and questions that pertain only to those doing science, philosophers have abandoned the root of the philosophical enterprise in the Ancient Greeks: trying to understand ourselves and learning how to live a good life.
If we take this broader picture of philosophy, then neither Hawking's comments nor Norris' rebuttal to Hawking have anything to say about philosophy. Or, insofar as they say anything about philosophy, they give a firm warning to those of us in the field to stop being so narrow in our discussions and to make philosophy more relevant. The more that people see philosophy as meaningless in their lives, the easier it will be for administrators to gut philosophy programs, as they have already done at London Metropolitan University.
Or perhaps I should say, if philosophy is dead, it's because philosophers have killed it themselves. It is up to us to resurrect it by giving it a much more meaningful role in human life. Hopefully this blog does that just a little.
“Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead."
Why does Hawking make this claim? Because philosophers have not kept up with the findings of science, particularly of physics.
If we parse his comments, he seems to be confusing a few questions. He is confusing answers to "why are we here?" and "where do we come from?" with questions about "how are we here?" and "how did we come to here?" As Mary Midgley has said, most recently in The Solitary Self, he is confusing knowledge with wisdom and wonder.
Of course, Hawking's comments have stirred the bee's nest of philosophers. Most notably, Christopher Norris addresses Hawkings's views on the Philosophy Now website. Norris argues that scientists still need philosophers, particularly philosophers of science, because they provide clarity on terms like falsifiability and truth, and philosophers of science have rejected the Quinean-type relativism that marred 20th century philosophy of science.
Insofar as it goes, Norris' argument is fine. But notice that, despite warning against those philosophers who have given away too much by agreeing with some of Quine's theses, Norris also gives away too much. Where Hawking says that philosophy is dead, Norris focuses only on the philosophy of science and logic. Unfortunately, philosophers of the 20th century in the Anglo-speaking world have tended to focus on questions in epistemology and philosophy of science, thereby killing off almost any relevance philosophy as a whole has for the everyday person. But focusing on technical terminology and questions that pertain only to those doing science, philosophers have abandoned the root of the philosophical enterprise in the Ancient Greeks: trying to understand ourselves and learning how to live a good life.
If we take this broader picture of philosophy, then neither Hawking's comments nor Norris' rebuttal to Hawking have anything to say about philosophy. Or, insofar as they say anything about philosophy, they give a firm warning to those of us in the field to stop being so narrow in our discussions and to make philosophy more relevant. The more that people see philosophy as meaningless in their lives, the easier it will be for administrators to gut philosophy programs, as they have already done at London Metropolitan University.
Or perhaps I should say, if philosophy is dead, it's because philosophers have killed it themselves. It is up to us to resurrect it by giving it a much more meaningful role in human life. Hopefully this blog does that just a little.
Faith and Darwin
18/05/11 20:23 Filed in: Human Nature
Many people, especially of the religious persuasion, believe Darwin was an atheist. In fact, Darwin denied this. He wrote in a letter
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God.
In fact, Darwin gave some credence to the design argument for God's existence:
Another source of conviction in the existence of Do ... follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe ... as the result of blind chance.
We should be more careful, then, in what we attribute to Darwin as a belief. While he was not an atheist, Darwin was not a believer either. He called himself an agnostic, which, according to Thomas Huxley who coined the term, means that one asserts the "human inability to solve, by strictly rational argumentation, theistic or theological matters."
Of course, people of faith will say that faith begins just where rational argumentation ends. That is, the whole point of having faith is to believe in something we cannot determine by a rational means.
This attitude diverges from that of St. Thomas Aquinas, among others. For Thomas, we have inductive proof of God's existence through several means, one of which is Darwin's design argument. For Thomas, however, these arguments can only tell us that God exists; they cannot tell us who God is -- we need faith and revelation to do that. Moreover, because the arguments for God's existence are inductive, they do not lead to absolute certainty. There is, then, room for agnosticism within the Thomistic framework. Of course, Thomas would look at this askance and would go on to say that, even without reason, one should believe in God through faith.
Darwin was unwilling to make that leap. Yet, his unwillingness was not anti-religious or fanatical the way that many think. Indeed, his study of evolution opens up new possibilities of faith as well as new ways of understanding God's creativity.
It is faith and reason which helps us to understand how we fit into that evolved world as evolved creatures subject to God's design and grace.
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God.
In fact, Darwin gave some credence to the design argument for God's existence:
Another source of conviction in the existence of Do ... follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe ... as the result of blind chance.
We should be more careful, then, in what we attribute to Darwin as a belief. While he was not an atheist, Darwin was not a believer either. He called himself an agnostic, which, according to Thomas Huxley who coined the term, means that one asserts the "human inability to solve, by strictly rational argumentation, theistic or theological matters."
Of course, people of faith will say that faith begins just where rational argumentation ends. That is, the whole point of having faith is to believe in something we cannot determine by a rational means.
This attitude diverges from that of St. Thomas Aquinas, among others. For Thomas, we have inductive proof of God's existence through several means, one of which is Darwin's design argument. For Thomas, however, these arguments can only tell us that God exists; they cannot tell us who God is -- we need faith and revelation to do that. Moreover, because the arguments for God's existence are inductive, they do not lead to absolute certainty. There is, then, room for agnosticism within the Thomistic framework. Of course, Thomas would look at this askance and would go on to say that, even without reason, one should believe in God through faith.
Darwin was unwilling to make that leap. Yet, his unwillingness was not anti-religious or fanatical the way that many think. Indeed, his study of evolution opens up new possibilities of faith as well as new ways of understanding God's creativity.
It is faith and reason which helps us to understand how we fit into that evolved world as evolved creatures subject to God's design and grace.
Priest Movie Review Part 2
17/05/11 20:31 Filed in: Popular Culture
This is the second movie review of the movie Priest directed by Scott Charles Stewart is based on the graphic novel written by Hyung Min-woo. I posted the first one on Monday 16 May 2011. In the first review, I discussed Priest as a critique of the Catholic Church hierarchy over the sex abuse scandal. In this critique, I want to focus on the movie as a dystopia.
A dystopia is the reverse of a utopia: where a utopia is a paradise, a dystopia is hell. Generally speaking, a piece of dystopian literature takes one or two facets of human life and magnifies it to highlight the way it disrupts and destroys human life. (Noticeably: someone's dystopia can often be another's utopia: consider Plato's republic.)
If we view Priest as a dystopian movie, not just for the Catholic Church, but for the wider society, what do we see?
Immediately we recognize a particular view of the role of religion in politics. During the vampire wars, the Church in the movie defended the people, particularly by training priests and sending them out to destroy those who would destroy human life. At the time of the movie, though, religion has become a tool of control: to defy the church is to defy God.
Thus, Priest is a critique of the power of religion as a means of control in life, and, in this case, I imagine of the Christian right and other forms of fundamentalism. This topic is a familiar one with dystopian literature (for instance, V for Vendetta).
Seen through this lens, then, Priest shows us what can happen if we rely to heavily on fundamentalist religion to protect us from terrorists. The vampires would be terrorists and the church an example of some fundamental group. If we cede too much control to the fundamentalist group, not only will we lose any freedom, but we will also be unprotected from those terrorists.
Interestingly enough, the movie never explains why the church decided to put the remaining vampires on reservations rather than eradicating them altogether. Of course, the point might be so that there is always the threat of vampires that can be used to keep the populace in line. This too is a common theme among dystopian literature: one way to ensure control of a populace is to give them a common enemy outside the state to fear: Brave New World. 1984, Brazil, and many other pieces of dystopian literature and movies share this theme. And it is one we should be constantly vigilant for. We've seen repeatedly the attempt to remove freedoms in the name of security.
Seen through this lens, then, it's unclear that Priest adds anything to the dystopian genre. We know about the power of fundamentalism and about the hidden enemy. But, the threat is real enough that, as a reminder of the possibility of this dystopia, the movie serves a useful purpose. While the movie is violent, the gore remains minimal particularly by today's cinema standards. The acting is so-so, except for Karl Urban (Star Trek) who plays a wonderful Black Hat. The movie is filmed well. I saw it in 3-D. Though not as spectacular as Avatar, the cinematography proved rewarding.
Would I recommend that everyone rush out to see the movie? No. I'd recommend checking out the graphic novel first, or reading some other piece of dystopian literature or watching a different dystopian film (Avatar, Bladerunner, Children of Men) first. But for an afternoon or evening's entertainment, the film is worth seeing and enjoyable.
A dystopia is the reverse of a utopia: where a utopia is a paradise, a dystopia is hell. Generally speaking, a piece of dystopian literature takes one or two facets of human life and magnifies it to highlight the way it disrupts and destroys human life. (Noticeably: someone's dystopia can often be another's utopia: consider Plato's republic.)
If we view Priest as a dystopian movie, not just for the Catholic Church, but for the wider society, what do we see?
Immediately we recognize a particular view of the role of religion in politics. During the vampire wars, the Church in the movie defended the people, particularly by training priests and sending them out to destroy those who would destroy human life. At the time of the movie, though, religion has become a tool of control: to defy the church is to defy God.
Thus, Priest is a critique of the power of religion as a means of control in life, and, in this case, I imagine of the Christian right and other forms of fundamentalism. This topic is a familiar one with dystopian literature (for instance, V for Vendetta).
Seen through this lens, then, Priest shows us what can happen if we rely to heavily on fundamentalist religion to protect us from terrorists. The vampires would be terrorists and the church an example of some fundamental group. If we cede too much control to the fundamentalist group, not only will we lose any freedom, but we will also be unprotected from those terrorists.
Interestingly enough, the movie never explains why the church decided to put the remaining vampires on reservations rather than eradicating them altogether. Of course, the point might be so that there is always the threat of vampires that can be used to keep the populace in line. This too is a common theme among dystopian literature: one way to ensure control of a populace is to give them a common enemy outside the state to fear: Brave New World. 1984, Brazil, and many other pieces of dystopian literature and movies share this theme. And it is one we should be constantly vigilant for. We've seen repeatedly the attempt to remove freedoms in the name of security.
Seen through this lens, then, it's unclear that Priest adds anything to the dystopian genre. We know about the power of fundamentalism and about the hidden enemy. But, the threat is real enough that, as a reminder of the possibility of this dystopia, the movie serves a useful purpose. While the movie is violent, the gore remains minimal particularly by today's cinema standards. The acting is so-so, except for Karl Urban (Star Trek) who plays a wonderful Black Hat. The movie is filmed well. I saw it in 3-D. Though not as spectacular as Avatar, the cinematography proved rewarding.
Would I recommend that everyone rush out to see the movie? No. I'd recommend checking out the graphic novel first, or reading some other piece of dystopian literature or watching a different dystopian film (Avatar, Bladerunner, Children of Men) first. But for an afternoon or evening's entertainment, the film is worth seeing and enjoyable.
Priest -- Movie Review Part 1
16/05/11 18:33 Filed in: Popular Culture
The movie Priest directed by Scott Charles Stewart is based on the graphic novel written by Hyung Min-woo. I have not read the graphic novel, so my comments here are based strictly on the movie. (I do want to read the graphic novel now that I've seen the movie.)
The basic plotline is this: the world is divided between vampires and human beings. The war was going poorly for the human beings, until a group of human individuals with superior strength and speed arrived on the scene. They were organized by the church as priests and fought back against the vampire menace. After the war, vampires were relegated to reservations and priests were disbanded and lived meager lives in a society unwilling to accept them. Until, the (illicit) daughter of one priest is kidnapped by vampires and he sets out on a rogue mission to gain her back. The church hierarchy opposes his mission and sends others after him. What you have here is an action movie with two power groups in a dystopian world in which human beings are secluded in dark cities controlled by the church.
It doesn't take much to see that the church in the movie represents any general church but specifically the Catholic church. Further, the monsignors, who control the city and the priests, represent the hierarchy of the Catholic church -- bishops, cardinals, and pop. One central conflict of the story, then, is that between the everyday priest who fights for the people and the hierarchy.
If one sees that basic conflict, it isn't a leap, I think, to see that one issue the movie plays with is that of a hierarchy that tries to hide a secret -- that vampires are still out there ready to destroy us. The fact that the vampires kidnap a young girl calls to mind the Church abuse scandals -- even though it is a girl that is kidnapped. The fact that the rogue priest is her father should call to mind that priests are often seen as the father of the members of their flock. So, we can see a blatant criticism of the Catholic church hiding the bad guys -- those who abuse children -- from the rest of the world and willing to condemn any priest who exposes them.
Except two problems emerge here: first, it's not clear that there's any evidence that the Catholic church actually threatened sanctions against a priest willing to expose the dark secret of sexual abuse. Certainly, the hierarchy did not pursue and condemn the abusive ministers enough and they switched them from one parish to another -- here we see the reservation of the vampires in the film -- but I'm not aware of any priests that were threatened for revealing the scandal.
The second problem is with the movie itself: it's unclear to what extent the monsignors in the movie are aware of the vampires and to what extent they sanction vampire activity outside of the cities. Does the monsignor really believe there is no vampire threat or is he just trying to keep people from anarchy by hiding the threat? The reason this proves relevant is that the monsignor would have to actively be hiding something he knew existed in order for it to mirror what happened in the Catholic Church abuse scandal. Perhaps the graphic novel makes this clearer, but the movie does not.
Which brings me to a criticism of the movie: the movie seems torn between being an action movie with little concern for plot thread or motive and being a thinking person's movie that looks at motives and power struggles. While the movie hints at certain things concerning motives for the monsignor, it does not make clear what the monsignors believe or know and what their motivations are in denying the vampire threat which has clearly surfaced. So it is hard to assess the value of the movie as a dystopian piece focused on the real world.
I will have more to say about this in part 2 of the review tomorrow. In that, I will examine the movie, not from the lens of the Catholic Church and the sex abuse scandal, but from the lens of the wider society.
The basic plotline is this: the world is divided between vampires and human beings. The war was going poorly for the human beings, until a group of human individuals with superior strength and speed arrived on the scene. They were organized by the church as priests and fought back against the vampire menace. After the war, vampires were relegated to reservations and priests were disbanded and lived meager lives in a society unwilling to accept them. Until, the (illicit) daughter of one priest is kidnapped by vampires and he sets out on a rogue mission to gain her back. The church hierarchy opposes his mission and sends others after him. What you have here is an action movie with two power groups in a dystopian world in which human beings are secluded in dark cities controlled by the church.
It doesn't take much to see that the church in the movie represents any general church but specifically the Catholic church. Further, the monsignors, who control the city and the priests, represent the hierarchy of the Catholic church -- bishops, cardinals, and pop. One central conflict of the story, then, is that between the everyday priest who fights for the people and the hierarchy.
If one sees that basic conflict, it isn't a leap, I think, to see that one issue the movie plays with is that of a hierarchy that tries to hide a secret -- that vampires are still out there ready to destroy us. The fact that the vampires kidnap a young girl calls to mind the Church abuse scandals -- even though it is a girl that is kidnapped. The fact that the rogue priest is her father should call to mind that priests are often seen as the father of the members of their flock. So, we can see a blatant criticism of the Catholic church hiding the bad guys -- those who abuse children -- from the rest of the world and willing to condemn any priest who exposes them.
Except two problems emerge here: first, it's not clear that there's any evidence that the Catholic church actually threatened sanctions against a priest willing to expose the dark secret of sexual abuse. Certainly, the hierarchy did not pursue and condemn the abusive ministers enough and they switched them from one parish to another -- here we see the reservation of the vampires in the film -- but I'm not aware of any priests that were threatened for revealing the scandal.
The second problem is with the movie itself: it's unclear to what extent the monsignors in the movie are aware of the vampires and to what extent they sanction vampire activity outside of the cities. Does the monsignor really believe there is no vampire threat or is he just trying to keep people from anarchy by hiding the threat? The reason this proves relevant is that the monsignor would have to actively be hiding something he knew existed in order for it to mirror what happened in the Catholic Church abuse scandal. Perhaps the graphic novel makes this clearer, but the movie does not.
Which brings me to a criticism of the movie: the movie seems torn between being an action movie with little concern for plot thread or motive and being a thinking person's movie that looks at motives and power struggles. While the movie hints at certain things concerning motives for the monsignor, it does not make clear what the monsignors believe or know and what their motivations are in denying the vampire threat which has clearly surfaced. So it is hard to assess the value of the movie as a dystopian piece focused on the real world.
I will have more to say about this in part 2 of the review tomorrow. In that, I will examine the movie, not from the lens of the Catholic Church and the sex abuse scandal, but from the lens of the wider society.
Laziness
13/05/11 18:21 Filed in: Human Nature
Laziness is learned behavior.
The other day, I was at the coffee shop when a grandmother and her 7 year old granddaughter came in. The grandmother was meeting a friend. The granddaughter picked out a decent puzzle and started working it. I watched her for a little bit because she was so entranced by what she was doing. It brought to mind the old Zen idea of mindfulness: wash the dishes when you're washing the dishes. Or, work the puzzle when you are working the puzzle.
Have you ever watched young children play. They are completely invested in their play. They may be making something from their imagination that will never work and involves saran wrap and aluminum foil and cardboard. But they are completely immersed in their activity -- in their work.
So, you see, we are born workers -- co-creators with God in the words of John Paul II.
So whence laziness?
We learn it.
Laziness is an outgrowth of a natural need ... the need for rest. In our contemporary, fast-paced, gratification culture, rest can take many forms, from watching television to doing puzzles. Our play can take many forms as well, and we can get caught up in entertainment -- from playing baseball to playing on the Wii.
The problem can be two-fold, then.
Either we get so addicted to our rest that we forget to work again or we get so destroyed in our creative capacities that we have nothing to take us away from our rest and play. The first problem is one that has been with people since the beginnings of civilization. When human beings first developed the capacity to rest, there was always the possibility -- as there is with any human activity -- to take it too far. And some few people who could did. But, for the most part, human beings are naturally industrious. We see this in children.
The second problem is a symptom of our modern lives. Capitalism destroys human creativity by denying us those activities which most engage our human capacities. Making money, as Aristotle noted, is not a human activity. Being engaged in the common good, raising families, and otherwise being in a practice are human activities because they exercise our most fundamental human powers. Capitalism must destroy this drive, for, given the real choice between doing something that increases the person I am or sitting around playing Wii, most human beings would, unless trained otherwise, choose the former.
A society like that of WALL-E is constructed from our basest nature. And it is one that results from corporate, consumer capitalism.
If this is true, and every time I see a child play I know it is, then we have to think about laziness in a way differently than we have. Yes, no one has a right to be lazy, and I am not justifying laziness. What I am saying is, laziness is a symptom of the system we have created. If we really want justice in the world, then the best thing to do is destroy the current system for one more human.
The other day, I was at the coffee shop when a grandmother and her 7 year old granddaughter came in. The grandmother was meeting a friend. The granddaughter picked out a decent puzzle and started working it. I watched her for a little bit because she was so entranced by what she was doing. It brought to mind the old Zen idea of mindfulness: wash the dishes when you're washing the dishes. Or, work the puzzle when you are working the puzzle.
Have you ever watched young children play. They are completely invested in their play. They may be making something from their imagination that will never work and involves saran wrap and aluminum foil and cardboard. But they are completely immersed in their activity -- in their work.
So, you see, we are born workers -- co-creators with God in the words of John Paul II.
So whence laziness?
We learn it.
Laziness is an outgrowth of a natural need ... the need for rest. In our contemporary, fast-paced, gratification culture, rest can take many forms, from watching television to doing puzzles. Our play can take many forms as well, and we can get caught up in entertainment -- from playing baseball to playing on the Wii.
The problem can be two-fold, then.
Either we get so addicted to our rest that we forget to work again or we get so destroyed in our creative capacities that we have nothing to take us away from our rest and play. The first problem is one that has been with people since the beginnings of civilization. When human beings first developed the capacity to rest, there was always the possibility -- as there is with any human activity -- to take it too far. And some few people who could did. But, for the most part, human beings are naturally industrious. We see this in children.
The second problem is a symptom of our modern lives. Capitalism destroys human creativity by denying us those activities which most engage our human capacities. Making money, as Aristotle noted, is not a human activity. Being engaged in the common good, raising families, and otherwise being in a practice are human activities because they exercise our most fundamental human powers. Capitalism must destroy this drive, for, given the real choice between doing something that increases the person I am or sitting around playing Wii, most human beings would, unless trained otherwise, choose the former.
A society like that of WALL-E is constructed from our basest nature. And it is one that results from corporate, consumer capitalism.
If this is true, and every time I see a child play I know it is, then we have to think about laziness in a way differently than we have. Yes, no one has a right to be lazy, and I am not justifying laziness. What I am saying is, laziness is a symptom of the system we have created. If we really want justice in the world, then the best thing to do is destroy the current system for one more human.