Brevity At All Costs

In our rapidly evolving world, the allure of simplicity and convenience often overshadows the complexity and contradictions inherent in modern life. The rise of social media platforms and the relentless pursuit of economic growth reflect a paradox that defines our era.

Social media platforms epitomize this paradox. Their appeal lies in their simplicity, offering a space for quick opinions and viral content. But this very nature is also their drawback. The lack of context and the emphasis on brevity have led to a culture of superficiality. The platforms that connect us also divide us, fostering a lack of depth and nuance in our conversations. We live in an age where less words mean more virality, but at the cost of vileness and a loss of genuine human connection.

Look no further than X (previously known as Twitter). This is supposed to be the “agora” of modern times, according to its CEO. But what you get instead is writing that optimizes for punchy, controversial, and oftentimes completely incorrect sharing of information. 280 characters is the size of a short paragraph—so what we’re getting at X are people whom are proud to have figured out a way to be brief, as if it was always a good thing.

Being brief is good in certain situations, not when discussing societal, political, and economic issues. You want to talk sports in 280 characters? Great—I believe that’s the best way to do so. But taking the same approach to discuss political philosophy is just pure lunacy. Yet, that’s what we get in modern times, across all social platforms: accounts with millions of followers sharing brief opinions that attempt to encapsulate the nuance of modern life in 280 characters or less.

This phenomenon is not confined to the digital realm. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed during his visit to America in the 1830s, the young American democracy he saw was a system that encouraged shallow thinking and pragmatism—which is still true to this day. While beneficial for several reasons, such as to give people the freedom to pursue their interests and potentially come up with innovative ideas, this approach hides an ailment that few feel comfortable pinpointing: the pedestrian thought.

Democracy, while the least worst option for organizing society and preventing co-habiting humans from killing each other, it also encourages everyone to have general opinions about everything, leading to a lack of introspection and understanding of nuances. The system that gives voice to all can also drown out the wisdom of experience and the subtlety of expertise. Just look at what it has done to America itself: politics has turned into a reality TV show about a popularity contest to see who’s the craziest person to run the country, which also happens to be a place where the president has full authority to launch nuclear intercontinental missiles with the pressing of a button.

But let’s bring this dichotomy closer to us—take tourism as another example. Capitalism has enabled unprecedented mobility, allowing people whom in other times in history would never have had the opportunity to travel beyond 50kms outside their doorstep, to hop in a plane and visit the other side of the globe under 24 hours. It's an amazing feat of human ingenuity to be able to transport so many people from so many different places to anywhere they wish to go provided they have the money to pay for it.

However, this progress is not without its downsides. The very tourism that fuels economies also wreaks havoc on cities. Garbage, long lines, skyrocketing real estate prices, and other issues make life unbearable for locals. The beauty of Rome in August is marred by the damage that tourism does to the city. Tourists, though essential to the economy, can wreck everything, making life largely unaffordable to the average Roman.

The situation at the Louvre, with crowds flocking to see the Mona Lisa, illustrates the negative impact of commercialization on art and culture. The sad reality is that most people would have never flocked to the Louvre had the entertainment industry not splashed the Mona Lisa's face everywhere. Most people are not interested in art; most people are interested in making money to pay their bills, and have little time to think about art. While this is sad, it's also a reality.

In other words, today's decisions are often driven by economic terms rather than societal ones. While the energy industry has improved our quality of life by enabling people to live comfortably in the heat and cold, get from point A to point B in a matter of minutes, produce goods that have made our lives unimaginably easier and much more, it has also accelerated global warming beyond our planet’s natural warming cycle, disrupting ecosystems and causing widespread destruction. The very fuel that has been responsible for the flourishing of every industry on this planet and massive wealth creation, is also wreaking havoc on densely populated areas and killing people by the millions.

When our choices are driven by commercial incentives they’re inevitably selfish and in favour of the betterment of our lives and the lives of our loved ones. But we must also recognize that we are always giving up something. This tension is inherent in modern times, fueling innovation and progress but also demanding sacrifices.

The challenge of our time is to navigate these contradictions with wisdom and foresight. Much of today's decisions are based on economic terms, not societal ones. While both are intertwined, they do not equate. Although the 21st century’s mantra has been to “move fast a break things”, we must recognize that living like we’re speedskating on thin ice is doomed to end in disaster.

The paradoxes and contradictions of modern society are complex and multifaceted. From the appeal of social media platforms to the merits and demerits of tourism, democracy, and economic decisions, we find ourselves in a constant struggle to balance progress with responsibility. The challenge lies in finding a balance that honors both the achievements of humanity and the values that sustain our society. The vantage point from which we view these contradictions will determine what we see as progress and what we recognize as the cost.

PPA