4 ms·

Historically when the masses were closer to missing 3 meals in a row on account of bad public policies, or were regularly sent off to be slaughtered en-masse in

Historically when the masses were closer to missing 3 meals in a row on account of bad public policies, or were regularly sent off to be slaughtered en-masse in battle in other countries on behalf of their monarchs, this is the kind of thought process that led to revolutions. And things generally got better. Not indefinitely. And sometimes they stayed objectively BAD. But better. And change and progress is never a straight line. But now? With everyone in the Western world well-fed with cheap (relatively) calorie-rich food, and well-entertained with cheap (relatively) entertainment, everyone is too scared to lose what they have to actually question the status quo. As soon as anyone does, there's a reminder that millions of people in the 3rd world will not have enough access to fresh water in our lifetimes, so we should be happy with what we DO have not what we don't. And if that's not enough, many of those people from the 3rd world want to terrorize and kill us, don't you know? So what's a society to do when the best we can do seems to be Barrack Obama and Justin Trudeau (not bad, but ultimately unfulfilling) The bolsheviks had it partially right all along, honestly. There's enough wealth in this world for the entire planet to live prosperously in peace. But neither central planning nor the free market is a good enough system on their own to ensure there is some semblance of fairness in the world and yet incentives to innovate and grow humanity forward. Technologically speaking we are at an extremely exciting time. I feel like I should be optimistic about the next 20 years. Instead I'm terrified of what humanity will actually do with this potential in the short term like watching a toddler with a hand grenade and just hoping he chews on it for a bit, and gets bored of it, rather than figuring out the pin.

toyg 11y ago
I agree with most of your points (I'm one of those well-fed not-ready-for-revolution types, despite being very much a self-confessed leftie) but: > Justin Trudeau (not bad, but ultimately unfulfilling) I don't follow Canada very closely, but isn't it a bit early to judge his record? (Totally agree on Obama btw, but that was coming from the day he announced Biden as his running mate...) > There's enough wealth in this world for the entire planet to live prosperously No there isn't, really. It's growing and we're trying to figure out ways to feed everyone and help everyone, but levelling down first-world disparities wouldn't free enough resources to really level up the third world. Consumption rates are just too high all across the board. We (well, some) are trying to figure out more efficient ways of producing and consuming (solar etc) but there's a long way ahead if we really want to take billions of people out of poverty.
- fulafel 11y ago
  We are producing ample food for everyone, it's just that we prefer to use most of it for other things because prefer luxury meats and ethanol to feeding everyone. It's very similar to how we are shooting the next generation in the foot with coal and oil.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    There's no tradeoff between "luxury meats" and feeding everyone. The appropriate signals will be perceived by the Big Food Machine and more will be made as soon as there is room on the shelves. Agricultural land goes out of production now, fast. Conservation easements offer the service of allowing people who have inherited family land to be able to abate taxes on it in exchange for taking it out of production. This isn't Panglossian; it's just the facts. Ethanol is just bad politics.
- deanCommie 11y ago
  Excellent points, both of them. I guess my thought process is Trudeau could be the most capable leader in the history of Canada, he can only do so much in charge of 30 million people of a 10th most powerful economy in the world. Canada can and is setting a good example, and I'm supremely happy to have my citizenship, but it won't be what makes or breaks the success of the rest of the world. Least of all our nearest neighbor who'll listen to China before us.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  There would be if people would stop consuming total crap. See: Chinese toy factories, American Fast Food.
trelltron 11y ago
What truly interests me is the idea that, potentially within our lifetimes, we will be forced to admit that there is no longer enough gainful work for all humans to have traditional jobs. Self-driving cars have the potential to remove ALL transportation-related jobs from the job-pool. And there are many other fields which could probably be entirely operated by machines when the technology is sufficiently advanced. Historically the labor saved by technology has been moved to other fields, but I have my doubts that this is sustainable.
- stonemetal 11y ago
  > And there are many other fields which could probably be entirely operated by machines when the technology is sufficiently advanced. As far as I can tell the technology is sufficiently advanced, just not sufficiently applied. Considering all the tech. involved in autonomous driving there are plenty of jobs that could be automated away with it not just ones involving vehicle use.
- Tenhundfeld 11y ago
  This is getting pretty far off topic, but since it's one of my obsessions too, I have to reply. :) I agree we'll inevitably get to the point where the vast majority of jobs are done cheaper/better by technology (software, robots, etc.). And let's just disregard Artificial Super Intelligence for the moment, which may make this projection moot. So, how does society work when there are legitimately, structurally no jobs for, let's say, 60% of the worldwide adult population? I think the answer largely depends on how quickly our abundance rises, and a big part of that is energy. I expect/hope we'll one day discover/invent a source of energy that is nearly-free, nearly-infinite, and nearly-zero-maintenance. Now imagine this magic energy cube is relatively cheap to produce and small enough to be transported in the back of a pickup truck, my simple test for its ubiquity. At that point (free ubiquitous energy + ubiquitous automation), we'll eventually be able to feed, clothe, and house everyone for essentially free – at least at a comfortable albeit minimalistic level. So people don't have to work to survive. Many people would choose to work for the satisfaction it provides and of course the prestige and access to luxury goods. But many people might not want to work – at least not traditional jobs. Assuming virtual reality continues to improve, people might spend their days "working" in World of Warcraft (or its future equivalent) or just enjoying the expanding plethora of entertainment options. Basically, imagine everyone has access to a replicator and lives in a holodeck, to use Star Trek vernacular. Working becomes optional. I don't know. But I think the situation fundamentally changes when we have the abundance to easily support people who can't find a job or just don't want to work. The big question in my mind is whether we can start moving up the abundance curve before the impending jobs crisis. Throughout history, large numbers of unemployed adults, especially young men, has led to mass upheaval. But if we have sufficient abundance and entertainment, we might break that cycle.
LesZedCB 11y ago
So much propaganda has been targeted directly at the 'middle class'. Be thankful you aren't in a third world country. At least you have a job. At least you live in the USA. Meanwhile, wages are being cut, they are being bled dry paying for healthcare they can't afford, new entrants have tens of thousands of student debt they cannot pay off, they realize their voting in new people, either republican or democrat gets them the same old shit (see: Sanders and Trump, the outsiders). I am optimistic for the next stage in US development, but I also think you are correct that people are angry, but don't know which direction to force it. Fascism is just as likely (if not more likely) than a socialist revolution if people uphold strong nationalism, protectionism, and direct their anger at some marginalized social group (formerly Jews, now Immigrants).
- deanCommie 11y ago
  This is my #1 fear as someone who just recently moved to Europe from North America to travel and see the world while working. Europe is NOT dealing well with multiculturalism and immigration. And while the American/Canadian progressive left goes more radical, at least it keeps the extreme right wing in check. The European left is too scared and complacent to either set boundaries or speak up for the benefits of liberalism due to complacency after decades of being in charge. As a result, the conservative/nationalist/fascist wings are DOMINATING the conversation, and are winning hearts and minds. And yeah, I'm fully expecting at least one Eastern European country to start openly locking up muslims within a decade.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    > The European left is too scared and complacent to either set boundaries or speak up for the benefits of liberalism due to complacency after decades of being in charge. I don't think that's the full picture. First of all I don't think the European left has been in charge for decades, and second of all austerity measures e.g. in Spain have resulted in left movements growing stronger. It all depends on the country, really.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I'd read up on the Bolshies a bit. They were murderous thugs. That's not exactly propaganda, that's a mix of Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn and various bios of the principal players. "Toddler with a hand grenade" is exactly right. Thing is, it was ever thus. None of this even remotely compared to the disruption had because of color (organic) chemistry. Question the status quo all you want, but it's always there for a reason. One need not make a fetish of it to observe that it took all the errors we could muster to get it this far.

toyg 11y ago

I agree with most of your points (I'm one of those well-fed not-ready-for-revolution types, despite being very much a self-confessed leftie) but: > Justin Trudeau (not bad, but ultimately unfulfilling) I don't follow Canada very closely, but isn't it a bit early to judge his record? (Totally agree on Obama btw, but that was coming from the day he announced Biden as his running mate...) > There's enough wealth in this world for the entire planet to live prosperously No there isn't, really. It's growing and we're trying to figure out ways to feed everyone and help everyone, but levelling down first-world disparities wouldn't free enough resources to really level up the third world. Consumption rates are just too high all across the board. We (well, some) are trying to figure out more efficient ways of producing and consuming (solar etc) but there's a long way ahead if we really want to take billions of people out of poverty.

fulafel 11y ago
We are producing ample food for everyone, it's just that we prefer to use most of it for other things because prefer luxury meats and ethanol to feeding everyone. It's very similar to how we are shooting the next generation in the foot with coal and oil.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  There's no tradeoff between "luxury meats" and feeding everyone. The appropriate signals will be perceived by the Big Food Machine and more will be made as soon as there is room on the shelves. Agricultural land goes out of production now, fast. Conservation easements offer the service of allowing people who have inherited family land to be able to abate taxes on it in exchange for taking it out of production. This isn't Panglossian; it's just the facts. Ethanol is just bad politics.
deanCommie 11y ago
Excellent points, both of them. I guess my thought process is Trudeau could be the most capable leader in the history of Canada, he can only do so much in charge of 30 million people of a 10th most powerful economy in the world. Canada can and is setting a good example, and I'm supremely happy to have my citizenship, but it won't be what makes or breaks the success of the rest of the world. Least of all our nearest neighbor who'll listen to China before us.
hellbanner 11y ago
There would be if people would stop consuming total crap. See: Chinese toy factories, American Fast Food.

trelltron 11y ago

What truly interests me is the idea that, potentially within our lifetimes, we will be forced to admit that there is no longer enough gainful work for all humans to have traditional jobs. Self-driving cars have the potential to remove ALL transportation-related jobs from the job-pool. And there are many other fields which could probably be entirely operated by machines when the technology is sufficiently advanced. Historically the labor saved by technology has been moved to other fields, but I have my doubts that this is sustainable.

stonemetal 11y ago
> And there are many other fields which could probably be entirely operated by machines when the technology is sufficiently advanced. As far as I can tell the technology is sufficiently advanced, just not sufficiently applied. Considering all the tech. involved in autonomous driving there are plenty of jobs that could be automated away with it not just ones involving vehicle use.
Tenhundfeld 11y ago
This is getting pretty far off topic, but since it's one of my obsessions too, I have to reply. :) I agree we'll inevitably get to the point where the vast majority of jobs are done cheaper/better by technology (software, robots, etc.). And let's just disregard Artificial Super Intelligence for the moment, which may make this projection moot. So, how does society work when there are legitimately, structurally no jobs for, let's say, 60% of the worldwide adult population? I think the answer largely depends on how quickly our abundance rises, and a big part of that is energy. I expect/hope we'll one day discover/invent a source of energy that is nearly-free, nearly-infinite, and nearly-zero-maintenance. Now imagine this magic energy cube is relatively cheap to produce and small enough to be transported in the back of a pickup truck, my simple test for its ubiquity. At that point (free ubiquitous energy + ubiquitous automation), we'll eventually be able to feed, clothe, and house everyone for essentially free – at least at a comfortable albeit minimalistic level. So people don't have to work to survive. Many people would choose to work for the satisfaction it provides and of course the prestige and access to luxury goods. But many people might not want to work – at least not traditional jobs. Assuming virtual reality continues to improve, people might spend their days "working" in World of Warcraft (or its future equivalent) or just enjoying the expanding plethora of entertainment options. Basically, imagine everyone has access to a replicator and lives in a holodeck, to use Star Trek vernacular. Working becomes optional. I don't know. But I think the situation fundamentally changes when we have the abundance to easily support people who can't find a job or just don't want to work. The big question in my mind is whether we can start moving up the abundance curve before the impending jobs crisis. Throughout history, large numbers of unemployed adults, especially young men, has led to mass upheaval. But if we have sufficient abundance and entertainment, we might break that cycle.

LesZedCB 11y ago

So much propaganda has been targeted directly at the 'middle class'. Be thankful you aren't in a third world country. At least you have a job. At least you live in the USA. Meanwhile, wages are being cut, they are being bled dry paying for healthcare they can't afford, new entrants have tens of thousands of student debt they cannot pay off, they realize their voting in new people, either republican or democrat gets them the same old shit (see: Sanders and Trump, the outsiders). I am optimistic for the next stage in US development, but I also think you are correct that people are angry, but don't know which direction to force it. Fascism is just as likely (if not more likely) than a socialist revolution if people uphold strong nationalism, protectionism, and direct their anger at some marginalized social group (formerly Jews, now Immigrants).

deanCommie 11y ago
This is my #1 fear as someone who just recently moved to Europe from North America to travel and see the world while working. Europe is NOT dealing well with multiculturalism and immigration. And while the American/Canadian progressive left goes more radical, at least it keeps the extreme right wing in check. The European left is too scared and complacent to either set boundaries or speak up for the benefits of liberalism due to complacency after decades of being in charge. As a result, the conservative/nationalist/fascist wings are DOMINATING the conversation, and are winning hearts and minds. And yeah, I'm fully expecting at least one Eastern European country to start openly locking up muslims within a decade.
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  > The European left is too scared and complacent to either set boundaries or speak up for the benefits of liberalism due to complacency after decades of being in charge. I don't think that's the full picture. First of all I don't think the European left has been in charge for decades, and second of all austerity measures e.g. in Spain have resulted in left movements growing stronger. It all depends on the country, really.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

I'd read up on the Bolshies a bit. They were murderous thugs. That's not exactly propaganda, that's a mix of Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn and various bios of the principal players. "Toddler with a hand grenade" is exactly right. Thing is, it was ever thus. None of this even remotely compared to the disruption had because of color (organic) chemistry. Question the status quo all you want, but it's always there for a reason. One need not make a fetish of it to observe that it took all the errors we could muster to get it this far.