4 ms·

I wonder what the least fortunate people in villages in Africa and Asia would think about our desperate push to figure out UBI. A looming threat of declining l

by sp527 8y ago

I wonder what the least fortunate people in villages in Africa and Asia would think about our desperate push to figure out UBI. A looming threat of declining living standards (and a decline that will still never leave us anywhere close to where they are now) has us so terrified, quaking in our privilege boots. Meanwhile easily 3B+ people have been left out in the cold and hardly anyone gives a shit. Every so often, I still find myself surprised by how unapologetically shameful humans can manage to be.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
So you are implicitly stating that you should not have substantial concern for yourself unless you're the least well off of a society?
- sp527 8y ago
  No, it's a lot simpler. It can be reduced down to a question: How is humanity deciding who gets left behind?
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Ah, and so you are arguing that peoples success and failure is decided by other people? Who exactly are these other people? America went from a completely undeveloped and isolated backwoods to the most powerful nation in the world in just a couple of centuries because of these people? How about China? 60 years ago people were literally starving to death by the tens of millions in China and today they are one of the most powerful and rapidly growing nations in the world. Japan was obliterated in a war yet in a period of some 40 years reshaped itself into what was at one time the technological leader of the world. Is it because of those people again?
    - sp527 8y ago
      Well now you're getting historical/philosophical. I subscribe to what the Durants argued in 'The Lessons of History'. There is an apparently irresolvable trade-off between freedom and equality and, historically speaking, the world has tended to vacillate between the two extremes, with inflection points typically demarcated by violent revolution. In order to get closer to a stable equilibrium, we would need to achieve a more progressive wealth redistribution paradigm than we have at present. A tremendous amount of wealth is being locked up by the global 0.1% in S&I. Yes it flows through the economy as capital, but we now know enough to appreciate that it mostly doesn't furthermore trickle down into increased wellbeing for probably anyone at or below the 90th percentile, at best. In other words, this system is highly inefficient when you measure it against one of the most meaningful criteria that we should (but do not) evaluate: statistical distribution of human wellbeing. I have a lot more thoughts on this. But, in short, an unqualified belief in the virtues of capitalism is certainly misguided.
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        I'm not being philosophical but simply pointing out that the fate of a nation is largely determined by the people of that nation. And the driving force there is typically seeking better things for themselves. There have been extensive efforts at externally driven nation building and, to my knowledge, it has yet to meet with significant success. I actually am currently voluntarily residing in a "developing nation." I enjoy it for a variety reasons. Regardless, everywhere around me the reasons that this country is a "developing nation" are clear as day, and it is of the nation's own doing. Corruption and cronyism are rampant. And, much like the US is becoming, politics is more about 'us versus them' as opposed to 'how can we best solve our problems'. There's also a complete lack of accountability. Failure is tolerated at all levels (which is something we're also starting to see in the US to some degree). When the electricity goes out for hours because of a glorified sprinkle people just shrug instead of striving for better. And this starts all the way at the school level - children, mostly, are not allowed to fail, which again seems to be the path the US is started down. They get passed along. Next thing you know you have a tenth grader that can't tell you what 9 * 7 is. But that's okay. Since has the right last name, he'll have no problem getting a job, perhaps as an administrator at the electric company. Capitalism or whatever else is a red herring. Live in both a "developing nation" and a "developed nation" for some time, and you'll see the sharp and surprisingly clear contrasts emerge. And the problems lay primarily with the people themselves. However, focusing on the actions of people is something touchier than just philosophizing about political or economic systems, so it's no wonder our 'aid' generally fails to do much beyond sustain the status quo, if that. And one quick note on rebellion. Rebellion is driven, beyond anything else, by a lack of complacency. The US is full on Algiers 1954 on internet forums. But in real life people are extremely content. Electronic devices and the internet are like pacifiers for adults. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
        sp527 8y ago
        > And one quick note on rebellion. Rebellion is driven, beyond anything else, by a lack of complacency. The US is full on Algiers 1954 on internet forums. But in real life people are extremely content. Electronic devices and the internet are like pacifiers for adults. I'm absolutely aligned on this point and it strikes me, oddly enough, as one of the more insidious deficits of modernity. The potential for corrective retaliation by suppressed classes has been eroded by some combination of (depending on where you are in the world): highly sophisticated surveillance and censorship apparatuses, advanced military technology, scalable propaganda dissemination and behavioral manipulation, corruption (institutionalized like lobbying and campaign contributions or otherwise), complacency as you noted, the invisibility/impenetrability of global wealth distribution, etc. That is exactly the problem. The ancient Romans and Greeks could and did literally stab the elite to death to shift the balance back towards equality. There is no similarly effective recourse available to societies in the modern age, and thus wealth inequality has degraded to unconscionable levels. But it's a bigger problem now than at any other point in human history. Thanks to technological innovation, we are rapidly approaching a reality in which capital holders will be able to sustain themselves in protected enclaves and the rest of us will be relegated to savagery, which is the end state of the most extreme possible shift towards freedom.

by sp527 8y ago

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

So you are implicitly stating that you should not have substantial concern for yourself unless you're the least well off of a society?

sp527 8y ago
No, it's a lot simpler. It can be reduced down to a question: How is humanity deciding who gets left behind?
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Ah, and so you are arguing that peoples success and failure is decided by other people? Who exactly are these other people? America went from a completely undeveloped and isolated backwoods to the most powerful nation in the world in just a couple of centuries because of these people? How about China? 60 years ago people were literally starving to death by the tens of millions in China and today they are one of the most powerful and rapidly growing nations in the world. Japan was obliterated in a war yet in a period of some 40 years reshaped itself into what was at one time the technological leader of the world. Is it because of those people again?
  - sp527 8y ago
    Well now you're getting historical/philosophical. I subscribe to what the Durants argued in 'The Lessons of History'. There is an apparently irresolvable trade-off between freedom and equality and, historically speaking, the world has tended to vacillate between the two extremes, with inflection points typically demarcated by violent revolution. In order to get closer to a stable equilibrium, we would need to achieve a more progressive wealth redistribution paradigm than we have at present. A tremendous amount of wealth is being locked up by the global 0.1% in S&I. Yes it flows through the economy as capital, but we now know enough to appreciate that it mostly doesn't furthermore trickle down into increased wellbeing for probably anyone at or below the 90th percentile, at best. In other words, this system is highly inefficient when you measure it against one of the most meaningful criteria that we should (but do not) evaluate: statistical distribution of human wellbeing. I have a lot more thoughts on this. But, in short, an unqualified belief in the virtues of capitalism is certainly misguided.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      I'm not being philosophical but simply pointing out that the fate of a nation is largely determined by the people of that nation. And the driving force there is typically seeking better things for themselves. There have been extensive efforts at externally driven nation building and, to my knowledge, it has yet to meet with significant success. I actually am currently voluntarily residing in a "developing nation." I enjoy it for a variety reasons. Regardless, everywhere around me the reasons that this country is a "developing nation" are clear as day, and it is of the nation's own doing. Corruption and cronyism are rampant. And, much like the US is becoming, politics is more about 'us versus them' as opposed to 'how can we best solve our problems'. There's also a complete lack of accountability. Failure is tolerated at all levels (which is something we're also starting to see in the US to some degree). When the electricity goes out for hours because of a glorified sprinkle people just shrug instead of striving for better. And this starts all the way at the school level - children, mostly, are not allowed to fail, which again seems to be the path the US is started down. They get passed along. Next thing you know you have a tenth grader that can't tell you what 9 * 7 is. But that's okay. Since has the right last name, he'll have no problem getting a job, perhaps as an administrator at the electric company. Capitalism or whatever else is a red herring. Live in both a "developing nation" and a "developed nation" for some time, and you'll see the sharp and surprisingly clear contrasts emerge. And the problems lay primarily with the people themselves. However, focusing on the actions of people is something touchier than just philosophizing about political or economic systems, so it's no wonder our 'aid' generally fails to do much beyond sustain the status quo, if that. And one quick note on rebellion. Rebellion is driven, beyond anything else, by a lack of complacency. The US is full on Algiers 1954 on internet forums. But in real life people are extremely content. Electronic devices and the internet are like pacifiers for adults. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
      - sp527 8y ago
        > And one quick note on rebellion. Rebellion is driven, beyond anything else, by a lack of complacency. The US is full on Algiers 1954 on internet forums. But in real life people are extremely content. Electronic devices and the internet are like pacifiers for adults. I'm absolutely aligned on this point and it strikes me, oddly enough, as one of the more insidious deficits of modernity. The potential for corrective retaliation by suppressed classes has been eroded by some combination of (depending on where you are in the world): highly sophisticated surveillance and censorship apparatuses, advanced military technology, scalable propaganda dissemination and behavioral manipulation, corruption (institutionalized like lobbying and campaign contributions or otherwise), complacency as you noted, the invisibility/impenetrability of global wealth distribution, etc. That is exactly the problem. The ancient Romans and Greeks could and did literally stab the elite to death to shift the balance back towards equality. There is no similarly effective recourse available to societies in the modern age, and thus wealth inequality has degraded to unconscionable levels. But it's a bigger problem now than at any other point in human history. Thanks to technological innovation, we are rapidly approaching a reality in which capital holders will be able to sustain themselves in protected enclaves and the rest of us will be relegated to savagery, which is the end state of the most extreme possible shift towards freedom.