3 ms·

> Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense an

> Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest—forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism" A war of aggression going hand in hand with "Total Information Awareness" (anyone remember that?), going along with that is crazy and suicidal. I guess people at Jonestown also talked a lot about the crazy things going on in the world, just not about the crazy they were part of. So, that's how that works. Just like the instant downvoting without reply works. It's like asking "what is cancer?" and when the reply is "it can come in various forms, for example that lump you have there, that's also cancer", then suddenly we don't really want to know what cancer is anymore, and are no longer accountable for basically shutting people up. As long as the status quo agrees, no justifications are required.

User23 8y ago
The future will be nothing like the past. Why? Because human behavior is not scale invariant, and both the raw number of humans and their mobility is vastly higher than it's ever been. So what do we know? Well for one we know that unsustainable processes end. Modern persuasion and propaganda techniques appear sustainable at present. Of course they only work at all because they exploit biological reality. It's farcical, but only homo sapiens is evolved to be susceptible to modern propaganda. War is of course sustainable. We know this because it's been going on as long as we have records and shows no sign of stopping. But war and conquest take many forms. One group doesn't necessarily have to roll in tanks and rape and massacre to conquer another's territory. It can also be done in a more evolutionary way, by taking their ecological niche or destroying their habitat. I don't mean to "dehumanize" by observing that we are animals, because we really are animals and we really are subject to the same scientific laws as every other animal, including the ecological ones.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  One group doesn't necessarily have to roll in tanks and rape and massacre to conquer another's territory. Throughout history, it is the real world network of interpersonal relationships between people which has been the source of power for the oppressed fighting oppressors. By hijacking this, social media has almost become the perfect tool for the subjugation of the general populace. At present, it's still possible for dissent to spread virally, and in that lies hope, even when such media contains the truly vile. It's the same now as in the 60's. Hope lies in the alternatives, even though there was some vile nonsense mixed up in it. So long as there is speech and dissent, people will eventually sort out the truth. Unfortunately, I think that the near complete squashing of dissent is also within reach of the current technological and political powers that be.
- edna314 8y ago
  > Because human behavior is not scale invariant I’m not exactly sure what you mean by scale invariant, but there are many ways in which history repeats itself. Other than that I can recommend talks of Hans Rosling, who gives an entirely different picture of the world backed by data.
  - User23 8y ago
    I thought it was a pretty clear statement. What don't you understand? I'm happy to clarify, but I don't have enough information to address your concern
    - edna314 8y ago
      I know how functions can be scale invariant, but I don't know how behavior can be scale invariant.
      - User23 8y ago
        Me neither. Fortunately I was saying it isn't.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  > Modern persuasion and propaganda techniques appear sustainable at present. this is an exceptionally bad time to make this claim. the internet is in the process of obliterating the consensus machine.
  - Intermernet 8y ago
    I think the internet is forking the consensus machine. It's now very easy to find a large number of people who share a belief system. People who, in the past, would have felt that they had unique beliefs and society would probably shun them, can now find kindred spirits and join a "movement". See alt right, MRA, incels, and many other net-savvy extremist groups that only manage to reach critical mass due to the internet.
    - User23 8y ago
      That happened in the 90s.
      - Intermernet 8y ago
        Yes, so did the internet. I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not!
        User23 8y ago
        I'm agreeing with you.
    - nyolfen 8y ago
      my original phrasing was 'shattering', maybe i should have left it that way. but i agree. one of the best essays i've read on the subject: https://www.gwern.net/The-Melancholy-of-Subculture-Society https://www.gwern.net/The-Melancholy-of-Subculture-Society > The otaku & hikikomori recognizes this dilemma and he chooses - to reject normal life! He rejects life in the larger culture for his subculture5. It’s a simple matter of comparative advantage; it’s easier to be a big fish in a small pond than in a large one.6 [...] > As ever more opt out, the larger culture is damaged.7 The culture begins to fragment back into pieces. The disconnect can be profound; an American anime geek has more in common with a Japanese anime geek (who is of a different ethnicity, a different culture, a different religion, a different language…) than he does with an American involved in the evangelical Christian subculture. There is essentially no common ground - our 2 countrymen probably can’t even agree on objective matters like governance or evolution! > With enough of these gaps, where is "American" or "French" culture? Such cultural identities take centuries to coalesce - France did not speak French until the 1900s (as The Discovery of France recounts), and Han China is still digesting & assimilating its many minorities & outlying regions. America, of course, had it easy in starting with a small founder population which could just exterminate the natives.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > I don't mean to "dehumanize" by observing that we are animals, because we really are animals and we really are subject to the same scientific laws as every other animal, including the ecological ones. Where do decisions and responsibility come in? Is there anything but "war and conquest" that takes many forms? I mean, we evolved from sharing and cooperation as much as any competition. And sociopathy is also as old as history. What makes one thing that's very old more scientific than another that's also very old, why this narrow focus? As for war being sustainable, that's like saying "I always ate junk food and always will, so nothing bad can happen". Nothing is sustainable, not even peace, but that's not the point. Slavery is also sustainable, does that make it right? Anyone who would say so is free to offer themselves as slave to others, but they could not justify excusing the slavery someone else endures with that. Just looking at wars of aggressions and the people who push(ed) for them, it's pretty obvious to me that the people involved don't seek power and money because they're so strong, but because they're so weak, as the actual invidual human beings they are. They need more power because to stand still might mean to lose power, and that would mean looking into the mirror and at others, and that would make them implode. I see naked emperors. Maybe there would still be war or whatever without them, but I see them, and I see what they do. So saying that it's all just human/animal nature that is "subject" to scientific laws that somehow make all of this inevitable, cherry picking "written history" which itself is cherry picked by definition, kinda sounds like "oh yeah, it's a common occurence that sometimes air perturbations make the emperor seem naked to some". They would say that. Maybe you're right, but I won't believe you until we removed the naked emperors from the equation. Fair enough?
  - User23 8y ago
    The whole notion of "just wars" and the opposing "wars of aggression" is pure propaganda by warmongers. The victors write the histories and always claim to be just. The other side is always the aggressor. There will be war. There will always be war so long as there are human beings. Like it or not. Downvote me or not, it's an observable reality. And we here deal in observable reality, do we not?

User23 8y ago

The future will be nothing like the past. Why? Because human behavior is not scale invariant, and both the raw number of humans and their mobility is vastly higher than it's ever been. So what do we know? Well for one we know that unsustainable processes end. Modern persuasion and propaganda techniques appear sustainable at present. Of course they only work at all because they exploit biological reality. It's farcical, but only homo sapiens is evolved to be susceptible to modern propaganda. War is of course sustainable. We know this because it's been going on as long as we have records and shows no sign of stopping. But war and conquest take many forms. One group doesn't necessarily have to roll in tanks and rape and massacre to conquer another's territory. It can also be done in a more evolutionary way, by taking their ecological niche or destroying their habitat. I don't mean to "dehumanize" by observing that we are animals, because we really are animals and we really are subject to the same scientific laws as every other animal, including the ecological ones.

stcredzero 8y ago
One group doesn't necessarily have to roll in tanks and rape and massacre to conquer another's territory. Throughout history, it is the real world network of interpersonal relationships between people which has been the source of power for the oppressed fighting oppressors. By hijacking this, social media has almost become the perfect tool for the subjugation of the general populace. At present, it's still possible for dissent to spread virally, and in that lies hope, even when such media contains the truly vile. It's the same now as in the 60's. Hope lies in the alternatives, even though there was some vile nonsense mixed up in it. So long as there is speech and dissent, people will eventually sort out the truth. Unfortunately, I think that the near complete squashing of dissent is also within reach of the current technological and political powers that be.
edna314 8y ago
> Because human behavior is not scale invariant I’m not exactly sure what you mean by scale invariant, but there are many ways in which history repeats itself. Other than that I can recommend talks of Hans Rosling, who gives an entirely different picture of the world backed by data.
- User23 8y ago
  I thought it was a pretty clear statement. What don't you understand? I'm happy to clarify, but I don't have enough information to address your concern
  - edna314 8y ago
    I know how functions can be scale invariant, but I don't know how behavior can be scale invariant.
    - User23 8y ago
      Me neither. Fortunately I was saying it isn't.
nyolfen 8y ago
> Modern persuasion and propaganda techniques appear sustainable at present. this is an exceptionally bad time to make this claim. the internet is in the process of obliterating the consensus machine.
- Intermernet 8y ago
  I think the internet is forking the consensus machine. It's now very easy to find a large number of people who share a belief system. People who, in the past, would have felt that they had unique beliefs and society would probably shun them, can now find kindred spirits and join a "movement". See alt right, MRA, incels, and many other net-savvy extremist groups that only manage to reach critical mass due to the internet.
  - User23 8y ago
    That happened in the 90s.
    - Intermernet 8y ago
      Yes, so did the internet. I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not!
      - User23 8y ago
        I'm agreeing with you.
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    my original phrasing was 'shattering', maybe i should have left it that way. but i agree. one of the best essays i've read on the subject: https://www.gwern.net/The-Melancholy-of-Subculture-Society https://www.gwern.net/The-Melancholy-of-Subculture-Society > The otaku & hikikomori recognizes this dilemma and he chooses - to reject normal life! He rejects life in the larger culture for his subculture5. It’s a simple matter of comparative advantage; it’s easier to be a big fish in a small pond than in a large one.6 [...] > As ever more opt out, the larger culture is damaged.7 The culture begins to fragment back into pieces. The disconnect can be profound; an American anime geek has more in common with a Japanese anime geek (who is of a different ethnicity, a different culture, a different religion, a different language…) than he does with an American involved in the evangelical Christian subculture. There is essentially no common ground - our 2 countrymen probably can’t even agree on objective matters like governance or evolution! > With enough of these gaps, where is "American" or "French" culture? Such cultural identities take centuries to coalesce - France did not speak French until the 1900s (as The Discovery of France recounts), and Han China is still digesting & assimilating its many minorities & outlying regions. America, of course, had it easy in starting with a small founder population which could just exterminate the natives.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
> I don't mean to "dehumanize" by observing that we are animals, because we really are animals and we really are subject to the same scientific laws as every other animal, including the ecological ones. Where do decisions and responsibility come in? Is there anything but "war and conquest" that takes many forms? I mean, we evolved from sharing and cooperation as much as any competition. And sociopathy is also as old as history. What makes one thing that's very old more scientific than another that's also very old, why this narrow focus? As for war being sustainable, that's like saying "I always ate junk food and always will, so nothing bad can happen". Nothing is sustainable, not even peace, but that's not the point. Slavery is also sustainable, does that make it right? Anyone who would say so is free to offer themselves as slave to others, but they could not justify excusing the slavery someone else endures with that. Just looking at wars of aggressions and the people who push(ed) for them, it's pretty obvious to me that the people involved don't seek power and money because they're so strong, but because they're so weak, as the actual invidual human beings they are. They need more power because to stand still might mean to lose power, and that would mean looking into the mirror and at others, and that would make them implode. I see naked emperors. Maybe there would still be war or whatever without them, but I see them, and I see what they do. So saying that it's all just human/animal nature that is "subject" to scientific laws that somehow make all of this inevitable, cherry picking "written history" which itself is cherry picked by definition, kinda sounds like "oh yeah, it's a common occurence that sometimes air perturbations make the emperor seem naked to some". They would say that. Maybe you're right, but I won't believe you until we removed the naked emperors from the equation. Fair enough?
- User23 8y ago
  The whole notion of "just wars" and the opposing "wars of aggression" is pure propaganda by warmongers. The victors write the histories and always claim to be just. The other side is always the aggressor. There will be war. There will always be war so long as there are human beings. Like it or not. Downvote me or not, it's an observable reality. And we here deal in observable reality, do we not?