3 ms·

Nothing is different. Everything is the same. You're just blind to what is happening around you. >Sure hope so. Then I can move even closer to self-actualizati

Nothing is different. Everything is the same. You're just blind to what is happening around you. >Sure hope so. Then I can move even closer to self-actualization than I am now. Yeah and then you starve to death because you have some measly salary. Who says you're the owner of the robot who took over your job? It may be possible, but thinking this is the only possibility is not intelligent. Every realistic possibility must be considered. With wealth inequality as it is right now, a Few plutocrats reaping most of the benefits of AI with the majority of people scraping by is not just the more realistic possibility, it is also remarkably similar to the current reality. >If there had ever been a single inflection point in history where Luddism was the right answer in the long run, I'd be more sympathetic to the pessimistic point of view. As things stand, though, doesn't their argument amount to a special pleading fallacy? "It's different this time!" No... no, it's not. Oh there are tons of examples. You just view history through a biased lens. You're unable to see the times when technology did harm the population. I utterly guarantee that your conclusion is not data driven. You simply are unconsciously picking and choosing the data to support your optimism. A big portion of the wealth inequality we see today is the result of a century of technological advancement. But you're partly blind to it because you're on the positive side of the wealth inequality equation.

CamperBob2 4y ago
Oh there are tons of examples. None of which you seem to be able to cite. As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  >None of which you seem to be able to cite. Able? The examples are obvious. I can cite them though. Once I cite them you should should 180 degree your opinion. But of course you won't. You're so biased you can't even see the obvious examples all around you: https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-plastic-crisis https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-pla... The plastic crisis. The result of the invention of plastic. https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/ https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fo... The discovery of how to extract energy from fossil fuels looks to potentially herald massive damage to society and already has effected the lives of many. https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm Actual civilization destroyed through the introduction of wood based technology to an island resulting in deforestation and complete collapse. https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technology-caused-an-obesity-epidemic/ https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technolo... Obesity epidemic caused by ultra processed food technology. Industrialization and the negative effects. "At least they're not starving and living better than kings" is what I imagine coming out of your privileged mind. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/619008/IPOL_IDA(2018)619008_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/6190... Fake news, misinformation created by social media technology. Before free press and technology people were simply less informed. Now, the current generation of people are likely the most informed but also the most misinformed people who've ever lived. People think they live in a more dangerous world, but in reality crime has gone down. This is all because of the current news cycle. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-of-technology https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-o... health issues with usage of internet related technologies. https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm Nuclear weapons. The discovery of the relationship between energy and mass and other advancements in physics and chemistry led to the development of technology that enables humanity to literally destroy the world if they chose to. This example literally expands the spectrum about the amount of harm technology can do. In less then a day ICBM and nuclear bomb technology can level the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Nuclear power melt downs. There are several. This is the most famous one. Obviously there's nuance to this and I will address it. The net benefit of nuclear power is better then fossil fuels in terms of death and destruction when taken from a statistical standpoint. But you still cannot ignore the fact that a single mistake leveled a whole town. Blindly charging forward because you trust the numbers is equally ignorant. Need I go on? There are OBVIOUS benefits of technology I would be blind to not to see it. But I'm also able to see the OBVIOUS negative side as well. The nuance. I would be wrong if I said you didn't know about each of these things. You know it. These things are obvious. It's just you're not analytical enough to consider the full spectrum of information at your fingertips. You pick and choose data for your own bias. But it's not even conscious picking. You didn't even know you did it. That's why you're so freaking confident about how technology has always benefited society all the time always when it obviously has not. I mean what I expect next is rationalization. You have to logically analyze why you didn't consider these examples and explain your reasoning to me why they don't count. Think really hard when your mind comes to this inflection point. The logic did not previously exist. You are in the process of picking and choosing reasoning to support your current belief. This is Rationalization. Stop yourself before you do this. It's a waste of both of our times to read and write reasoning created as the result of rationalization. >As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that. I'm talking about homeless people who do drugs. I'm talking normal people in the US who have to work 3 jobs to stay alive. You are the reaper of the benefits of wealth inequality, OF COURSE you're ok with that. Or no, you're ok with that because that person who works 3 jobs lives better than a king. Whatever makes you sleep at night. Did the king have 3 jobs? How much better do you think the life of a typical US citizen is compared to a king? I think there's a lot of nuance in the word "better" that you are again ignoring.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    The "plastic crisis" is not an example where Luddites were right. At the time it seemed like a good idea to make everything out of plastic, and it probably was considering that we'd have had to cut down an assload of additional old-growth trees if plastic packaging hadn't come along when it did. Overpackaging and irresponsible waste management suck for sure. But legislation and innovation, not wrecking shit, are the answers. Fossil fuels were not an example where Luddites were right. They have lifted billions out of poverty over hundreds of years at a comparatively small cost, to say nothing of saving countless millions from freezing to death in the dark. Now it's time to leave them behind, and that's just what we're doing. Rain forest destruction is not an example where Luddites were right. I don't even know where you're coming from here. It should be stopped, but the people saying it should be stopped aren't Luddites. Obesity and misinformation are not examples where Luddites were right. Again, you're just flailing here, pulling random crap out of your ass. Modern farming practice has saved billions (ever heard of a fellow named Borlaug? It's Google time.) And despite the growing presence of extremism caused by bad actors taking advantage of the same technology that's available to the rest of us, the average person on the street is better informed than ever. If they aren't, it's not the media's fault, it's theirs alone. "Negative effects of the Internet" reported on an Internet quack medical news site. Okey-dokey, then. Nuclear weapons put a stop to increasingly-destructive world wars by doing the unthinkable: making the leaders fear for their own lives. That's a boon unmatched by any other in post-medieval history. And nuclear technology could have saved us from countless other ills, if it weren't for mindless FUD from celebrities and politicians with no sense of risk assessment. Chernobyl? See above. Fossil fuel power sources have killed unimaginable magnitudes more people than nuclear power plants ever could, which is one reason why we need to move past them. But they do it in boring, remote places like hospitals and cancer wards, and they do it years after the harm is inflicted. Without scary green blobs of molten radioactive crap to show on TV, nobody including you cares. News flash: faulty reasoning leads to poor outcomes, (no) film at 11. Whether you should "go on" or not is up to you. You appear to be addressing a question that wasn't asked, or that was asked by someone who isn't here.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      You're just talking about hypotheticals. Saying hey this technology is good because the hypothetical is much worse. Well the hypothetical is just a random guess. As i said you're rationalizing. >The "plastic crisis" is not an example where Luddites were right. At the time it seemed like a good idea to make everything out of plastic, and it probably was... "Seemed like a good idea"? and "probably right"? Wow. you have no confidence in what you're talking about here. Your language implies that you AREN'T even sure about the hypothetical alternative if we didn't take the plastic route. The rest of the argument is basically just a rant on how to "solve" the problem and in no way a counter to the fact that plastic technology has harmed the planet. You ingest a credit card worth of plastic per week thanks to the "plastic crisis". >Fossil fuels were not an example where Luddites were right. They have lifted billions out of poverty over hundreds of years at a comparatively small cost, to say nothing of saving countless millions from freezing to death in the dark. Now it's time to leave them behind, and that's just what we're doing. More hypothetical's. Nobody was lifted out of poverty. What happens is that food production increased so the planet can support a bigger population. Without that production increase those people wouldn't have existed in the first place. Society existed fine at lower pre-industrial state with a much lower and sustainable population just fine without fossil fuels. This discussion of hypotheticals is a form of rationalization. There is literally no denying that each of the technologies I list here contributes a negative to society. >Obesity and misinformation are not examples where Luddites were right. Again, you're just flailing here, pulling random crap out of your ass. No. Nothing's pulled out of my ass. It's just you're unable to comprehend anything. Let me spell out to you what I'm talking about. I'm talking about INDUSTRIAL FOOD PROCESSING. Not industrial farming. Farming doesn't cause obesity. Food processing does when you strip a food product down to levels of unnatural purity. Go read it again. You're such a genius. Unbelievable. >"Negative effects of the Internet" reported on an Internet quack medical news site. Okey-dokey, then. Bro. Everybody on the face of the earth knows the negative psychological effects of social media. The negative health effects of people spending too much time gaming on the internet. Everybody knows this. There's a million sites talking about this. It's OBVIOUS. You want a "better" source? Here: https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/facebook.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/facebook.pdf random research paper from stanford. But this is besides the point. You're just arguing to stay alive right now. I simply "cited" a source to show you how it CAN be cited. But literally you pop up here laughing at the source? It's like I proved to you with a dictionary that O-N-E spells ONE and you just laugh at my source and don't even believe that O-N-E spells one. Wow just wow. >Nuclear weapons put a stop to increasingly-destructive world wars by doing the unthinkable: making the leaders fear for their own lives. That's a boon unmatched by any other in post-medieval history. And nuclear technology could have saved us from countless other ills, if it weren't for mindless FUD from celebrities and politicians with no sense of risk assessment. This is next level mind twisting. The amount of bias you have to have in order to prove your point must be so high that you can even justify nuclear weapons as good. You're too far gone man. Leaders fearing for their own lives as if leaders were never ever under any sort of threat to their lives before nuclear weapons appeared? And to even compare fear for life with actual destruction of civilization as if there's some net benefit that makes the risk of nuclear holocaust justifiable... it's just embarrassing at this point. You're too far gone man. >Chernobyl? See above. Fossil fuel power sources have killed unimaginable magnitudes more people than nuclear power plants ever could, which is one reason why we need to move past them. But they do it in boring, remote places like hospitals and cancer wards, and they do it years after the harm is inflicted. Without scary green blobs of molten radioactive crap to show on TV, nobody including you cares. News flash: faulty reasoning leads to poor outcomes, (no) film at 11. Bro, all of this was addressed. Read what I wrote before responding with stuff I already talked about. >Whether you should "go on" or not is up to you. I can write whatever the hell I want to write. Whether I go on or not is 100% up to ME. >You appear to be addressing a question that wasn't asked, or that was asked by someone who isn't here. You're delusional. I'm not addressing a question because no question was asked. It only appears that way to you. I don't know why it appears that way to you. Perhaps something is wrong with you. Let me describe to you what I'm doing. Someone stated "None of which you seem to be able to cite." So I decided to cite a bunch of stuff to show him how he's completely and utterly WRONG. That's it. Either way it worked. I got you. From 2 sentence responses to an entire wall of text. You had to "defend" your argument here only you seem to be unable to realize that you had no argument to begin with and right now you're just defending your pride.

CamperBob2 4y ago

Oh there are tons of examples. None of which you seem to be able to cite. As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that.

deltasevennine 4y ago
>None of which you seem to be able to cite. Able? The examples are obvious. I can cite them though. Once I cite them you should should 180 degree your opinion. But of course you won't. You're so biased you can't even see the obvious examples all around you: https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-plastic-crisis https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-pla... The plastic crisis. The result of the invention of plastic. https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/ https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fo... The discovery of how to extract energy from fossil fuels looks to potentially herald massive damage to society and already has effected the lives of many. https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm Actual civilization destroyed through the introduction of wood based technology to an island resulting in deforestation and complete collapse. https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technology-caused-an-obesity-epidemic/ https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technolo... Obesity epidemic caused by ultra processed food technology. Industrialization and the negative effects. "At least they're not starving and living better than kings" is what I imagine coming out of your privileged mind. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/619008/IPOL_IDA(2018)619008_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/6190... Fake news, misinformation created by social media technology. Before free press and technology people were simply less informed. Now, the current generation of people are likely the most informed but also the most misinformed people who've ever lived. People think they live in a more dangerous world, but in reality crime has gone down. This is all because of the current news cycle. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-of-technology https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-o... health issues with usage of internet related technologies. https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm Nuclear weapons. The discovery of the relationship between energy and mass and other advancements in physics and chemistry led to the development of technology that enables humanity to literally destroy the world if they chose to. This example literally expands the spectrum about the amount of harm technology can do. In less then a day ICBM and nuclear bomb technology can level the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Nuclear power melt downs. There are several. This is the most famous one. Obviously there's nuance to this and I will address it. The net benefit of nuclear power is better then fossil fuels in terms of death and destruction when taken from a statistical standpoint. But you still cannot ignore the fact that a single mistake leveled a whole town. Blindly charging forward because you trust the numbers is equally ignorant. Need I go on? There are OBVIOUS benefits of technology I would be blind to not to see it. But I'm also able to see the OBVIOUS negative side as well. The nuance. I would be wrong if I said you didn't know about each of these things. You know it. These things are obvious. It's just you're not analytical enough to consider the full spectrum of information at your fingertips. You pick and choose data for your own bias. But it's not even conscious picking. You didn't even know you did it. That's why you're so freaking confident about how technology has always benefited society all the time always when it obviously has not. I mean what I expect next is rationalization. You have to logically analyze why you didn't consider these examples and explain your reasoning to me why they don't count. Think really hard when your mind comes to this inflection point. The logic did not previously exist. You are in the process of picking and choosing reasoning to support your current belief. This is Rationalization. Stop yourself before you do this. It's a waste of both of our times to read and write reasoning created as the result of rationalization. >As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that. I'm talking about homeless people who do drugs. I'm talking normal people in the US who have to work 3 jobs to stay alive. You are the reaper of the benefits of wealth inequality, OF COURSE you're ok with that. Or no, you're ok with that because that person who works 3 jobs lives better than a king. Whatever makes you sleep at night. Did the king have 3 jobs? How much better do you think the life of a typical US citizen is compared to a king? I think there's a lot of nuance in the word "better" that you are again ignoring.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  The "plastic crisis" is not an example where Luddites were right. At the time it seemed like a good idea to make everything out of plastic, and it probably was considering that we'd have had to cut down an assload of additional old-growth trees if plastic packaging hadn't come along when it did. Overpackaging and irresponsible waste management suck for sure. But legislation and innovation, not wrecking shit, are the answers. Fossil fuels were not an example where Luddites were right. They have lifted billions out of poverty over hundreds of years at a comparatively small cost, to say nothing of saving countless millions from freezing to death in the dark. Now it's time to leave them behind, and that's just what we're doing. Rain forest destruction is not an example where Luddites were right. I don't even know where you're coming from here. It should be stopped, but the people saying it should be stopped aren't Luddites. Obesity and misinformation are not examples where Luddites were right. Again, you're just flailing here, pulling random crap out of your ass. Modern farming practice has saved billions (ever heard of a fellow named Borlaug? It's Google time.) And despite the growing presence of extremism caused by bad actors taking advantage of the same technology that's available to the rest of us, the average person on the street is better informed than ever. If they aren't, it's not the media's fault, it's theirs alone. "Negative effects of the Internet" reported on an Internet quack medical news site. Okey-dokey, then. Nuclear weapons put a stop to increasingly-destructive world wars by doing the unthinkable: making the leaders fear for their own lives. That's a boon unmatched by any other in post-medieval history. And nuclear technology could have saved us from countless other ills, if it weren't for mindless FUD from celebrities and politicians with no sense of risk assessment. Chernobyl? See above. Fossil fuel power sources have killed unimaginable magnitudes more people than nuclear power plants ever could, which is one reason why we need to move past them. But they do it in boring, remote places like hospitals and cancer wards, and they do it years after the harm is inflicted. Without scary green blobs of molten radioactive crap to show on TV, nobody including you cares. News flash: faulty reasoning leads to poor outcomes, (no) film at 11. Whether you should "go on" or not is up to you. You appear to be addressing a question that wasn't asked, or that was asked by someone who isn't here.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    You're just talking about hypotheticals. Saying hey this technology is good because the hypothetical is much worse. Well the hypothetical is just a random guess. As i said you're rationalizing. >The "plastic crisis" is not an example where Luddites were right. At the time it seemed like a good idea to make everything out of plastic, and it probably was... "Seemed like a good idea"? and "probably right"? Wow. you have no confidence in what you're talking about here. Your language implies that you AREN'T even sure about the hypothetical alternative if we didn't take the plastic route. The rest of the argument is basically just a rant on how to "solve" the problem and in no way a counter to the fact that plastic technology has harmed the planet. You ingest a credit card worth of plastic per week thanks to the "plastic crisis". >Fossil fuels were not an example where Luddites were right. They have lifted billions out of poverty over hundreds of years at a comparatively small cost, to say nothing of saving countless millions from freezing to death in the dark. Now it's time to leave them behind, and that's just what we're doing. More hypothetical's. Nobody was lifted out of poverty. What happens is that food production increased so the planet can support a bigger population. Without that production increase those people wouldn't have existed in the first place. Society existed fine at lower pre-industrial state with a much lower and sustainable population just fine without fossil fuels. This discussion of hypotheticals is a form of rationalization. There is literally no denying that each of the technologies I list here contributes a negative to society. >Obesity and misinformation are not examples where Luddites were right. Again, you're just flailing here, pulling random crap out of your ass. No. Nothing's pulled out of my ass. It's just you're unable to comprehend anything. Let me spell out to you what I'm talking about. I'm talking about INDUSTRIAL FOOD PROCESSING. Not industrial farming. Farming doesn't cause obesity. Food processing does when you strip a food product down to levels of unnatural purity. Go read it again. You're such a genius. Unbelievable. >"Negative effects of the Internet" reported on an Internet quack medical news site. Okey-dokey, then. Bro. Everybody on the face of the earth knows the negative psychological effects of social media. The negative health effects of people spending too much time gaming on the internet. Everybody knows this. There's a million sites talking about this. It's OBVIOUS. You want a "better" source? Here: https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/facebook.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/facebook.pdf random research paper from stanford. But this is besides the point. You're just arguing to stay alive right now. I simply "cited" a source to show you how it CAN be cited. But literally you pop up here laughing at the source? It's like I proved to you with a dictionary that O-N-E spells ONE and you just laugh at my source and don't even believe that O-N-E spells one. Wow just wow. >Nuclear weapons put a stop to increasingly-destructive world wars by doing the unthinkable: making the leaders fear for their own lives. That's a boon unmatched by any other in post-medieval history. And nuclear technology could have saved us from countless other ills, if it weren't for mindless FUD from celebrities and politicians with no sense of risk assessment. This is next level mind twisting. The amount of bias you have to have in order to prove your point must be so high that you can even justify nuclear weapons as good. You're too far gone man. Leaders fearing for their own lives as if leaders were never ever under any sort of threat to their lives before nuclear weapons appeared? And to even compare fear for life with actual destruction of civilization as if there's some net benefit that makes the risk of nuclear holocaust justifiable... it's just embarrassing at this point. You're too far gone man. >Chernobyl? See above. Fossil fuel power sources have killed unimaginable magnitudes more people than nuclear power plants ever could, which is one reason why we need to move past them. But they do it in boring, remote places like hospitals and cancer wards, and they do it years after the harm is inflicted. Without scary green blobs of molten radioactive crap to show on TV, nobody including you cares. News flash: faulty reasoning leads to poor outcomes, (no) film at 11. Bro, all of this was addressed. Read what I wrote before responding with stuff I already talked about. >Whether you should "go on" or not is up to you. I can write whatever the hell I want to write. Whether I go on or not is 100% up to ME. >You appear to be addressing a question that wasn't asked, or that was asked by someone who isn't here. You're delusional. I'm not addressing a question because no question was asked. It only appears that way to you. I don't know why it appears that way to you. Perhaps something is wrong with you. Let me describe to you what I'm doing. Someone stated "None of which you seem to be able to cite." So I decided to cite a bunch of stuff to show him how he's completely and utterly WRONG. That's it. Either way it worked. I got you. From 2 sentence responses to an entire wall of text. You had to "defend" your argument here only you seem to be unable to realize that you had no argument to begin with and right now you're just defending your pride.