5 ms·

That's a valid concern. The theory that the population only gets education, health care, human rights and so on, if these people are actually needed for the rul

by emsign 2y ago

That's a valid concern. The theory that the population only gets education, health care, human rights and so on, if these people are actually needed for the rulers to stay in power, is valid. The whole idea of AGIs replacing beaurocrats, the way for example DOGE is betting on to be successful with, is already axing people's livelihood and purpose in life. Why train government workers, why spend money on education, training, health care plans, if you have an old nuclear plant powering your silicon farms. If the rich need less and less educated, healthy and well fed workers, then more and more people will get treated like shit. We are currently going into that direction with full speed. The rich aren't even bothering to hide this anymore from the public because they think they have won the game and can't be overruled anymore. Let's hope there will be still elections in four years and MAGA doesn't rig it like Fidesz in Hungary and so many other countries who have fallen into the hands of the internationalist oligarchy.

alexashka 2y ago
> If the rich need less and less educated, healthy and well fed workers, then more and more people will get treated like shit Maybe. I think it's a matter of culture. Very few people mistreat their dogs and cats in wealthy countries. Why shouldn't people in power treat regular people at least as well as regular folks treat their pets? I'm no history buff but my hunch is that mistreatment of people largely came from a fear that if I don't engage in cruelty to maximize power, my opponents will and given that they're cruel, they'll be cruel to me when they come to take over. So we end up with this zero sum game of squeezing people, animals, resources and the planet in an arms race because everyone's afraid to lose. In the past - you couldn't be sure if someone else was building up an army, so you had to build up an army. But now that we have satellites and we can largely track everything - we can actually agree to not engage in this zero sum dynamic. There will be a shift from treating people as means to an end of power accumulation and containment, to treating people as something you just inherently like and would like to see prosper. It'll be a shift away from this deeply corrosive idea of never ending competition and growth. When people's basic needs are met and no one is grouping up to take other people's goodies - why should regular people compete with one another? They shouldn't and they won't. People who want to do good work will do so and improving the lives of people worldwide will be its own reward. Private islands, bunkers and yachts will become incomprehensible because there'll be no serf class to service any of it. We'll go back to if you want to be well liked and respected - you have to be a good person. I look forward to it :)
- rwmj 2y ago
  You've never met a rich person who mistreats their maid but dotes on their puppy?
  - alexashka 2y ago
    You've refuted my entire argument. I am that stupid and you are that smart :)
- sophacles 2y ago
  > Very few people mistreat their dogs and cats in wealthy countries. Why shouldn't people in power treat regular people at least as well as regular folks treat their pets? Because very few regular people will be their pets. These are the people who do everything in their power to pay their employees less. They treat their non-pets horribly... see feed lots and amazon warehouses. They actively campaign against programs which treat anyone well, particularly those who they aren't extracting wealth from. They whine and moan and cry about rules that protect people from getting sick and injured because helping those people would prevent them from earning a bit more profit. They may spend a pile of money on surgery for their bunny, but if you want them to behave nicely to someone else's pet, or even someone else... well that's where they draw the line. I guess you are hoping to be one of those pets... but what makes you think you're qualified for that, and why would you be willing to sacrifice all of your friends and family to the fate of feral dogs for the chance to be a pet?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - alexashka 2y ago
    We're talking past one another. I'm not suggesting that a few people become rich people's pets. I'm saying it isn't inherent in human nature to mistreat other conscious beings. If people were normally cruel to their pets, then I'd say yeah, this species just seems to enjoy cruelty and it is what it is. But we aren't cruel to pets, so the cruelty to workers does not stem from human nature, but other factors. I gave one theory as to what causes the cruelty and that I'm somewhat optimistic that it'll run its course in due time. Anyhoo :)
ExoticPearTree 2y ago
Come on, let’s be real: all governments are bloated with bureaucrats and what DOGE is doing, albeit in Musk style, is to trim the fat a little bit. You can’t seriosly claim they are upending people’s jobs when those jobs were BS in the first place.
- Loughla 2y ago
  What you're doing is using your opinion as just plain facts. It's easy to do with government and politics, but it's not very useful overall.

by emsign 2y ago

alexashka 2y ago

> If the rich need less and less educated, healthy and well fed workers, then more and more people will get treated like shit Maybe. I think it's a matter of culture. Very few people mistreat their dogs and cats in wealthy countries. Why shouldn't people in power treat regular people at least as well as regular folks treat their pets? I'm no history buff but my hunch is that mistreatment of people largely came from a fear that if I don't engage in cruelty to maximize power, my opponents will and given that they're cruel, they'll be cruel to me when they come to take over. So we end up with this zero sum game of squeezing people, animals, resources and the planet in an arms race because everyone's afraid to lose. In the past - you couldn't be sure if someone else was building up an army, so you had to build up an army. But now that we have satellites and we can largely track everything - we can actually agree to not engage in this zero sum dynamic. There will be a shift from treating people as means to an end of power accumulation and containment, to treating people as something you just inherently like and would like to see prosper. It'll be a shift away from this deeply corrosive idea of never ending competition and growth. When people's basic needs are met and no one is grouping up to take other people's goodies - why should regular people compete with one another? They shouldn't and they won't. People who want to do good work will do so and improving the lives of people worldwide will be its own reward. Private islands, bunkers and yachts will become incomprehensible because there'll be no serf class to service any of it. We'll go back to if you want to be well liked and respected - you have to be a good person. I look forward to it :)

rwmj 2y ago
You've never met a rich person who mistreats their maid but dotes on their puppy?
- alexashka 2y ago
  You've refuted my entire argument. I am that stupid and you are that smart :)
sophacles 2y ago
> Very few people mistreat their dogs and cats in wealthy countries. Why shouldn't people in power treat regular people at least as well as regular folks treat their pets? Because very few regular people will be their pets. These are the people who do everything in their power to pay their employees less. They treat their non-pets horribly... see feed lots and amazon warehouses. They actively campaign against programs which treat anyone well, particularly those who they aren't extracting wealth from. They whine and moan and cry about rules that protect people from getting sick and injured because helping those people would prevent them from earning a bit more profit. They may spend a pile of money on surgery for their bunny, but if you want them to behave nicely to someone else's pet, or even someone else... well that's where they draw the line. I guess you are hoping to be one of those pets... but what makes you think you're qualified for that, and why would you be willing to sacrifice all of your friends and family to the fate of feral dogs for the chance to be a pet?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- alexashka 2y ago
  We're talking past one another. I'm not suggesting that a few people become rich people's pets. I'm saying it isn't inherent in human nature to mistreat other conscious beings. If people were normally cruel to their pets, then I'd say yeah, this species just seems to enjoy cruelty and it is what it is. But we aren't cruel to pets, so the cruelty to workers does not stem from human nature, but other factors. I gave one theory as to what causes the cruelty and that I'm somewhat optimistic that it'll run its course in due time. Anyhoo :)

ExoticPearTree 2y ago

Come on, let’s be real: all governments are bloated with bureaucrats and what DOGE is doing, albeit in Musk style, is to trim the fat a little bit. You can’t seriosly claim they are upending people’s jobs when those jobs were BS in the first place.

Loughla 2y ago
What you're doing is using your opinion as just plain facts. It's easy to do with government and politics, but it's not very useful overall.