4 ms·

Do we have references for how correct these type of predictions were in the past about similar claims? That said, it seems to check out. Everything we do, ever

Do we have references for how correct these type of predictions were in the past about similar claims? That said, it seems to check out. Everything we do, every technological step forward, is always inevitably configured within the frame of a capitalistic belief system, with the myth of growth locked in place as its central device. My existential angst definitely didn’t need this read today.

baq 1y ago
Obviously don’t touch the book then. Don’t come anywhere near the Fourth Turning by Howe, too.
- camillomiller 1y ago
  That seems very US-centric, though, while this analysis is more of a global-scale one, or is it?
  - baq 1y ago
    When shit breaks in the US, the whole world loses a decade. Not saying we're here yet, but we're close.
yieldcrv 1y ago
we do and they aren't accurate, the threat of their accuracy is the same, we've managed.
tbrownaw 1y ago
> always inevitably configured within the frame of a capitalistic belief system How is this relevant, and what does is even mean? > Everything we do, every technological step forward, is always inevitably configured within the frame of a capitalistic belief system, with the myth of growth locked in place as its central device. Tech advancements and growth are kinda the same things tho. Being static - not growing - implies a lack of change. Tech advancements only spread if your can do cool new things with them.
- camillomiller 1y ago
  > How is this relevant, and what does is even mean? It is relevant to anything that is remotely "economic". We consider capitalism like fish consider water. I'm only just pointing out that we're all constantly wet, but unlike fish, that's not a condition we depend upon for life.
- Qwertious 1y ago
  >How is this relevant, and what does is even mean? Some of the most productive research we could possibly do is basic research. But because basic research doesn't directly produce monetizable practical improvements, it doesn't get private funding (besides Bell Labs analogs) and is in practice woefully underfunded. This is a failure of resource allocation that is attributable directly to capitalism. I'm not advocating a communist revolution here, just pointing out a downside to capitalism.
  - tbrownaw 1y ago
    > Some of the most productive research we could possibly do is basic research. How do we know this? What's about to be found if we look for it, and how do we know where to look? > and is in practice woefully underfunded. What determines the proper level of funding? How is it measured?
eru 1y ago
> That said, it seems to check out. Everything we do, every technological step forward, is always inevitably configured within the frame of a capitalistic belief system, with the myth of growth locked in place as its central device. The communists in the Soviet Union and mainland China also did some science. We also have plenty of folks in research today who are less than favourably disposed to capitalism (and growth). > Do we have references for how correct these type of predictions were in the past about similar claims? They have always been wrong since before Malthus. You might like https://fass.nus.edu.sg/ecs/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/06/15-10-015.pdf https://fass.nus.edu.sg/ecs/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/...
- camillomiller 1y ago
  Every time I make a comment that contains the word "capitalism" in a critical way it goes down inevitably bad on Hacker News. There is inevitably a splitting-like reaction, as if the only way to talk about this is "Capitalism good/bad" and therefore "socialism/communism good/bad". I am NOT anti-capitalistic per se, but I am certainly critical of any view that takes capitalism (any form of it, even the best ones like the Scandinavian versions) and unbridled growth as an unshakable tenet of our present and our future. In other words, I am luckily not at a Mark Fisher stage. Thanks for the link.
  - eru 1y ago
    > Every time I make a comment that contains the word "capitalism" in a critical way it goes down inevitably bad on Hacker News. Huh? I defended communism as also producing some science. (There was also quite a bit of science in pre-capitalist societies.) Sorry, I don't know who Mark Fisher is nor what stage he acted on. > Thanks for the link. I hope you enjoy the read as much as I did.
em500 1y ago
The source material is free for anyone to evaluate for themselves: https://www.library.dartmouth.edu/digital/digital-collections/limits-growth https://www.library.dartmouth.edu/digital/digital-collection... It's not overtly technical or inaccessible, if you're a quick reader it only takes a few hours (probably less than what many people spend on Youtube or other internet feeds daily). Don't wait for some second hand opinion/summary/rephrasing/interpretation, everyone will have their own bias.
- camillomiller 1y ago
  I wouldn't have the hybris to think I can judge the choices in designing an economic model, though :D

baq 1y ago

Obviously don’t touch the book then. Don’t come anywhere near the Fourth Turning by Howe, too.

camillomiller 1y ago
That seems very US-centric, though, while this analysis is more of a global-scale one, or is it?
- baq 1y ago
  When shit breaks in the US, the whole world loses a decade. Not saying we're here yet, but we're close.

yieldcrv 1y ago

we do and they aren't accurate, the threat of their accuracy is the same, we've managed.

tbrownaw 1y ago

> always inevitably configured within the frame of a capitalistic belief system How is this relevant, and what does is even mean? > Everything we do, every technological step forward, is always inevitably configured within the frame of a capitalistic belief system, with the myth of growth locked in place as its central device. Tech advancements and growth are kinda the same things tho. Being static - not growing - implies a lack of change. Tech advancements only spread if your can do cool new things with them.

camillomiller 1y ago
> How is this relevant, and what does is even mean? It is relevant to anything that is remotely "economic". We consider capitalism like fish consider water. I'm only just pointing out that we're all constantly wet, but unlike fish, that's not a condition we depend upon for life.
Qwertious 1y ago
>How is this relevant, and what does is even mean? Some of the most productive research we could possibly do is basic research. But because basic research doesn't directly produce monetizable practical improvements, it doesn't get private funding (besides Bell Labs analogs) and is in practice woefully underfunded. This is a failure of resource allocation that is attributable directly to capitalism. I'm not advocating a communist revolution here, just pointing out a downside to capitalism.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  > Some of the most productive research we could possibly do is basic research. How do we know this? What's about to be found if we look for it, and how do we know where to look? > and is in practice woefully underfunded. What determines the proper level of funding? How is it measured?

eru 1y ago

> That said, it seems to check out. Everything we do, every technological step forward, is always inevitably configured within the frame of a capitalistic belief system, with the myth of growth locked in place as its central device. The communists in the Soviet Union and mainland China also did some science. We also have plenty of folks in research today who are less than favourably disposed to capitalism (and growth). > Do we have references for how correct these type of predictions were in the past about similar claims? They have always been wrong since before Malthus. You might like https://fass.nus.edu.sg/ecs/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/06/15-10-015.pdf https://fass.nus.edu.sg/ecs/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/...

camillomiller 1y ago
Every time I make a comment that contains the word "capitalism" in a critical way it goes down inevitably bad on Hacker News. There is inevitably a splitting-like reaction, as if the only way to talk about this is "Capitalism good/bad" and therefore "socialism/communism good/bad". I am NOT anti-capitalistic per se, but I am certainly critical of any view that takes capitalism (any form of it, even the best ones like the Scandinavian versions) and unbridled growth as an unshakable tenet of our present and our future. In other words, I am luckily not at a Mark Fisher stage. Thanks for the link.
- eru 1y ago
  > Every time I make a comment that contains the word "capitalism" in a critical way it goes down inevitably bad on Hacker News. Huh? I defended communism as also producing some science. (There was also quite a bit of science in pre-capitalist societies.) Sorry, I don't know who Mark Fisher is nor what stage he acted on. > Thanks for the link. I hope you enjoy the read as much as I did.

em500 1y ago

The source material is free for anyone to evaluate for themselves: https://www.library.dartmouth.edu/digital/digital-collections/limits-growth https://www.library.dartmouth.edu/digital/digital-collection... It's not overtly technical or inaccessible, if you're a quick reader it only takes a few hours (probably less than what many people spend on Youtube or other internet feeds daily). Don't wait for some second hand opinion/summary/rephrasing/interpretation, everyone will have their own bias.

camillomiller 1y ago
I wouldn't have the hybris to think I can judge the choices in designing an economic model, though :D