3 ms·

The Luddite and anti-human advice of the Georgia Guidestones which is based on absolutely nothing, no formula, no data, no measurements. It is clearly the w

The Luddite and anti-human advice of the Georgia Guidestones which is based on absolutely nothing, no formula, no data, no measurements. It is clearly the work of a modern day apocalyptic mind minus the justification of Heaven and "Life everafter." In any case, to stand here, in history, at this absolute climax of wealth inequality, government capture, and feudal existence being created and to surmise that "technology" is the problem and not "money" or just "distribution of new wealth" even is absolutely beyond me. "In no way is misfortune wished." Well, whether you're hinting that your abstract philosophy demands these people be put to death or not, you can spare yourself the altar, these people already live with misfortune that I don't think someone with your apparent level of fortune can even properly calculate.

827a 1y ago
We're also at the apex of almost every way you can measure human wellbeing. Health outcomes, literacy, child mortality, food availability, clean water, working hours [1], none have been better than they are right now. To suggest technology didn't have a hand in that would be folly. To suggest that money and wealth disparity didn't have a hand in creating that technology would be academic; there's no A/B test of reality, and there's decent circumstantial evidence that alternate systems of organization don't have as good outcomes. Does wealth disparity really matter when every human in the western world has a magic box that can deliver endless global entertainment, communication, and information? Imagine if you had no clean water, people around you died of random diseases every day, you stepped in shit on your way to your 85 hour a week job [1], and then also, the aristocrats laughed at you from their rich ivory towers. That's a far drier powderkeg for the french revolution. People sometimes feel outrage today, but ultimately the feed keeps them happy. It'll all end eventually. But everything always does. The best we can do is keep it going for as long as possible. Anyone who would actually use a time machine to take them anytime, anywhere in the past would be in for a rude awakening. Maybe I'd go back to the 1980s, only to relive the era we're in now all over again, except to buy a ton of AAPL and NVDA this time around. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours
- owebmaster 1y ago
  Why would you buy a ton of AAPL and NVDA? Aren't you happy with the apex human life? Wanna move right to the top to live a good life just like the French in the past.
  - 827a 1y ago
    One can always enjoy more money; that's a far cry from feeling that life is so miserable that storming the streets seems logical.
- dinfinity 1y ago
  Human societies and technology are, to our current knowledge the most advanced, ordered, low-entropy and complex things in the entire universe. Whether the universe as a whole evolves (pockets) in that direction as some fundamental goal is a philosophical question, but that it does so is clear.
- allanmacgregor 1y ago
  I don't know if you realize that your comment about the "magic box" is essentially a modern version of "bread and circuses"; the idea that entertainment and distraction can substitute for genuine agency, security, and opportunity. Smartphones don't pay rent, cure illness, or provide economic mobility. Saying that technology advanced alongside extreme wealth inequality doesn't prove inequality was necessary for that advancement. Your argument is effectively a deflection from the real question, which is whether life is better than medieval times, but whether we could have the technology benefits we have today without the power concentration and disparity.
  - 827a 1y ago
    Of course, the big difference between The Feed and Bread & Circuses is: The feed is weaponized to be the perfect entertainment mechanism, which is well-indicated by how many hours a day the typical person spends scrolling it versus the maybe an hour a month a typical late-18th century french citizen would have spent at the circus. No one is trying to prove anything, because these things can't be proven. All we can do is study history and study the present. These things remain true to my eyes: 1. Wealth inequality is an intrinsic fact of human society. There's vanishingly few societies anyone reading this would choose to live in which had significantly lower levels of wealth inequality. Part of that is because: There are vanishingly few societies which had exceedingly low levels of wealth inequality, period. Its human nature, and society always seems to converge at a scale expression of human nature, even if there are pockets of attempts to circumvent it which near-always internally fall to corruption or get out-competed (e.g. the USSR). (I only say near-always because e.g. modern uncontacted amazonian/north sentinel island tribes likely have a pretty egalitarian society, and they haven't fallen yet. you could go live with them if you want to experience what that's like) 2. You're talking about managing wealth inequality on a social media site operated by a venture capital company. This behavior pattern generalizes to modern society: Desktop Linux exists, but people broadly prefer operating systems which enrich hyperwealthy oligarchs. Local markets exist, but Walmart and Costco reign supreme. Taylor Swift and Drake attract ten times the listeners of ten thousand indie artists combined. Human behavior patterns, even in extremely competitive and choice-heavy markets, tend to concentrate wealth. 3. None of that is to state that we live in a perfect or even good system. There may just exist the Least Bad. None of that is to state that we shouldn't make efforts to improve our system. Wealth inequality being an intrinsic fact of human society is not a blank check to aim for or even allow infinite wealth inequality. 4. Maybe technology could have evolved in a more egalitarian society; in other words, a society which does not exclusively and significantly compensate inventors for their inventions. There are some historical examples; technology development during the early USSR was quite impressive and significant. Of course, it barely lasted one human lifespan, and if you ever talk with anyone who lived in the USSR during the 70s and 80s its worth asking them if they feel they'd prefer to live under that system, or our current one.
zingababba 1y ago
I think it's more like the managerial capture of technology. So both OP and you are correct IMO.
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
> In any case, to stand here, in history, at this absolute climax of wealth inequality, government capture, and feudal existence being created and to surmise that "technology" is the problem and not "money" or just "distribution of new wealth" even is absolutely beyond me. You think money, rather than technology? I think the problem is humans. And no, fewer of them won't fix them.
- bccdee 1y ago
  > I think the problem is humans. That's rather a silly way of approaching things. Imagine if your house were on fire, and I said, "the problem isn't flammable curtains or an expired fire extinguisher. It's houses and flames!" Okay, sure, but we can hardly get rid of houses and flames now, can we? Even if we could somehow get rid of all humans, that wouldn't meaningfully solve anything. We wouldn't end up with a fixed world, we'd end up with a barren world, void of consciousness, with nobody around to enjoy it. There are plenty of those elsewhere in the solar system.

827a 1y ago

We're also at the apex of almost every way you can measure human wellbeing. Health outcomes, literacy, child mortality, food availability, clean water, working hours [1], none have been better than they are right now. To suggest technology didn't have a hand in that would be folly. To suggest that money and wealth disparity didn't have a hand in creating that technology would be academic; there's no A/B test of reality, and there's decent circumstantial evidence that alternate systems of organization don't have as good outcomes. Does wealth disparity really matter when every human in the western world has a magic box that can deliver endless global entertainment, communication, and information? Imagine if you had no clean water, people around you died of random diseases every day, you stepped in shit on your way to your 85 hour a week job [1], and then also, the aristocrats laughed at you from their rich ivory towers. That's a far drier powderkeg for the french revolution. People sometimes feel outrage today, but ultimately the feed keeps them happy. It'll all end eventually. But everything always does. The best we can do is keep it going for as long as possible. Anyone who would actually use a time machine to take them anytime, anywhere in the past would be in for a rude awakening. Maybe I'd go back to the 1980s, only to relive the era we're in now all over again, except to buy a ton of AAPL and NVDA this time around. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours

owebmaster 1y ago
Why would you buy a ton of AAPL and NVDA? Aren't you happy with the apex human life? Wanna move right to the top to live a good life just like the French in the past.
- 827a 1y ago
  One can always enjoy more money; that's a far cry from feeling that life is so miserable that storming the streets seems logical.
dinfinity 1y ago
Human societies and technology are, to our current knowledge the most advanced, ordered, low-entropy and complex things in the entire universe. Whether the universe as a whole evolves (pockets) in that direction as some fundamental goal is a philosophical question, but that it does so is clear.
allanmacgregor 1y ago
I don't know if you realize that your comment about the "magic box" is essentially a modern version of "bread and circuses"; the idea that entertainment and distraction can substitute for genuine agency, security, and opportunity. Smartphones don't pay rent, cure illness, or provide economic mobility. Saying that technology advanced alongside extreme wealth inequality doesn't prove inequality was necessary for that advancement. Your argument is effectively a deflection from the real question, which is whether life is better than medieval times, but whether we could have the technology benefits we have today without the power concentration and disparity.
- 827a 1y ago
  Of course, the big difference between The Feed and Bread & Circuses is: The feed is weaponized to be the perfect entertainment mechanism, which is well-indicated by how many hours a day the typical person spends scrolling it versus the maybe an hour a month a typical late-18th century french citizen would have spent at the circus. No one is trying to prove anything, because these things can't be proven. All we can do is study history and study the present. These things remain true to my eyes: 1. Wealth inequality is an intrinsic fact of human society. There's vanishingly few societies anyone reading this would choose to live in which had significantly lower levels of wealth inequality. Part of that is because: There are vanishingly few societies which had exceedingly low levels of wealth inequality, period. Its human nature, and society always seems to converge at a scale expression of human nature, even if there are pockets of attempts to circumvent it which near-always internally fall to corruption or get out-competed (e.g. the USSR). (I only say near-always because e.g. modern uncontacted amazonian/north sentinel island tribes likely have a pretty egalitarian society, and they haven't fallen yet. you could go live with them if you want to experience what that's like) 2. You're talking about managing wealth inequality on a social media site operated by a venture capital company. This behavior pattern generalizes to modern society: Desktop Linux exists, but people broadly prefer operating systems which enrich hyperwealthy oligarchs. Local markets exist, but Walmart and Costco reign supreme. Taylor Swift and Drake attract ten times the listeners of ten thousand indie artists combined. Human behavior patterns, even in extremely competitive and choice-heavy markets, tend to concentrate wealth. 3. None of that is to state that we live in a perfect or even good system. There may just exist the Least Bad. None of that is to state that we shouldn't make efforts to improve our system. Wealth inequality being an intrinsic fact of human society is not a blank check to aim for or even allow infinite wealth inequality. 4. Maybe technology could have evolved in a more egalitarian society; in other words, a society which does not exclusively and significantly compensate inventors for their inventions. There are some historical examples; technology development during the early USSR was quite impressive and significant. Of course, it barely lasted one human lifespan, and if you ever talk with anyone who lived in the USSR during the 70s and 80s its worth asking them if they feel they'd prefer to live under that system, or our current one.

zingababba 1y ago

I think it's more like the managerial capture of technology. So both OP and you are correct IMO.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

> In any case, to stand here, in history, at this absolute climax of wealth inequality, government capture, and feudal existence being created and to surmise that "technology" is the problem and not "money" or just "distribution of new wealth" even is absolutely beyond me. You think money, rather than technology? I think the problem is humans. And no, fewer of them won't fix them.

bccdee 1y ago
> I think the problem is humans. That's rather a silly way of approaching things. Imagine if your house were on fire, and I said, "the problem isn't flammable curtains or an expired fire extinguisher. It's houses and flames!" Okay, sure, but we can hardly get rid of houses and flames now, can we? Even if we could somehow get rid of all humans, that wouldn't meaningfully solve anything. We wouldn't end up with a fixed world, we'd end up with a barren world, void of consciousness, with nobody around to enjoy it. There are plenty of those elsewhere in the solar system.