5 ms·

But that's the thing, and what's really different from how it's ever been before: there absolutely is enough for everyone. It's being deliberately gatekept fro

by danaris 5mo ago

But that's the thing, and what's really different from how it's ever been before: there absolutely is enough for everyone. It's being deliberately gatekept from us by the wealthy, and by those who believe that no one should be allowed to have anything they haven't "earned". The tragic thing is, to the extent that you're right, people will probably mostly kill other people who have nothing, rather than turning their anger and violence where it truly deserves to go: the rich bastards who want to own everything and prevent the rest of us from having anything.

conartist6 5mo ago
[flagged]
- danaris 5mo ago
  Um...dial it back a notch or two there, chum. "We have enough for everyone, and it is being deliberately gatekept by the wealthy" does not logically equate to "therefore if we removed that gatekeeping we'd have Stalinism" without a whole bunch of extra steps not currently in evidence. For instance, there's no reason why we can't say "sell your food for lower prices than the maximum the market will bear; the government will pay you to make sure you're still solvent" (this is called subsidies, we do it all the time). We also have a lot of antitrust levers at our disposal that have been growing rusty from disuse since Reagan's administration decided that monopolies were Good For Us, Actually. I'm not proposing any specific solutions to this problem; I'm merely stating that it is a problem. If anything's "fucking insane" here, it's responding to that with ad hominem attacks and some very thick sarcasm about communism. Furthermore, "communism" as an economic philosophy does not inherently lead to the specific circumstances that we saw in the Soviet Union during the 20th century. I know people tend to start crying "uh-uh-uhh! No True Scotsman fallacy!" when one points out that the USSR was not, in fact, doing a great job at communism, but it really wasn't. At first they tried, but it very quickly descended into a fairly standard authoritarian regime where economic decisions were being made not based on what was best for the people, but on what was best for the dictators and their cronies. (And funny enough, those same people don't seem to have a problem with the idea that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not, in fact, particularly democratic...)
  - conartist6 5mo ago
    So... You think that we'll end up like soviet Russia but that it won't really be communism?
    - conartist6 5mo ago
      I just don't buy that "now there's enough for everyone" as opposed to every other point in history where... contention for resources was pretty much the same. Go as far back as you want and you'll find records of war and strife, even though the planet's resources were limitless compared to the consumptive pressure they're under now. People think that being the first soldier over the wall in a siege, veritably a death wish, was a punishment reserved for criminals or something, but actually it was a mechanism of social mobility in an ancient society. An individual who breached the enemy's defenses was honored and paid richly. You can observe the dynamics just as readily in modern society, watching a show like Survivor which puts small-group social politics front and center. Often the players of the game wish that everyone would just go along with the plan. Sometimes it does happen, but just as often a few people see a better opportunity for themselves by breaking with the popular consensus. It doesn't even have to be the same people every time. It's just always better for some people to try going a different way: making their own alliance or their own city or country. Both the drive towards individuality and its results, strife and resilience, are necessarily eternal in the cycle of life. If you want to be glib, there is a light and a dark side to the force.
2ndorderthought 5mo ago
There isn't though. Our infrastructure cannot sustain the AI race. Food supplies are weakening. An ever increasing population is being encouraged by billionaires. There could be! But there currently is not. Nor is there any plan for that to change.
- danaris 5mo ago
  Well, you're right that our infrastructure can't sustain the AI race, but (while it's true I didn't make that clear), that's not remotely what I was talking about. Even with food supplies "weakening"—which is only happening due to the pointless Iran war, not due to any larger trends—we still have plenty of food to feed every human being on the planet. And regardless of what billionaires might encourage, population growth is slowing. (To the extent that it might become a genuine economic problem in a few decades if we don't find a way to adjust our economic systems to stop depending on a constantly-increasing population.)
  - 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
    Tarrifs wiped out a lot of farmers. Fertilizer shortages absolutely are a result of the Iran war. Population growth can occur if billionaires lobby Republicans and make birth control illegal. Which is happening right now. Last week we were seeing some scary news about that. There is a big difference between what we could be doing and what is happening. It's more profitable for the ultra wealthy that we can barely survive. I know it sounds abrasive, but it's a fact and there is a lot of evidence pointing to this. Googling Elon musk wants people to have more children is scary how many hits there are from different conversations. Bezos as well.

by danaris 5mo ago

conartist6 5mo ago

[flagged]

danaris 5mo ago
Um...dial it back a notch or two there, chum. "We have enough for everyone, and it is being deliberately gatekept by the wealthy" does not logically equate to "therefore if we removed that gatekeeping we'd have Stalinism" without a whole bunch of extra steps not currently in evidence. For instance, there's no reason why we can't say "sell your food for lower prices than the maximum the market will bear; the government will pay you to make sure you're still solvent" (this is called subsidies, we do it all the time). We also have a lot of antitrust levers at our disposal that have been growing rusty from disuse since Reagan's administration decided that monopolies were Good For Us, Actually. I'm not proposing any specific solutions to this problem; I'm merely stating that it is a problem. If anything's "fucking insane" here, it's responding to that with ad hominem attacks and some very thick sarcasm about communism. Furthermore, "communism" as an economic philosophy does not inherently lead to the specific circumstances that we saw in the Soviet Union during the 20th century. I know people tend to start crying "uh-uh-uhh! No True Scotsman fallacy!" when one points out that the USSR was not, in fact, doing a great job at communism, but it really wasn't. At first they tried, but it very quickly descended into a fairly standard authoritarian regime where economic decisions were being made not based on what was best for the people, but on what was best for the dictators and their cronies. (And funny enough, those same people don't seem to have a problem with the idea that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not, in fact, particularly democratic...)
- conartist6 5mo ago
  So... You think that we'll end up like soviet Russia but that it won't really be communism?
  - conartist6 5mo ago
    I just don't buy that "now there's enough for everyone" as opposed to every other point in history where... contention for resources was pretty much the same. Go as far back as you want and you'll find records of war and strife, even though the planet's resources were limitless compared to the consumptive pressure they're under now. People think that being the first soldier over the wall in a siege, veritably a death wish, was a punishment reserved for criminals or something, but actually it was a mechanism of social mobility in an ancient society. An individual who breached the enemy's defenses was honored and paid richly. You can observe the dynamics just as readily in modern society, watching a show like Survivor which puts small-group social politics front and center. Often the players of the game wish that everyone would just go along with the plan. Sometimes it does happen, but just as often a few people see a better opportunity for themselves by breaking with the popular consensus. It doesn't even have to be the same people every time. It's just always better for some people to try going a different way: making their own alliance or their own city or country. Both the drive towards individuality and its results, strife and resilience, are necessarily eternal in the cycle of life. If you want to be glib, there is a light and a dark side to the force.

2ndorderthought 5mo ago

There isn't though. Our infrastructure cannot sustain the AI race. Food supplies are weakening. An ever increasing population is being encouraged by billionaires. There could be! But there currently is not. Nor is there any plan for that to change.

danaris 5mo ago
Well, you're right that our infrastructure can't sustain the AI race, but (while it's true I didn't make that clear), that's not remotely what I was talking about. Even with food supplies "weakening"—which is only happening due to the pointless Iran war, not due to any larger trends—we still have plenty of food to feed every human being on the planet. And regardless of what billionaires might encourage, population growth is slowing. (To the extent that it might become a genuine economic problem in a few decades if we don't find a way to adjust our economic systems to stop depending on a constantly-increasing population.)
- 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
  Tarrifs wiped out a lot of farmers. Fertilizer shortages absolutely are a result of the Iran war. Population growth can occur if billionaires lobby Republicans and make birth control illegal. Which is happening right now. Last week we were seeing some scary news about that. There is a big difference between what we could be doing and what is happening. It's more profitable for the ultra wealthy that we can barely survive. I know it sounds abrasive, but it's a fact and there is a lot of evidence pointing to this. Googling Elon musk wants people to have more children is scary how many hits there are from different conversations. Bezos as well.