4 ms·

Sometime I wonder about the "meaning of life", but the real question is "what is the purpose of civilization?". Cynics could argue that civilization is like a

by jokoon 12y ago

Sometime I wonder about the "meaning of life", but the real question is "what is the purpose of civilization?". Cynics could argue that civilization is like a cancer, thus we should make sure civilization grows as fast and as big as possible to survive a cataclysm or to make sure one's country wins a future war. That's the only argument to have higher standards and incentives to be productive, just so that society can be fatter and faster. There is no incentive to be happier at all when you want to be the strongest. Modern, developed capitalistic societies is just about scoring money. You just can't be happy in a society like this, because everything, to economical policies to the customs, are now made towards bigger faster stronger. Sometimes it seems that the poverty and the crisis of the 30s scared one generation, and set a whole mentality of never being poor and unproductive ever again. Economics and scoring are now the highest priority. We're not individuals, we're just scores.

bgfuzhj1 12y ago
"We got too good at math and engineering without really noticing that we weren’t actually good enough, and we don’t even know if good enough exists." Our current society conditions us to believe that there is something or someone who understands the systems we have build. (But as an engineer I might just live in my own little bubble) The truth is that some systems, such as those based purely on physical principles, we actually understand quite well. This is because the physical systems are based on natural rules that are consistent to a high degree. Anyone who has modeled these knows its not easy, and you need to make assumptions, but at least it is difficult to find contradictions with laws of physics. In contrast, the systems our society is based on today are largely build on more or less arbitrary rules. Even in theory, when you start adding arbitrary rules to a system it becomes very hard to reason about very fast. You can measure it and try to predict how changing the parameters affects the state of the system (according to the measure). But it is very easy to find contradictions. By enforcing these arbitrary rules (such as rules controlling the global economy), the consequences of which we are wholly unable to understand, we have managed to build a system where success is measured according to arbitrary measures. Over time we have got used to respect people who are particularly good at playing by the rules and/or randomly manage to optimize the things those measures value. To put it other way, the rules, at least when broadly enforced, induce inequality (if we assume that everyone has different attributes). The scary thing is that the system is so complex (and nowadays global) that we have totally lost track (and responsibility) of the consequences of our actions. Nowadays, it is in most cases a completely meaningless clause when someone says e.g. "We respect human rights.".
SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
There used to be multiple civilizations. There still are, but there are less of them. Connecting the world is turning us into a monoculture, and as biologists know, monocultures are extremely vulnerable to diseases wiping them out. I think we should encourage localized micro-civilizations, if only to keep the species safe. For example, capitalism has become the system that the world runs on. Pretty much all of us exchange currency for goods. But there are lots of failure modes for this system. To keep ourselves safe, we should encourage enclaves with alternative economic systems like bartering and collectivism. Unfortunately, in the US at least, if someone suggests that capitalism might not be the best for everybody, they get labeled as a "socialist" and shunned.
- jokoon 12y ago
  Do you think communism, in some way, was a different form of civilization, and that the fall of the berlin wall increased this phenomenon of "monoculture" ?
  - SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
    Yeah, I think so. I'm not a fan of communism as it was practiced by the USSR, but I think in smaller communities that collectively agreed to it, it would work.

by jokoon 12y ago

bgfuzhj1 12y ago

"We got too good at math and engineering without really noticing that we weren’t actually good enough, and we don’t even know if good enough exists." Our current society conditions us to believe that there is something or someone who understands the systems we have build. (But as an engineer I might just live in my own little bubble) The truth is that some systems, such as those based purely on physical principles, we actually understand quite well. This is because the physical systems are based on natural rules that are consistent to a high degree. Anyone who has modeled these knows its not easy, and you need to make assumptions, but at least it is difficult to find contradictions with laws of physics. In contrast, the systems our society is based on today are largely build on more or less arbitrary rules. Even in theory, when you start adding arbitrary rules to a system it becomes very hard to reason about very fast. You can measure it and try to predict how changing the parameters affects the state of the system (according to the measure). But it is very easy to find contradictions. By enforcing these arbitrary rules (such as rules controlling the global economy), the consequences of which we are wholly unable to understand, we have managed to build a system where success is measured according to arbitrary measures. Over time we have got used to respect people who are particularly good at playing by the rules and/or randomly manage to optimize the things those measures value. To put it other way, the rules, at least when broadly enforced, induce inequality (if we assume that everyone has different attributes). The scary thing is that the system is so complex (and nowadays global) that we have totally lost track (and responsibility) of the consequences of our actions. Nowadays, it is in most cases a completely meaningless clause when someone says e.g. "We respect human rights.".

SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago

There used to be multiple civilizations. There still are, but there are less of them. Connecting the world is turning us into a monoculture, and as biologists know, monocultures are extremely vulnerable to diseases wiping them out. I think we should encourage localized micro-civilizations, if only to keep the species safe. For example, capitalism has become the system that the world runs on. Pretty much all of us exchange currency for goods. But there are lots of failure modes for this system. To keep ourselves safe, we should encourage enclaves with alternative economic systems like bartering and collectivism. Unfortunately, in the US at least, if someone suggests that capitalism might not be the best for everybody, they get labeled as a "socialist" and shunned.

jokoon 12y ago
Do you think communism, in some way, was a different form of civilization, and that the fall of the berlin wall increased this phenomenon of "monoculture" ?
- SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
  Yeah, I think so. I'm not a fan of communism as it was practiced by the USSR, but I think in smaller communities that collectively agreed to it, it would work.