4 ms·

This reminds of a thought I had a few months ago: how have there not been more thought pieces relating Uber-the-business's recent/relentless PR-debacles to Niet

This reminds of a thought I had a few months ago: how have there not been more thought pieces relating Uber-the-business's recent/relentless PR-debacles to Nietzsche's Ubermensch concept? I guess I'll give it a go. Uber/Travis and his execs seem to demonstrate the belief that they are "overmen" in that they seem to believe that they transcend the rules of society and are destined to shape society and its values rather than the other way around (probably something not too uncommonly shared with HN readers…). A few fun/funny/serious examples (in no particular order): 1. They outrightly express resistance to laws-as-is, and regularly threaten to ignore and sometimes do break those regs as necessary to conduct their business / benefit themselves and their consumers. 2. They hire lobbyists and other high-level political actors to change the laws they don't like and/or influence lawmakers - not atypical for a large company, but they did this earlier than most companies at their stage, with much more specific agendas in place and with a lot more PR surrounding it (the last may or may not have been their doing, hard to say). They have a belief (probably well-founded) that they can use the political process to make the law bend to their will. “Creating New Values” as any good uberman should. 3. They call their central system “Godmode” which implies that they, the viewers, are like God (a bit of a stretch I know…couldn’t resist) 4. They are proud that using the data in Godmode they can track, predict and identify specifics of other human being’s behavior. 5. The whole “we’ll pay our own researchers to smear journalists” thing - another good example of Creating New Values and constructing narratives. 6. The general feeling that Uber (perhaps correctly) operates against “states” and “sovereigns” and “systems” more than corporate competitors (who even writes about Lyft anymore these days…) The funny thing is that after thinking this through, all (good?) CEOs of major corporations basically operate like this (and so do many other tech-leaders - it is often associated with libertarian-leaning individuals like P. Thiel, etc.) - the difference is that Uber (1) has a name that calls it out and (2) seems to be especially prone to doing this in public and (3) sometimes appears to relishes their “overlord-iness” a little too much. You can call it being crass or being honest. In any case, they seem to be getting hip to the system and playing nice which of course can be viewed as just another level of the game, etc. - still, glad to see them do it because I overall think that playing nice is best (especially when you can afford to do it) and with a $40b val. and a couple billion raised, I think they can spare some good behavior, at least for now =) Note on Uber: I think Uber is a great business and has a significantly net-positive impact on society, and I reserve judgment w/r/t whether TK and the other Uber execs are good or bad people - I can't conclude they are good because they run a good business, and I can't conclude they are bad because they say stupid things in public. Note on Nietzche: In Thus Spake Zarathrusa, the "uberman" concept is (maybe) considered a positive that humanity should work towards in the absence of belief in God, and I think it can still be understood as such. The fact that history has attributed some very negative actions to the belief in this concept (Hitler, Leopold & Loeb's murder, etc.) is, in my opinion, not definitive but at the same time not entirely insignificant, but I'm also a Christian that believes in capital-M Morality so I'm biased against nihilism in general.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
> Note on Nietzche: In Thus Spake Zarathrusa, the "uberman" concept is (maybe) considered a positive that humanity should work towards in the absence of belief in God, and I think it can still be understood as such. The problem is that, in the absence of God, there is no absolute morality that is not the result of an arbitrary choice. When the "uberman" arises, he/she creates a new morality, which is needed in the morally nihilistic vacuum that arises due to the absence of God. But because there is no objective basis for morality in the absence of God, that means that the new morality is the result of the "uberman's" arbitrary choice. Is that going to be the magic spark that leads us into a golden age? Only if we get very, very lucky in the "uberman's" arbitrary choice.
- michas 12y ago
  There is an objective basis to morality without God, proposed by Immanuel Kant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
- joshjkim 12y ago
  Totally agree - and I think belief in arbitrariness seems to always lead to either (1) self-interested action or (2) indifference to others - in other words, selfishness, either active or passive. I'll avoid a Christian-love-based-rant here =) Suffice it to say I was trying to be objective/forgiving/understanding of the uberman concept, but end of the day I'm pretty sure it's a bad deal for everyone involved haha
- jqm 12y ago
  But when have the gods actually spoken? Seems likely what we really have in the words of the gods is simply a collection of more uberman psychopathy. Which leads us right back to the inevitability of lack of absolutes. Maybe we would be better off dealing with this as is?
  - joshjkim 12y ago
    Without getting too cheesy: I think the gods have spoken through the apparently "irrational" existence of (sorry for the cheesiness!) love, which I define as the the active valuing of other life as more valuable than or at least equal in value to your own. While this is a form of selflessness, I actually think this works in conjunction with the basic belief that human beings are ultimately self-interested, because I believe that to recognize value in others beside yourself and act on that recognition is the most fulfilling and self-satisfying thing a human can do. To me, this weird alignment of the interests of self and other is pretty counterintuitive and only proven through its exercise/practice, but in any case seems pretty magical/mystical/awesome. I think the fact that a good chunk of modern social structure/law/convention is built on the restraint of the self for the benefit of others (which itself translates into net gains for society overall - magic!) is a manifestation of this fact, and also rears its head in Christianity and almost all other religions (though of course like everything in life, the good is mixed in with some fucked up stuff too). I can’t really say I have evidence for this other than personal observation of contemporary experiences, historical analysis and my own mind’s logic, but based on those it seems to me that (1) people who treat other people poorly or indifferently seem to be relatively unhappy/dissatisfied and do not feel self-realized and feel disconnected/alienated from those around them and still yearn for more power, wealth, etc. even in spite of the fact that they have more than most and (2) people who treat others well seem to be happy and self-realized and connected to those around them and seem to be relatively satisfied with relatively less power and wealth, etc. Similarly, societies wherein those in power treat people (relatively) fairly seem to thrive more than societies where those in power treat people unfairly - it seems that this also applies in some way to those who hold the power when comparing relative situations: would you rather be [enter name of random hundred millionaire in America] (who owns only a small portion of American wealth) or Mugabe (who owns/controls half of Zimbabwe)? (cherry-picked that one...haha but still, I don't think it's too off-point) This is of course assuming that being happy, satisfied, connected and self-realized are in fact, things that are good and that people want, but still, it seems to hold true in my mind through my observation and experience - I’d say I started paying attention around 14, and I’m 29 now, so that’s about a 15 year experiment, and it’s been trending pretty steadily in that direction.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago

> Note on Nietzche: In Thus Spake Zarathrusa, the "uberman" concept is (maybe) considered a positive that humanity should work towards in the absence of belief in God, and I think it can still be understood as such. The problem is that, in the absence of God, there is no absolute morality that is not the result of an arbitrary choice. When the "uberman" arises, he/she creates a new morality, which is needed in the morally nihilistic vacuum that arises due to the absence of God. But because there is no objective basis for morality in the absence of God, that means that the new morality is the result of the "uberman's" arbitrary choice. Is that going to be the magic spark that leads us into a golden age? Only if we get very, very lucky in the "uberman's" arbitrary choice.

michas 12y ago
There is an objective basis to morality without God, proposed by Immanuel Kant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
joshjkim 12y ago
Totally agree - and I think belief in arbitrariness seems to always lead to either (1) self-interested action or (2) indifference to others - in other words, selfishness, either active or passive. I'll avoid a Christian-love-based-rant here =) Suffice it to say I was trying to be objective/forgiving/understanding of the uberman concept, but end of the day I'm pretty sure it's a bad deal for everyone involved haha
jqm 12y ago
But when have the gods actually spoken? Seems likely what we really have in the words of the gods is simply a collection of more uberman psychopathy. Which leads us right back to the inevitability of lack of absolutes. Maybe we would be better off dealing with this as is?
- joshjkim 12y ago
  Without getting too cheesy: I think the gods have spoken through the apparently "irrational" existence of (sorry for the cheesiness!) love, which I define as the the active valuing of other life as more valuable than or at least equal in value to your own. While this is a form of selflessness, I actually think this works in conjunction with the basic belief that human beings are ultimately self-interested, because I believe that to recognize value in others beside yourself and act on that recognition is the most fulfilling and self-satisfying thing a human can do. To me, this weird alignment of the interests of self and other is pretty counterintuitive and only proven through its exercise/practice, but in any case seems pretty magical/mystical/awesome. I think the fact that a good chunk of modern social structure/law/convention is built on the restraint of the self for the benefit of others (which itself translates into net gains for society overall - magic!) is a manifestation of this fact, and also rears its head in Christianity and almost all other religions (though of course like everything in life, the good is mixed in with some fucked up stuff too). I can’t really say I have evidence for this other than personal observation of contemporary experiences, historical analysis and my own mind’s logic, but based on those it seems to me that (1) people who treat other people poorly or indifferently seem to be relatively unhappy/dissatisfied and do not feel self-realized and feel disconnected/alienated from those around them and still yearn for more power, wealth, etc. even in spite of the fact that they have more than most and (2) people who treat others well seem to be happy and self-realized and connected to those around them and seem to be relatively satisfied with relatively less power and wealth, etc. Similarly, societies wherein those in power treat people (relatively) fairly seem to thrive more than societies where those in power treat people unfairly - it seems that this also applies in some way to those who hold the power when comparing relative situations: would you rather be [enter name of random hundred millionaire in America] (who owns only a small portion of American wealth) or Mugabe (who owns/controls half of Zimbabwe)? (cherry-picked that one...haha but still, I don't think it's too off-point) This is of course assuming that being happy, satisfied, connected and self-realized are in fact, things that are good and that people want, but still, it seems to hold true in my mind through my observation and experience - I’d say I started paying attention around 14, and I’m 29 now, so that’s about a 15 year experiment, and it’s been trending pretty steadily in that direction.