6 ms·

> what gives the author the right to blanketly declare the lives of the middle class to be souless, meaningless, and that their jobs are bullshit? Well, that's

> what gives the author the right to blanketly declare the lives of the middle class to be souless, meaningless, and that their jobs are bullshit? Well, that's what modern life is under the TINA regime[1]. A whole society of people who've sold out every heroic ideal humans have ever conceived, in order to live as cells inside corporate organs of a hyper-capitalistic organism that would collapse if it stopped expanding. Money is god (it's about equal in power to law, at least), and money is created in a Ponzi between central banks and governments, and between private financial corporations and private enterprises/individuals, all on the promise that there will be even more money next year to pay back the debts of this year, and give "good enough or better" returns on large capital pools invested. We consume natural resources in an unsustainable way in exchange for this money, and for a cellular role in the organs and the organism, and it will last in this way until the last day comes, when we starve to death on our own planetary stripmine. We could be taking a new course right now, to live in idealistic ways, in sustainable ways, in heroic ways. But we all just quit that notion before we start, because it's just too hard, and we distract ourselves with the greatest media spectacle of entertaining diversions and political issues every conceived. Welcome to life in hell. You can get defensive and self-righteous when people point out the mass hypocrisy and delusion and error in all our lives, but it doesn't change the truth that we are all living in an awful state, as cowards and lapdogs of the hyper-capitalist system that gives us life today, even as it guarantees death in the future. I figure that a not-yet born post-human super-predator will take the best of human intelligence and anti-entropic principles and incorporate them, and destroy the rest. Or some already-existing higher powers will swoop in at some point in the future to harvest the best of our anti-entropic principles, and destroy the rest of us. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative

ripb 12y ago
You've hit the nail on the head, brainpan. >But we all just quit that notion before we start Don't forget we also denounce and ridicule anyone who tries to live outside the system we have constructed and rely on.
ashark 12y ago
Oh my, have you been following the same bread-crumb trail of reading from HN that I have? http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ Starts off iffy, gets really good. Incidentally, that page led me to this by the same author: http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html Which is very much like something I'd been meaning to write for some time, though better-done (and certainly longer) than mine probably would have been. Strictly separating the practical and moral sides of the arguments was, in particular, a great idea. I do wish someone would send him more rebuttals, since I like reading take-downs of things I agree with and the only one linked there is really poor, even by the not-especially-rigorous standards of the original.
- joeperks 12y ago
  I find "Meditations on Moloch" intensely interesting. Thank you so much for posting this.
Retric 12y ago
Assuming that was not intended as a parity. Capitalism does not require net growth. People, things, culture and organisations decay. People get old, Teens in 2016 are not going to dress the same, listen to the same songs, or even read the same books from the 2015. The is a long cycle of banks flat out failing in good times and in bad. Clothing, Houses, Bridges, and Roads need to be replaced etc. Sure, in steady state economy's there is a different balance and fewer people get to retire early. However, lower returns and later retirements does not break capitalism. Just look at Japan's falling GDP.
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  > parity You probably mean "parody" (they are pronounced very similarly)
littletimmy 12y ago
I find what you wrote interesting yet it sounds very alien. It is probably just my indoctrinated brain. Can you recommend any good books or readings that echo these thoughts in more depth?
semi-extrinsic 12y ago
I, for one, believe that continued economic growth needs continued growth in global energy production, and that we will be unable to maintain this growth over the next century for thermodynamic reasons. This will be the big shit-hits-the-fan moment of the coming years, not climate change or wars. We literally have to throw centuries of economics out the window.
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  Solar energy is essentially untapped today (relative to output from fossil fuels), and we are in no danger of exhausting the supply of nuclear fuel in the near term.[0] Eventually global energy production will taper off, but I would bet strongly against it being within the next century. [0] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium...
  - darkmighty 12y ago
    Yea, there is no "thermodynamic reason" for a limited supply of energy. Even if we started expending too much energy in the atmosphere (say if we found an efficient way to fusion), we could pump this excess heat to space, if it would ever come to such an extreme.
    - semi-extrinsic 12y ago
      I see that none of you have heard of Carnot efficiency, or even the second law of thermodynamics. Even if we were to get electric energy from magical pink unicorns that produced no heat, the usage of that energy would produce waste heat. And no, you can't just pump heat into space; if we could that would easily solve global warming.
      - darkmighty 12y ago
        Yes you can... Constructive proof: build a large suspended reflector (mirror), put you power source on it and pump heat from earth to a sphere of any material, which radiates heat into space. No, this of course can't easily solve global warming due to enormous cost it would have and ludicrous efficiency. It's way cheaper to just absorb less heat from the sun (less CO2).
orbifold 12y ago
I believe the sentiment you express is shared by a large number of people, even more in the past. Maybe the Hacker community that spawned the Free Software movement is particularly aware of alternative means of production. Except for labor the amount of captital needed for software development is essentially zero, so that you do not have to attempt to reorganize ownership of capital to be successful. Already today the production of most physical things requires in many cases next to no labor, which in turn means their price should approach the manufacturing cost. In those sectors cooperative invention together with shared means of production should take over (makerspaces), because it is unprofitable for businesses to compete in those domains. The problem is that unless landownership and resource distribution is not tackled at the same time all that will probably not happen because larger parts of the population will either be deemed unnecessary or be engaged in unproductive financial games.
vacri 12y ago
Welcome to life in hell. You can get defensive and self-righteous when people point out the mass hypocrisy and delusion and error in all our lives, but it doesn't change the truth that we are all living in an awful state, as cowards and lapdogs of the hyper-capitalist system that gives us life today, even as it guarantees death in the future. Rousing rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact that while it's shit to be poor, it's still better to be poor now than at pretty much any previous time in known history. A whole society of people who've sold out every heroic ideal humans have ever conceived Which again sounds like nice and tasty demagoguery, but isn't true. We continually progress and improve on civil rights, for example.
- amagumori 12y ago
  oh, the "$1/day is better than slavery, you should be happy!" guy. of course.
  - vacri 12y ago
    If only there was a middle-ground between the GP's grandiose demagoguery and your clumsy strawmanning, there might be some discussion that helps find a solution instead of just lobbing insults at those whom you assume are your opponents.
ForHackernews 12y ago
Wake up, sheeple! http://i.imgur.com/YakV0LG.gif http://i.imgur.com/YakV0LG.gif
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>We could be taking a new course right now, to live in idealistic ways, in sustainable ways, in heroic ways. But we all just quit that notion before we start, because it's just too hard, and we distract ourselves with the greatest media spectacle of entertaining diversions and political issues every conceived. Oh. You quit? >Welcome to life in hell. You can get defensive and self-righteous when people point out the mass hypocrisy and delusion and error in all our lives, but it doesn't change the truth that we are all living in an awful state, as cowards and lapdogs of the hyper-capitalist system that gives us life today, even as it guarantees death in the future. No, the working classes are actually revolting, because the system has guaranteed them death today. All kinds of things are actually happening around the world to deal with humanity's problems, and here you're complaining instead of contributing. Get back to work! >I figure that a not-yet born post-human super-predator will take the best of human intelligence and anti-entropic principles and incorporate them, and destroy the rest. Or some already-existing higher powers will swoop in at some point in the future to harvest the best of our anti-entropic principles, and destroy the rest of us. I'm right here, and it really boggles me why people like you keep thinking people like me would destroy you ;-).

ripb 12y ago

You've hit the nail on the head, brainpan. >But we all just quit that notion before we start Don't forget we also denounce and ridicule anyone who tries to live outside the system we have constructed and rely on.

ashark 12y ago

Oh my, have you been following the same bread-crumb trail of reading from HN that I have? http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ Starts off iffy, gets really good. Incidentally, that page led me to this by the same author: http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html Which is very much like something I'd been meaning to write for some time, though better-done (and certainly longer) than mine probably would have been. Strictly separating the practical and moral sides of the arguments was, in particular, a great idea. I do wish someone would send him more rebuttals, since I like reading take-downs of things I agree with and the only one linked there is really poor, even by the not-especially-rigorous standards of the original.

joeperks 12y ago
I find "Meditations on Moloch" intensely interesting. Thank you so much for posting this.

Retric 12y ago

Assuming that was not intended as a parity. Capitalism does not require net growth. People, things, culture and organisations decay. People get old, Teens in 2016 are not going to dress the same, listen to the same songs, or even read the same books from the 2015. The is a long cycle of banks flat out failing in good times and in bad. Clothing, Houses, Bridges, and Roads need to be replaced etc. Sure, in steady state economy's there is a different balance and fewer people get to retire early. However, lower returns and later retirements does not break capitalism. Just look at Japan's falling GDP.

ForHackernews 12y ago
> parity You probably mean "parody" (they are pronounced very similarly)

littletimmy 12y ago

I find what you wrote interesting yet it sounds very alien. It is probably just my indoctrinated brain. Can you recommend any good books or readings that echo these thoughts in more depth?

semi-extrinsic 12y ago

I, for one, believe that continued economic growth needs continued growth in global energy production, and that we will be unable to maintain this growth over the next century for thermodynamic reasons. This will be the big shit-hits-the-fan moment of the coming years, not climate change or wars. We literally have to throw centuries of economics out the window.

ForHackernews 12y ago
Solar energy is essentially untapped today (relative to output from fossil fuels), and we are in no danger of exhausting the supply of nuclear fuel in the near term.[0] Eventually global energy production will taper off, but I would bet strongly against it being within the next century. [0] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium...
- darkmighty 12y ago
  Yea, there is no "thermodynamic reason" for a limited supply of energy. Even if we started expending too much energy in the atmosphere (say if we found an efficient way to fusion), we could pump this excess heat to space, if it would ever come to such an extreme.
  - semi-extrinsic 12y ago
    I see that none of you have heard of Carnot efficiency, or even the second law of thermodynamics. Even if we were to get electric energy from magical pink unicorns that produced no heat, the usage of that energy would produce waste heat. And no, you can't just pump heat into space; if we could that would easily solve global warming.
    - darkmighty 12y ago
      Yes you can... Constructive proof: build a large suspended reflector (mirror), put you power source on it and pump heat from earth to a sphere of any material, which radiates heat into space. No, this of course can't easily solve global warming due to enormous cost it would have and ludicrous efficiency. It's way cheaper to just absorb less heat from the sun (less CO2).

orbifold 12y ago

I believe the sentiment you express is shared by a large number of people, even more in the past. Maybe the Hacker community that spawned the Free Software movement is particularly aware of alternative means of production. Except for labor the amount of captital needed for software development is essentially zero, so that you do not have to attempt to reorganize ownership of capital to be successful. Already today the production of most physical things requires in many cases next to no labor, which in turn means their price should approach the manufacturing cost. In those sectors cooperative invention together with shared means of production should take over (makerspaces), because it is unprofitable for businesses to compete in those domains. The problem is that unless landownership and resource distribution is not tackled at the same time all that will probably not happen because larger parts of the population will either be deemed unnecessary or be engaged in unproductive financial games.

vacri 12y ago

Welcome to life in hell. You can get defensive and self-righteous when people point out the mass hypocrisy and delusion and error in all our lives, but it doesn't change the truth that we are all living in an awful state, as cowards and lapdogs of the hyper-capitalist system that gives us life today, even as it guarantees death in the future. Rousing rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact that while it's shit to be poor, it's still better to be poor now than at pretty much any previous time in known history. A whole society of people who've sold out every heroic ideal humans have ever conceived Which again sounds like nice and tasty demagoguery, but isn't true. We continually progress and improve on civil rights, for example.

amagumori 12y ago
oh, the "$1/day is better than slavery, you should be happy!" guy. of course.
- vacri 12y ago
  If only there was a middle-ground between the GP's grandiose demagoguery and your clumsy strawmanning, there might be some discussion that helps find a solution instead of just lobbing insults at those whom you assume are your opponents.

ForHackernews 12y ago

Wake up, sheeple! http://i.imgur.com/YakV0LG.gif http://i.imgur.com/YakV0LG.gif

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

>We could be taking a new course right now, to live in idealistic ways, in sustainable ways, in heroic ways. But we all just quit that notion before we start, because it's just too hard, and we distract ourselves with the greatest media spectacle of entertaining diversions and political issues every conceived. Oh. You quit? >Welcome to life in hell. You can get defensive and self-righteous when people point out the mass hypocrisy and delusion and error in all our lives, but it doesn't change the truth that we are all living in an awful state, as cowards and lapdogs of the hyper-capitalist system that gives us life today, even as it guarantees death in the future. No, the working classes are actually revolting, because the system has guaranteed them death today. All kinds of things are actually happening around the world to deal with humanity's problems, and here you're complaining instead of contributing. Get back to work! >I figure that a not-yet born post-human super-predator will take the best of human intelligence and anti-entropic principles and incorporate them, and destroy the rest. Or some already-existing higher powers will swoop in at some point in the future to harvest the best of our anti-entropic principles, and destroy the rest of us. I'm right here, and it really boggles me why people like you keep thinking people like me would destroy you ;-).