Thread: SO can we just throw the senate and congress out on their asses already?

Originally Posted by tommo

I don't want to go back to primitive life. I would like to see what it's like soon. But I don't think I want to live it every day for the rest of my life.
I do think that there are positives to taking some of that natural way of living in to our modern life.

The Venus Project is basically what I just said. Of course there's a lot more to it, but it includes that.

Well this just comes down to preference then. You have your wants and I have mine.

I'm not talking about preferences, I'm talking about something being objectively better.
Such as not wasting all of our resources and ruining fertile soil etc.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So says you. I can receive such a connection from a walk in my local forest or a canoe trip in the Everglades. I do not need to plant food in order to feel connected to the world around me.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

We have conquered everything but natural disasters which are mother nature's most awesome forces. I think we are doing pretty good on the "escaping the whims" department.

There is a slight incongruency there. We've managed to conquer nature without losing touch with it? I know these were two different trains of thought but the tracks do cross at some point.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Human desires are always evolving and never satisfied...

Insatiable is not sustainable.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That is the wonderful thing about language, it is never private/agent-relative. It is public/agent-neutral...

Never...except for always. (always agent-relative that is). lol.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

There is a slight incongruency there. We've managed to conquer nature without losing touch with it? I know these were two different trains of thought but the tracks do cross at some point.

Just because we can be beyond her whims does not infer that we can return to it through things like nature walks, star-gazing etc. The point is that we have the option to live a "civilized" (if it could be called that) life or a primitive one. The option is ours, not mother nature's.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Insatiable is not sustainable.

You will have to forgive me. I am a grad student which leaves little time for recreational reading. Just as there is a desire to serve the wants of individuals, there will be people such as yourself who want "sustainability" and will therefore pursue a course in which technology is directed toward such a goal. It is actually a very nice duality.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Never...except for always. (always agent-relative that is). lol.

Language is never agent-relative. If I created a new word now, let us call it sulalackytacky, you would have no idea what it means (there not allowing it to be a language because language infers the ability of communication and if you cannot understand what I am saying then I am not communicating with you). Are you a big JRR Tolken fan? Or perhaps a Star Trek fan? Elivish, as a language is only understandable if it is open, public and beyond the scope of a single individual. Same with Klingon.

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm not talking about preferences, I'm talking about something being objectively better.
Such as not wasting all of our resources and ruining fertile soil etc.

Better for you like I stated but not better for me therefore it is not objective.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Just because we can be beyond her whims does not infer that we can return to it through things like nature walks, star-gazing etc. The point is that we have the option to live a "civilized" (if it could be called that) life or a primitive one. The option is ours, not mother nature's.

That smacks of unilinear cultural evolution. "Primitive" to "civilized" is the exact framing of some thoroughly debunked 19th century anthropology.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You will have to forgive me. I am a grad student which leaves little time for recreational reading.

Ditto. I'm not just dropping a whole book and saying 'read this' as my argument, which would be bad form indeed. It is nicely summarized in the Amazon description. The point is, what you said, "Human desires are always evolving and never satisfied", is a cultural characteristic, not a cultural universal.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Just as there is a desire to serve the wants of individuals, there will be people such as yourself who want "sustainability" and will therefore pursue a course in which technology is directed toward such a goal. It is actually a very nice duality.

That's a good way of putting it, actually.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Language is never agent-relative. If I created a new word now, let us call it sulalackytacky, you would have no idea what it means (there not allowing it to be a language because language infers the ability of communication and if you cannot understand what I am saying then I am not communicating with you). Are you a big JRR Tolken fan? Or perhaps a Star Trek fan? Elivish, as a language is only understandable if it is open, public and beyond the scope of a single individual. Same with Klingon.

If language is never agent-relative, then what is connotation? Denotations can be understood by everyone based on public consensus, but connotations are anything but. Even well-defined terms can mean different things to different people. Language is an imprecise tool, useful only to an extent. If it weren't, art and music would be redundant. I believe Wittgenstein wrote about this... that philosophy itself is bound by semantic limitations. and Quenta Silmarillion, my friend.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

That smacks of unilinear cultural evolution. "Primitive" to "civilized" is the exact framing of some thoroughly debunked 19th century anthropology.

Oh I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that civilizations can "devolve" if we can call it that. Ideas get lost in the span of history, trust me if there is anyone how knows it better then it is historians which I study. Perhaps I used the wrong word, developed? Is that better?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Ditto. I'm not just dropping a whole book and saying 'read this' as my argument, which would be bad form indeed. It is nicely summarized in the Amazon description. The point is, what you said, "Human desires are always evolving and never satisfied", is a cultural characteristic, not a cultural universal.

Well I think that might be true for ludities and the Amish but I think we are talking about the people who actively take part in the growing market place. I see those cultures as on the fringes of the marketplace (by their own choice) which is acceptable. I am pretty live and let live.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

That's a good way of putting it, actually.

Yes, balance can be pretty cool sometimes.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

If language is never agent-relative, then what is connotation? Denotations can be understood by everyone based on public consensus, but connotations are anything but. Even well-defined terms can mean different things to different people. Language is an imprecise tool, useful only to an extent. If it weren't, art and music would be redundant. I believe Wittgenstein wrote about this... that philosophy itself is bound by semantic limitations. and Quenta Silmarillion, my friend.

Connotations denote attached secondary definition to words that have already been given a primary definition. If you build personal conceptions upon an existing perception then that is subjective but you are building them within the existing objective framework. Do you get my meaning?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

In all the time we have talked, have I be an advocate for food subsidies or any government subsidies? I want the market to drive prices down because as a consumer, I like abundance. I also like it in terms of morality. However, what you have just said does not contradict what I previous stated which is that scarcity should dictate prices. This does not mean I want people to be protected from competition in the market place by government so that they can raise their prices. I am very much against this. You seem to be too.

Dude... what? Let me repeat myself.

When the value of food is dictated by its scarcity, technological achievements such as the tractor bring down the price of food so low that farmers cannot make a living. Technology has given produce such high supply potential that the only way to keep farmers in business is to pay them subsidies to destroy their crops and thus keep food scarce. What the fuck about this system works for you?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Better for you like I stated but not better for me therefore it is not objective.

I spose, if you don't want to live, or don't want your grandchildren to live, fair enough.
Nicely connected to nature there I see. Those walks have done you good.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Dude... what? Let me repeat myself.

When the value of food is dictated by its scarcity, technological achievements such as the tractor bring down the price of food so low that farmers cannot make a living. Technology has given produce such high supply potential that the only way to keep farmers in business is to pay them subsidies to destroy their crops and thus keep food scarce. What the fuck about this system works for you?

That is artificially raising the price. That is not the system I preach. You are talking about corporatism which I am against.

Originally Posted by tommo

I spose, if you don't want to live, or don't want your grandchildren to live, fair enough.
Nicely connected to nature there I see. Those walks have done you good.

Please, do not try to use scare tactics on me or try to guilt me into accepting your viewpoint. It's pathetic.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Economics is not quantitative.

We're discussing whether the number of jobs that can be provided by an economy is greater or less than the population of the society, as a general principle.

If you are feel like I am wrong and also feel adventurous then present a list of your desires (values) and try to add or subtract them. Does your second desire plus your third desire equal your first desire? Does your first desire equal two second desires? Value scales are not quantitative. I feel safe saying that even Neoclassical economists believe that. So you passing off "oh well its qualitative therefore bunk" not only shows your naivety but also your inability to properly argue the issue. Where has my logic gone awry?

The bit where you assert that human desires require a quantity of work sufficient to provide the population with jobs. I don't know why you're struggling.

All you have said is 'the people working in the redundant industry will go get jobs doing something else'. That's not a logical argument, that's an assertion, and it's the one I'm analysing and you keep ignoring. Who says there are sufficient jobs to go to? By what principle does a new industry emerge; one which people place sufficient value in to employ all of the redundant?

That is what economic law is: logic. So I will give you another chance. Human desires are always evolving and never satisfied, do we decry the lose of the buggy industry because it put so many of out work? If your goal is total employment then I will conjure up a great platform for you. Everyone will destroy the capital, the technology and we will all carry sand on our back for one part of the country to another part. Everyone will then be employed and we will not have to worry about those dastardly machines taking our jobs.

I really have zero idea what your argument is. I don't have any 'goals', at the moment I am just performing analysis and trying to ask a question.

For the third time, please: when we reach the point where working machines have intelligence and dexterity greater than their average human counterparts, what jobs are left for the humans?

"For the third time, please: when we reach the point where working machines have intelligence and dexterity greater than their average human counterparts, what jobs are left for the humans?"

Coming up with creative ideas to put those machines to use

How far do you really think we can reconstruct the human brain when neurology/psychology isn't a completely finished field of study?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That is artificially raising the price. That is not the system I preach. You are talking about corporatism which I am against.

No, you are talking ab out corporatism by insisting food should be valued based on its scarcity.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Please, do not try to use scare tactics on me or try to guilt me into accepting your viewpoint. It's pathetic.

I'm not at all. I'm just saying that if you do hold the view that you want your kids and grandchildren to live healthy lives, then what I was saying before is for all intents and purposes objective. Since everyone should want that. Learn to follow arguments.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Coming up with creative ideas to put those machines to use

Three problems: firstly, machines will eventually be better at creativity. Two, there's only so much that can be usefully created; we are not going to keep inventing things for the next billion years on Earth. Thirdly, seven billion people can't seriously be employed in 'being creative'.

How far do you really think we can reconstruct the human brain when neurology/psychology isn't a completely finished field of study?

In this thread I'm more concerned with theory than application; but it is undoubtable that we'll do it. We wouldn't even need to conceptually understand it, just model it, which only requires looking at it and copying it. In fact this is being done right now (Blue Brain).

Originally Posted by Xei

Three problems: firstly, machines will eventually be better at creativity. Two, there's only so much that can be usefully created; we are not going to keep inventing things for the next billion years on Earth. Thirdly, seven billion people can't seriously be employed in 'being creative'.

lol, what an absurd situation. The once so self-apparent reasons for doing something like mechanization are totally forgotten once we achieve it. Either that, or we realize how mal-formed and tentative the original plan was, and now we're clueless with what to do with the fruits of our progress. Couldn't we.... not work anymore?? No, employment has been for it's own sake for so long, we're clueless about what to do without it, and any notion that we've made things easier with technology is pure delusion. The Red Queen strikes again.

Wait until we hit 9 billion people, and level out at 10 billion, and need to supply fresh water, food, and energy to all of these humans AND machines, find resources to BUILD this technology, and somehow protect the environment from being absolutely decimated...

Looks like we have a few challenges ahead of us. (And as a side-thought, how do you occupy the time of 10 billion people? What are they supposed to do for their increasing life-spans?)

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

lol, what an absurd situation.

Yes. It's very interesting at least. The thing is I don't personally know the solution; I just recognise that there is a problem.

An interesting facet is how well humans function without work. The need to do something that feels necessary is deeply biologically ingrained. People without the psychological effects of work tend to become degenerate. I don't know what can be done about this either. I'm not sure whether humans are built for total liberation, yet I don't see how it can be avoided either.

It seems a little too much to say this will undoubtedly happen, I just have this feeling that there will necessarily be subtle shortcomings in trying to reconstruct nature.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes. It's very interesting at least. The thing is I don't personally know the solution; I just recognise that there is a problem.

An interesting facet is how well humans function without work. The need to do something that feels necessary is deeply biologically ingrained. People without the psychological effects of work tend to become degenerate. I don't know what can be done about this either. I'm not sure whether humans are built for total liberation, yet I don't see how it can be avoided either.

All I can think of is somehow dismantle (or scale back) division of labor. Do your own everything. Not an easy sell, drawbacks notwithstanding, but some choose this route and seem to enjoy it, provided a little company. On a large scale, though, I suppose this isn't much better than any other un-tought-out call to abandon technology. Never mind my loose rambling.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

It seems a little too much to say this will undoubtedly happen, I just have this feeling that there will necessarily be subtle shortcomings in trying to reconstruct nature.

I doubt it, but we've got millions of years potentially, and I was just making a philosophical point anyway.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

All I can think of is somehow dismantle (or scale back) division of labor. Do your own everything. Not an easy sell, drawbacks notwithstanding, but some choose this route and seem to enjoy it, provided a little company. On a large scale, though, I suppose this isn't much better than any other un-tought-out call to abandon technology. Never mind my loose rambling.

This is what I meant by it being unavoidable though; we can build the technology and find activities to give a sense of purpose, or we can destroy the technology and be forced to perform those technologies to survive; but in both we know that the work is really pointless. In the latter situation we know we could have just built machines to do it all for us.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes. It's very interesting at least. The thing is I don't personally know the solution; I just recognise that there is a problem.

An interesting facet is how well humans function without work. The need to do something that feels necessary is deeply biologically ingrained. People without the psychological effects of work tend to become degenerate. I don't know what can be done about this either. I'm not sure whether humans are built for total liberation, yet I don't see how it can be avoided either.

But what feels necessary is social ingrained. And I think we could quickly change what we think is necessary. Some people would change their view straight away, then after a few generations, it would become
normal.
Probably just hobbies/creative things and exercising etc. We would just be able to put more time and effort in to those things.
Cooking is usually done quickly and carelessly, and a lot of the time just bought from a shop that does an even worse job.
Because our attention is focused on work. But without that we would probably focus more on cooking, maybe spend a few hours preparing a nice meal.
Same applies to everything really. There would still be humans making music and art and plays to go see. There would still be nature to go look at and walk in (hopefully lol)

Probably some people would not cope, because a "strong work ethic" has been so embedded in our psyche. But there's nothing that can be done about that really.

It is true that many people who are out of work become degenerate, but many people engaged in work are degenerate as well.

When I was a teen my family used to look upon me with disdain, because I would work a few years, save money, and take a few years off. During this time I would cram as much learning into my mind as I possibly could. This was both fun and beneficial, but to others it was a selfish waste of time, but the truth is that they were followers, not leaders. It is surprising what people will do when they are told to. The point is I don't see these people as being any more of an overall problem when unemployed, mainly because it is more dangerous to be uncreative and obedient when employed as there is no time for improvement. These people would likely find someone to follow in this hypothetical society, and it can be assumed that the projects would be more enlightening than assembling furniture or what have you.

Tommo has good points as well. People, when "forced", tend to get obsessive about details and perfection, sometimes to an unhealthy degree, but not always.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

It seems a little too much to say this will undoubtedly happen, I just have this feeling that there will necessarily be subtle shortcomings in trying to reconstruct nature.

We also like to try and reconstruct not only human nature but "nature" nature. (See Biosphere II. HEHE). OK, back to whatever it is that we were discussing!