Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

Then I'm not seeing the connection you were drawing between algorithms/robotics and the job markets I listed. If your main point is that the pace of progress could be so disruptive that society won't be able to adjust in time to avoid a crisis, sure that's possible. You were also suggesting, though, that the ratio of jobs to people will decline over the long term, and there I think society's ability to create new job markets or expand existing ones could be better than you expect.

 

[Dak]

Then I'm not seeing the connection you were drawing between algorithms/robotics and the job markets I listed. If your main point is that the pace of progress could be so disruptive that society won't be able to adjust in time to avoid a crisis, sure that's possible. You were also suggesting, though, that the ratio of jobs to people will decline over the long term, and there I think society's ability to create new job markets or expand existing ones could be better than you expect.

Well that's the historical precedent, but nothing replaced horses - until it did. The ratio of jobs that are doable/economical by those <+1SD on the IQ bell curve compared to those who fall into that bracket are in grave danger within the next two decades - the change is already underway. Further along - those in +1SD< will be in danger. You aren't safe, and neither am I in the long run - and it doesn't depend on an AI breakthrough.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Again you're focusing on intelligence as the overwhelming determinant of a job's value. There are plenty of jobs in which a human touch is irreplaceable, regardless of the job's intelligence level.

 

[Dak]

Again you're focusing on intelligence as the overwhelming determinant of a job's value. There are plenty of jobs in which a human touch is irreplaceable, regardless of the job's intelligence level.

Could you list some high paying jobs that depend on "human touch", or at least jobs you think would become at least reasonably paying that are based on "human touch"?

 

[CiG]

Phone services oh wait.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Could you list some high paying jobs that depend on "human touch", or at least jobs you think would become at least reasonably paying that are based on "human touch"?

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "human touch", although I think any kind of high level sales based job probably fits. You don't need to be a good person - in fact it probably helps if you aren't - but you certainly don't require intellect.

Also being the president, apparently.

 

[Dak]

I would somewhat agree with high level sales jobs - the problem is that making sales requires buyers with money.

 

[Internally Deformed]

The future: the robots make and do everything, and we all fight tooth and nail to convince each other to buy what they've made.

 

[Einherjar86]

What you're discounting here is that the rate of evolution varies from society to society just as it does from species to species. Not every society is equally corrupt, and there is no reason to accept the current level of corruption as unalterable simply because some corruption is inevitable.

I still think this is different than what I'm talking about, but I could be wrong.

The sense of corruption that I'm talking about can't really be quantified. I'm more than willing to admit that the "rate of corruption" varies from society to society, and I'm not suggesting that the level of corruption is unalterable.

I'm simply skeptical about ideological resentment of capitalism that presumes it can exorcise corruption from the system. This sounds like rhetoric to me, not practical programmatics.

Agreed, but I don't see the relevance.

I actually think that describing the system as corrupt actually fits in very neatly with your previous point about overt corruption vs covert corruption. Corruption in the US is covert, precisely because the system has been altered to protect those who act corruptly, i.e. the corruption is reflected within the system. The extent to which he would in practice be able to alter that is debatable, but it would be difficult to argue that were the system less corrupt, the country would not be better off.

Corruption manifests itself as powerful people making poorer decisions on our behalf for self-interested reasons.

In my opinion, Sanders's rhetoric promotes a fantastical expunging of corruption based on capitalism as an inherently uneven and unfair system. Which it absolutely is, but I'm saying this isn't a flaw of the system.

Correcting pockets of corruption/crime is necessary, but so are the systematic contradictions that make those pockets possible. Socialism harbors the illusion of dissolving those pockets, of making the system total and whole.

Ultimately the "complex, abstract sources" that lead to both corruption and crime are the same; a certain percentage of people will always act in their own best interest and against the interests of others if given the opportunity to do so with impunity. You're right that the police can't change that, and neither could Sanders, but I don't think either propose to. What Sanders was suggesting - as I understood it - was to make the system less compatible with unpunishable or undetectable corrupt practice.

That may be. His rhetoric was undeniably socialist, and in this regard I think he was appealing to a utopian fantasy.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I still think this is different than what I'm talking about, but I could be wrong.

The sense of corruption that I'm talking about can't really be quantified. I'm more than willing to admit that the "rate of corruption" varies from society to society, and I'm not suggesting that the level of corruption is unalterable.

I'm simply skeptical about ideological resentment of capitalism that presumes it can exorcise corruption from the system. This sounds like rhetoric to me, not practical programmatics.

Okay, this I agree with. I will say, though, that you're misrepresenting Sanders and his ilk if you think they are naive enough to believe they can eliminate corruption entirely. I think they just see that corruption is a damaging America, and want to reduce it as much as is realistically achievable.

In my opinion, Sanders's rhetoric promotes a fantastical expunging of corruption based on capitalism as an inherently uneven and unfair system. Which it absolutely is, but I'm saying this isn't a flaw of the system.

Correcting pockets of corruption/crime is necessary, but so are the systematic contradictions that make those pockets possible. Socialism harbors the illusion of dissolving those pockets, of making the system total and whole.

In what sense is it not a flaw, if it leads to poorer decisions being made by politicians on the behalf of the public? I also don't see corruption as being an inevitable feature of capitalism - although exploitation and unfairness are. Corruption takes place when business is given the power to influence policy, so it's more a feature of capitalism's intersection with the state than of capitalism alone. After all, the economy and system of governance extant in the USA as of right now contains elements derived from both capitalism and socialism.

That may be. His rhetoric was undeniably socialist, and in this regard I think he was appealing to a utopian fantasy.

Your issue seems to be more with socialism as an ideal than with Sanders as an individual. Personally I agree that socialism is somewhat utopian, but I've never found that an ideology being labelled as utopian is an effective criticism. It seems pretty logical to draw up a blueprint for the kind of society we want to live in, and then to propose measures designed to help society progress towards that objective, even if we allow that it isn't perfectly achievable.

 

[Dak]

It seems a unique problem of socialists (I use this as a blanket label to include communism) that they have difficulty comprehending the fact some people may not share the same idea of a utopia. They don't even bother to argue for the merits prior to trying to argue the feasibility. Equality in outcomes is taken as an unquestionable good in itself.

 

[Internally Deformed]

It seems a unique problem of socialists (I use this as a blanket label to include communism) that they have difficulty comprehending the fact some people may not share the same idea of a utopia. They don't even bother to argue for the merits prior to trying to argue the feasibility. Equality in outcomes is taken as an unquestionable good in itself.

True in a way, but then critics should take issue with the blueprint itself rather than the idea of having a blueprint. In other words, you're not criticising socialism for being utopian, you're only criticising the form of utopia proposed.

As to the point about equality of outcome:

Socialism only means that the state owns the means of production; it doesn't necessarily mean that all workers ought to be equally rewarded, or motivated only by their sense of duty to the collective. There are all sorts of creative ways one can combine socialism as stated above with an understanding of self-betterment as the most realistic and effective source of individual motivation.

 

[Dak]

True in a way, but then critics should take issue with the blueprint itself rather than the idea of having a blueprint. In other words, you're not criticising socialism for being utopian, you're only criticising the form of utopia proposed.

As to the point about equality of outcome:

Ideal conceptions of societies - utopias in their various forms if you will - inform moderated, practical social organization, policy, education, etc. We all have some sort of utopia in mind, a "heaven", even if the details of it aren't very fleshed out in most cases. It does seem that socialists are much more likely to believe their utopia is not only achievable globally (an unusually universalist approach outside of afterlife utopias), but a certainty at some point in the future.

Socialism is purposed as a solution to the problem of human "inequality". One must first argue that human inequality itself (at least in a material/wealth sense) is a problem, regardless of context. I do not see very many people do this, if any.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Ideal conceptions of societies - utopias in their various forms if you will - inform moderated, practical social organization, policy, education, etc. We all have some sort of utopia in mind, a "heaven", even if the details of it aren't very fleshed out in most cases.

Yup, spot on.

It does seem that socialists are much more likely to believe their utopia is not only achievable globally (an unusually universalist approach outside of afterlife utopias), but a certainty at some point in the future.

I think you're equating Socialism with Marxism there. A reasonable criticism of the problem with Marxism though, especially if the sense of its inevitably brings about radical change or revolution before the preconditions for transition have been realised.

Socialism is purposed as a solution to the problem of human "inequality". One must first argue that human inequality itself (at least in a material/wealth sense) is a problem, regardless of context. I do not see very many people do this, if any.

Not everyone who criticises the extent of inequality in the world at the moment believes in total equality. Personally I think that people ought to be rewarded in proportion to their effort and the value of their labour, which is pretty similar to conservative rhetoric. Given the current concentration of wealth (see my post in the news thread about the richest 62 people in the world owning as much as everyone else combined), it would be pretty difficult to argue that global capitalism is closer to achieving this than even a system of absolute equality would be.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, this I agree with. I will say, though, that you're misrepresenting Sanders and his ilk if you think they are naive enough to believe they can eliminate corruption entirely. I think they just see that corruption is a damaging America, and want to reduce it as much as is realistically achievable.

Then that's probably true.

In what sense is it not a flaw, if it leads to poorer decisions being made by politicians on the behalf of the public? I also don't see corruption as being an inevitable feature of capitalism - although exploitation and unfairness are. Corruption takes place when business is given the power to influence policy, so it's more a feature of capitalism's intersection with the state than of capitalism alone. After all, the economy and system of governance extant in the USA as of right now contains elements derived from both capitalism and socialism.

This gets into some ideas beyond the matter at hand.

For me, capitalism is inextricable from the State. The popular distinction between capitalism and the State is purely conceptual, and doesn't properly describe either. In a primitive sense, we might say that the State is an incredibly complex derivative of the original security system.

Corruption isn't a flaw because this presumes a perfect state that the system could eventually attain. If something has flaws, then presumably it functions better without them. In the case of systems theory, even corruptions that result in individual suffering can be perceived as compulsions for reorganization at different scales. I think it's important to distance ourselves from a human perspective when determining how systems operate.

Your issue seems to be more with socialism as an ideal than with Sanders as an individual. Personally I agree that socialism is somewhat utopian, but I've never found that an ideology being labelled as utopian is an effective criticism. It seems pretty logical to draw up a blueprint for the kind of society we want to live in, and then to propose measures designed to help society progress towards that objective, even if we allow that it isn't perfectly achievable.

That is a very respectable way to approach utopian programs. Usually such programs posit an end result rather than a viable process toward achieving that result.

 

[Einherjar86]

Again you're focusing on intelligence as the overwhelming determinant of a job's value. There are plenty of jobs in which a human touch is irreplaceable, regardless of the job's intelligence level.

Coincidentally, came across this today:

https://aeon.co/ideas/there-is-no-such-thing-as-computer-art-it-s-all-just-art

So it’s increasingly not just dorm-room hackers and cloistered academics pecking at computer art to show off their chops or get papers published. Last month, the Google Brain team announced Magenta, a project to use machine learning for exactly the purposes described here, and asked the question: ‘Can we use machine learning to create compelling art and music?’ (The answer is pretty clearly already ‘Yes,’ but there you go.) The project follows in the footsteps of Google’s Deep Dream Generator, which reimagines images in arty, dreamy (or nightmarish) ways, using neural networks.

But the honest-to-God truth, at the end of all of this, is that this whole notion is in some way a put-on: a distinction without a difference. ‘Computer art’ doesn’t really exist in an any more provocative sense than ‘paint art’ or ‘piano art’ does. The algorithmic software was written by a human, after all, using theories thought up by a human, using a computer built by a human, using specs written by a human, using materials gathered by a human, at a company staffed by humans, using tools built by a human, and so on. Computer art is human art – a subset rather than a distinction. It’s safe to release the tension.

 

[Internally Deformed]

For me, capitalism is inextricable from the State. The popular distinction between capitalism and the State is purely conceptual, and doesn't properly describe either. In a primitive sense, we might say that the State is an incredibly complex derivative of the original security system.

And yet multiple states with varying methods of political organisation can all be considered capitalist. Capitalism is defined by non-interference of the state in trade and industry, so if we allow that the division between capitalism and the state is in some respects vague, that is only because each country is imperfectly capitalist.

Corruption isn't a flaw because this presumes a perfect state that the system could eventually attain. If something has flaws, then presumably it functions better without them. In the case of systems theory, even corruptions that result in individual suffering can be perceived as compulsions for reorganization at different scales. I think it's important to distance ourselves from a human perspective when determining how systems operate.

We're kind of covering old territory here, but yeah, the USA would function better without corruption. If we accept my earlier point about corruption leading to "poorer decisions being made by politicians on the behalf of the public", then it's reasonable to expect better decisions to be made without it. We've already established that re-organisation isn't objectively desirable, and if inevitable, is variable in its rate of progress. Limiting corruption would, by your logic, slow re-organisation, which you have no problem with. So why not do it?

Usually such programs posit an end result rather than a viable process toward achieving that result.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether Sanders fits that description.

 

[Dak]

I think you're equating Socialism with Marxism there. A reasonable criticism of the problem with Marxism though, especially if the sense of its inevitably brings about radical change or revolution before the preconditions for transition have been realised.

I really don't see any important difference between socialism and communism. In both cases we are referring to "public ownership" of the means of production - and thusly the distribution.

Personally I think that people ought to be rewarded in proportion to their effort and the value of their labour, which is pretty similar to conservative rhetoric.

I can see why one would be confused here, because typical conservative boilerplate doesn't clearly argue against this, but what you are advocating is the labor theory of value, which is long out of date.

I don't think it's a good thing in itself that a few people have so much wealth. I also don't think it's a bad thing in itself. I have the same opinions about the lack of good/bad in itselfness of the poor as well. Some people assert that the mere existence of poverty is an outrage. I do not share in this outrage.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I really don't see any important difference between socialism and communism. In both cases we are referring to "public ownership" of the means of production - and thusly the distribution.

It's the and thusly part that doesn't follow there. The National Health Service in the UK is publicly owned, right? And yet not every doctor/nurse/administrator is paid the same wage.

I can see why one would be confused here, because typical conservative boilerplate doesn't clearly argue against this, but what you are advocating is the labor theory of value, which is long out of date.

The labour theory of value stipulates that the value of a commodity is determined by the total amount of labour put into it, which is something completely different and unrelated. What I'm saying is that people ought to be rewarded according to how much effort their work requires + how much skill it takes to do. So Doctors earn more than nurses earn more than administrators.

I don't think it's a good thing in itself that a few people have so much wealth. I also don't think it's a bad thing in itself. I have the same opinions about the lack of good/bad in itselfness of the poor as well. Some people assert that the mere existence of poverty is an outrage. I do not share in this outrage.

Suffering = Bad, right? Poverty causes suffering, and suffering is bad.

 

[Dak]

It's the and thusly part that doesn't follow there. The National Health Service in the UK is publicly owned, right? And yet not every doctor/nurse/administrator is paid the same wage.

Yet everyone receives how ever much care they supposedly require. This is the broad redistribution. "To each according to his need". Obviously the UK is a mixed economy though, not all "means of production" are publicly owned. If they were all wages might be the same.

The labour theory of value stipulates that the value of a commodity is determined by the total amount of labour put into it, which is something completely different and unrelated. What I'm saying is that people ought to be rewarded according to how much effort their work requires + how much skill it takes to do. So Doctors earn more than nurses earn more than administrators.

"Effort" generally = labor. Increased skill often decreases effort (not always, not necessarily, not necessarily mostly), at least for the particular instance (which characteristically dismisses effort put into improving skills of course).

Suffering = Bad, right? Poverty causes suffering, and suffering is bad.

Suffering is absolutely bad? No. I'm all ears for your argument though.