The Political & Philosophy Thread
- Thread starter End of Glory
- Start date
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,842
- 670
- 113
Paragraph 1, 2, 3, and then conclusion obviously.
Livingston points out the one big caveat in his arm-chair ideology:
Short answer: no. How would you provide incentive to the people who will do productive work for the functioning of society while just handing an obligation-free life to others? Fields such as engineering, the sciences, healthcare, and basically any forward thinking career paths would inevitably stagnate without incentive. There are also millions of labor jobs that are currently still incapable of being automated, so what will we do with those jobs that nobody really wants because they are physically demanding and grueling? Who determines who is allowed to do whatever the fuck they want while others are still obligated to work and support them?
I have more answers to what he posits as rhetorical questions. This one here for instance:
I am going to base my answer to this question on the large body of sci-fi that actively explores post-technology eras. Many intelligent and prophetic thinkers have crafted stories that contain societies with low levels of human contribution, the automated production of necessities, and the allowing of humans to indulge in their creative fancies. In the majority of cases, we see complete societal stagnation to the point that eventually leads to ruin.
History itself even shows proof of a similar stagnation pattern brought upon by luxury, though mostly in the ruling class because circumstances in the past did not (and still dont) allow for the majority to do as they please. Livingston asks these questions as if he is the first person to ever posit the idea of upsetting the correlation of survival and work. 'Unknown possibilities' could be negative instead of positive, but Livingston's rose-tinted glasses do not even allow for him to consider the negative ramifications of an ensuing societal stagnation. Imagine growing up in a world where you are allowed to not have a sense of purpose and drive. Someone whose life has been the active result of hard work through study and achievement may have problems seeing the perspective of growing up in this theoretical "utopia". This man is practically proposing the eventuality of a real world Idiocracy.
Though even without the added pressure of justified incompetents, I think our current society is already in a period of stagnation. Colleges have morphed from being the epicenter of intellectual growth to being glorified daycare centers that are more self-affirming than truly stimulating. I have had people tell me that the pinnacle of society is good entertainment. Is Netflix the endgame of the industrial revolution? Is donating a dollar to starving kids in Africa and then going to marathon a TV series with your girlfriend an appropriate daily activity? Livingston is providing dangerous rhetoric to failing college students who want to live a world of luxury without truly earning it. It's a pandering piece in a time of societal stagnation, and I wont fall for it. Society needs drive to flourish, and a life like something out of an Asimov Robot novel is not the solution. If progress stops, so will mankind. We cant survive without striving for a better future, and to do so every member of mankind who can work and think is needed to drive the initiative. Without added pressure, our race as a whole will not survive.
Livingston points out the one big caveat in his arm-chair ideology:
Short answer: no. How would you provide incentive to the people who will do productive work for the functioning of society while just handing an obligation-free life to others? Fields such as engineering, the sciences, healthcare, and basically any forward thinking career paths would inevitably stagnate without incentive. There are also millions of labor jobs that are currently still incapable of being automated, so what will we do with those jobs that nobody really wants because they are physically demanding and grueling? Who determines who is allowed to do whatever the fuck they want while others are still obligated to work and support them?
I have more answers to what he posits as rhetorical questions. This one here for instance:
I am going to base my answer to this question on the large body of sci-fi that actively explores post-technology eras. Many intelligent and prophetic thinkers have crafted stories that contain societies with low levels of human contribution, the automated production of necessities, and the allowing of humans to indulge in their creative fancies. In the majority of cases, we see complete societal stagnation to the point that eventually leads to ruin.
History itself even shows proof of a similar stagnation pattern brought upon by luxury, though mostly in the ruling class because circumstances in the past did not (and still dont) allow for the majority to do as they please. Livingston asks these questions as if he is the first person to ever posit the idea of upsetting the correlation of survival and work. 'Unknown possibilities' could be negative instead of positive, but Livingston's rose-tinted glasses do not even allow for him to consider the negative ramifications of an ensuing societal stagnation. Imagine growing up in a world where you are allowed to not have a sense of purpose and drive. Someone whose life has been the active result of hard work through study and achievement may have problems seeing the perspective of growing up in this theoretical "utopia". This man is practically proposing the eventuality of a real world Idiocracy.
Though even without the added pressure of justified incompetents, I think our current society is already in a period of stagnation. Colleges have morphed from being the epicenter of intellectual growth to being glorified daycare centers that are more self-affirming than truly stimulating. I have had people tell me that the pinnacle of society is good entertainment. Is Netflix the endgame of the industrial revolution? Is donating a dollar to starving kids in Africa and then going to marathon a TV series with your girlfriend an appropriate daily activity? Livingston is providing dangerous rhetoric to failing college students who want to live a world of luxury without truly earning it. It's a pandering piece in a time of societal stagnation, and I wont fall for it. Society needs drive to flourish, and a life like something out of an Asimov Robot novel is not the solution. If progress stops, so will mankind. We cant survive without striving for a better future, and to do so every member of mankind who can work and think is needed to drive the initiative. Without added pressure, our race as a whole will not survive.
Einherjar86
Active Member
That is pretty obvious actually; although I guess it's actually part 1, 2, 3, then conclusion.
It's an inflammatory piece for sure, and I'm not going to make any kind of rhetorical defense for it since it's not interesting enough to do so. It's a piece of anti-rationalist speculation intended to challenge preconceived notions of existence, but it's too hot-headed to appeal to anyone except an already-dedicated reader base.
A more substantive and compelling study of this topic is Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams's Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work. Eventually we need to start addressing the potential scenarios that new technologies introduce, and they have the capacity to transform what we consider to be the fundamentals of human survival. It's good that there are people thinking about it, even if their contributions are still highly impractical.
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
I think the automation of jobs creates issues, but many of the ongoing issues in wealth inequality and the disconnect of value creation with recompense is driven to a significant degree by the monetary and regulatory systems, which include but are not limited to the transfer payments referred to in that article. Every time a new dollar is loaned into existence, this is a transfer of value from existing holders of money to the holder of the new money. Every time a new regulation hurdle is added, it is a transfer of value from small business to large corps.
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
Dak
mentat
Importing refugees makes America safer than it would be without them? That's an amusing claim.
Einherjar86
Active Member
You're a hoot.
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
That's an insult to Ein. These people are just complete asstards.
Einherjar86
Active Member
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
Oblivious Maximus
I am the worm
Dak
mentat
I'd never heard of this Carlson guy but he's killing it.
The one potential good thing about this whole Sanctuary City thing is that it's one more small step towards the return to city states/balkanization. So funny how fast SJWs have switched on to secession.
The one potential good thing about this whole Sanctuary City thing is that it's one more small step towards the return to city states/balkanization. So funny how fast SJWs have switched on to secession.
Dak
mentat
I don't agree with Mattis on everything, but this is a great interview. I don't know if Trump is appointing him because he's the best option, or if it's just because of his nickname and popularity within the military, but it appears to be great appointment.
Edit: Similar talk but more detailed/lengthy.
Last edited:
rms
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Just watched Trump introduce Mattis and it's maybe the one instance in which you can see Trump respect someone else on the stage with him that isn't family. Very interesting.
