Capitalism isn't about consumerism / materialism, it's about domination.

You're already winning that game by default by virtue of being born in the right place to the right social class. Not satisfied? First-world problem.

I should be clear, though, that I still blame the rich for all their selfishness and failure of vision even more than the complicity of your average beneficiary of global capitalism like Reid (much more, in fact, since the rich actually have the ability to change things and have collectively (for the most part) chosen not to).

Benefiting from global capitalism is not about being about to entertain yourself with some cheap movies. It's about having the free time to watch those movies in the first place, or simply having the spare money after grinding away at a 12-hour factory job that pays just enough to eat.

Not to mention internet access! Geez.

I also think capitalism sucks, Reid. But, it's one logical extension of our primitive heritage as species whose existence is based on having won the very often zero-sum game of living to reproduce.

Our manufacturing base is healthier than ever. It's just that we don't need as many people to work in that sector anymore.



As more industries start to look like this chart—due to automation—the need for basic income will become clear.

That's an interesting chart--I did not know the loss was that great, thanks.

I can't help but think we'll first see at least a decade of misery before something like basic income even becomes politically possible in the U.S. So much so that it's hard for me to even conceive of it, under present circumstances.

P.S.: Sorry, Reid, for my dickish posts last night. I was a little out of control.

inb4 "dicks"

Indeed. That's probably being extremely optimistic. I expect widespread civil unrest and a quickly-growing police state whether a solution like basic income is used or not. That's what happens when more and more people are unable to procure an income.

Americans will balk at the idea of basic income most likely until the damage has been done. The upper class has the lower class cleanly divided and conquered. The problem isn't the rich—oh no—it's those no-good welfare-collecting leeches who are poorer than I am!

"Good evening America; this is Sean Hannity. I'm here to tell you all tonight that conservativism has run its course. It was a good idea while it lasted, but from now on, you'll have to try and live with the thought that somebody in this country is succeeding in feeding his family without having to work for the man. I know this will be hard to hear, but there always comes a time in life to admit when you were wrong."

Yeah, not happening.

This is where tha "extermination" part comes in.

If I were outraged merely on my own behalf, I'd have a very poor case indeed.

None taken.

I wonder though what you think someone could "do" about it, outside of revolutionary activities.

Really? I'm just expecting for the average first world citizen's conditions to equalize to third world levels

I don't believe in utopias. I simply live by a personal philosophy in which one ought to try and simplify all meaningless obligations in life, to the point where contemplation and creativity can be afforded as a regular habit. You then have the ability to apply your abilities in a constructive way, like publishing academic papers, or helping build a company.

Then, after having gained some amount of influence in the world, you need only to wait and watch for the opportunity to courageously step up and make that key moral decision that has a chance to affect other people. What we need in this world is more people who are conscientious and coy about ambition, but are nevertheless willing to succeed in a flawed world. Otherwise, we only have *******s running the place.

My goal in life is to do this before

Of course, this doesn't answer your question. The reason for that is that I don't know.

Maybe Obama knows?

What I do feel that this world is past its sell-date, anyway. I consider it a fluke that the place didn't light up in the early `60s (Cuban Missile Crisis), or in the early `80s (Able Archer), or [...].

I have a personal philosophy that my parents generation doesn't exist, because their survival of the 20th century was improbable.

The explanation of my existence is simple: I exist because all the other possible worlds that got as far as the 20th century actually blew themselves up, and so the one I was born into was simply the only one left to appear in. Therefore, I am.

That's deep.

I think so far we've managed to survive by not wanting the annihilation of the "other side" enough.

Anyhow, my take on this issue is simple. It's happening, it's man made, and if doesn't destroy us, it will most definitely reshape us in a cataclysmic way at some point in the relatively near future.

I believe in utopia, that's why I pretty much advocate communism. I have no faith but **** it, maybe. Without hope that the future can be better I have no reason to pressure against anything.

Obama has no power really.

Hehe.. ehh.. whut?

If we start a nuclear war, I expect it will be initiated by sheer incompetence/accident rather than intent.

When I write the word "Obama" in a sentence, there's a good chance I'm being factitious.

Consider all possible outcomes from the big bang that result in worlds like Earth, having species intelligent enough to develop nuclear weapons.

What is the probability of being born in one of these worlds which had previously annihilated itself? Who would your mother be?

I'm talking about existential natural selection: you can't be born into a world that doesn't exist. Therefore, the world you are born into will be unnaturally stable.

Unfortunately for us, it may have been a fluke. Eventually, unless the underlying dynamics change, your luck always runs out! (Unless something else offs you first: c.f. OP.)

Basically, I'm saying that you can extend the argument physicists use to explain the physical constants of the universe being hospitable to order and life. I.e., you can claim that you were born on the planet that didn't blow itself up.

Unfortunately, luck isn't a law of physics that is invariant with time--it always runs out.

Of course, you can explain away a lot of the universe this way, without having learned anything. I call it "conservation of explanation", given a fixed amount of information. (Unfortunately there is no conservation of bull****.)

Of course, if you believe that the creation of our particular universe was 'inspired' in any way, then you don't need to explain the fact that the laws of physics happen to be among the ones that are stable over a time period long enough for you to be born: the act of creation is identified with the very fact that the universe is stable. (I.e., it is an assumption.)

The multiverse explanation is more parsimonious with the hypotheses, since it doesn't say anything about the act of creation itself. However, the price for this parsimony is the need to explain the fine-tuned nature of the universe with something more complex in practice, like a multiverse. I consider parsimony of hypotheses to be more important than parsimony of explanation, so I don't really include the construct of God in my basis set when I construct the universe in my mind--at least, not when I'm thinking about the physical universe. I do believe in the existence of a Platonic truth that exists independently of my own body, which I identify with God. I believe that the truth is something that you converge to in an infinite number of steps, but from finite principles (c.f. the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem).

BTW: my use of the word "utopia" always has a negative connotation, since I am assuming that utopianism is a perpetual belief in a more perfect universe, no matter how close to perfection you already are. Since this is basically impossible under any reasonable set of definitions, to say that you believe in a utopia is to admit that your thinking is inconsistent.

OTOH, it's perfectly valid to believe in an ideal state of affairs, so long as you understand that the goal is not to reach that perfect world, but instead argue that by attempting to reach it, the world becomes objectively better than it was before.

In light of this, I don't need to bring up the various utopian visions of the 20th century that led to drastically worse conditions for many people.

Maybe, though, you don't see any hope in the current system, and have concluded that about anything is better than the current state of affairs. The question is, though, for whom? You, or the average person on the planet? (Also, why limit to people? Would you rather have been born a thanksgiving turkey, or a virus?)

This is why I started the old "you don't know how lucky you are, back in the U.S.S.R." schtick, because: while I can see that one would be distressed at conditions for the average person on the planet, I am assuming you are far from average.

Every complex system on this planet is built on the shoulders of constituent beings, be it the bacteria in our body (which outnumber the number of cells we have), the (collapsing?) ecosystem brought up by OP, or the even the 'non-living' objects in the universe. We don't see an issue in 'subjugating' inanimate objects. Most people also don't see a problem in subjugating algae, or fish (or even chicken, at least in the case of many people).

I think that the field of ethics was invented out of fear that the symmetry between bad things that happen to thinking beings like ourselves can also happen to us. Therefore, it has been in the selfish interest of humans to support institutions that guarantee the rights of others. Ethics, then, resulted from the ability to recognize this symmetry--i.e., from our intelligence.

Carrying these instincts to their ultimate logical conclusion (global equality?) appeals to our ethical inclinations.

However, the two questions that remain are:

1.) Is this a reachable goal?
2.) Should it ever be reached, would it be stable?
3.) Can we balance the risks with the above two?

I think it will never be reached, because, in order to be among the people who are in a position to carry out the necessary changes needed to carry out any sort of mildly utopia idea, this person (almost by definition) will, in all likelihood:

1.) Have benefited from the current state of affairs, from early childhood (class system), and therefore be acclimated to it, or lack other perspectives
2.) Believe in the system, since even those born into wealth will not necessarily become truly influential if they do not take full, selfish advantage of it.

On a lighter note, I'll add that increased per-capita wealth has sufficiently increased the satisfaction and security of most people, so that their definition of personal satisfaction becomes less about survival and the accumulation of wealth, and more about appeals to beauty, truth, and ethics. (Of course, there is also recreation and hedonism, but I would argue that those simply exist to fill an intellectual vacuum anyway.)

Unfortunately, those at the top get there by being the minority who, for whatever psychological reason, never seemed to grow out of the essential need to survive by accumulating power and wealth. Even worse, these people are using their positions of power to propagate cultural values (such as those in conservativism), which are fundamentally primitive and anti-intellectual.

If there ever was a laudable "utopia", IMO, it would simply be a (stable) state of affairs, in which the non-rich were organized enough to support credible institutions which could keep a close watch on the activities of the rich, and nudge them toward doing less harm, and to prevent them from becoming too powerful.

Unfortunately, this is looking less likely to be a possibility, with runaway inequality, regulatory capture, endless war, etc.

Because there word 'Obama' will always have a joke lurking behind it. This is because there is not one 'Obama', but two, with two diametrically opposite connotations: Obama the man, and Obama the ideal / candidate. The man's existence is forever ironic and tragic, because he campaigned on being the ultimate liberal, and became a fairly strong conservative.

Which is not to say that it is his fault, except that he probably was wrong to campaign on false promises. At least the voting population learned the important lesson that the presidential election is not their salvation, in the clearest possible way. People now have no excuse to recognize that we cannot depend on one man or woman in the office of the president to carry out change. Instead, we need institutional change, starting with financial ones.

This may be WAY off topic, but what do you think about death? For me it is intensely intimidating, the thought of loosing all consciousness and existence irreversibly, to cease to exist permanently. Do you believe in some sort of afterlife for our conscious? Some form of continued existence where we retain something of our identity? I've always hated the apparent futility of life, and I'm interested in learning new ideas, philosophies.

There are these things called words, and they have meaning. Some words look like other words, and some words even sound like other words. The trick is in selecting the correct one. It's not even a trick so much as you're dumb.

Looks like your mother's not the only one getting a lesson in diction.

Really: does anybody much like President Obama at this point, liberals and conservatives alike?

Factitious is not a synonym for facetious.

Oh, wow: that totally changes the meaning of my sentence. I am an idiot for relying on spell-check.

While reading a novel today (an embarrassingly rare activity for me) by Nabokov, I found myself running into unfamiliar words every few paragraphs. Meanwhile, I have also noticed a recent tendency of mine to rely on a thesaurus.

I'm beginning to see how the combination of these dependencies has reduced my attention to detail in recognizing words. Thanks for pointing this out (even if you were just making fun of me).

"Making fun of" implies that statements were made in jest. You parrot information that you see or hear, littering your posts with words that, through observation, we know to sit outside the pages of your lexicon. You have demonstrated time and time again your dearth of reading comprehension. And as though that weren't bad enough, you then try to hide your backpedaling and admissions of ignorance behind a facade of humility. Go face **** a trout.

Did you see the part in my post where I said

?

If you read my post, you'll find very little contention with your basic point. I agree with you: a lot of times my posts are ignorant, pretentious, and useless.

As for my response missing the point, I will have you know that it was, in fact, already clear to me that your previous post was probably not in jest, but I chose to interpret it charitably in order to be diplomatic (and a part of me still thinks this is just part of your "I'm a perennial dick" schtick).

Your last post clearly shows disappointment with me because your initial invective hadn't eked out sufficient butthurt to satiate your appetite. The fact that I took the time to write a thoughtful response like this one simply to respond to what more or less amounts to trolling will hopefully alleviate that matter.

I can certainly refrain from making these kind of philosophical posts if they rub you guys the wrong way.

I wouldn't take criticism too seriously from a guy whose only contribution is pictures of himself and dick jokes.

You said the same thing twice

(lmao)