I’m not even against some people having a little more or less. Some people genuinely like subsistence farming and singing in the town choir and chilling in the woods. Some people like gaming computers or kayaks or rock climbing. Some people like cocaine, or rockets, or super computers. That’s all fine. You don’t need to push a rocket powered super computing gaming yacht on the peasantry fetishist. They don’t want that and will not appreciate you for it.
Its the hoarding and bullshit I can’t with. The inefficiency. The having so much at the expense of more existing. The militarized bullshit to keep the inequalities and inefficiencies. The arrangement of the entire world around them.
No real notes except I kinda dream of combining your first two examples into one lifestyle, I dunno if that’s even really a thing but…
…I mean, also, like, if you can run fiber optic cables along the ocean floor, you should be able to run them into the woods.
I dunno. An honest simple life aligned with nature and enjoying computers should be a thing. Nat Geo explorers and people that run solar powered websites off of Pis and stuff know what I’m talking about lol.
I’ve gamed on a secret weed farm deeeep in the woods. The networking is a little iffy sometimes, but even with our current infrastructure it can be done. We had an electric water heater, TV, full kitchen, and game consoles, half an hour’s hard hike and half an hour’s drive to the general store in summer (more complex in winter), a couple hours to the nearest town. Latency spikes happened, weather happened, but the internet was there. We never had to go out for fruit or veggies, but didn’t grow our own grains/carbs, and didn’t have any meat/dairy animals.
You don’t need to live by a script. Figure out the life you want. As long as it doesn’t fuck with anyone else, you deserve it.
For sure money has departed from actual real world value essentially from the moment it was created and people ought to be compensated for the value they actually create and of course taxed for the value they take from society. It’s kinda the same issue with climate change, if things actually cost what they truly cost the problem would fix itself over night. The issue is we externalize the cost to the environment, to the poor, and to our future so we don’t have to pay it today.
With actually correct value being represented by money and goods and services actually having their true cost that would mostly solve everything.
What if their work was its own reward? Like if you want a smart grid, you build one, or check in with the people building one and ask how to help, and if private property is abolished, you just build shit for everybody, or everybody it’s convenient to build for? So you can’t really hoard shit. You can only inspire and build for everyone?
Or if you want more houses because you’re sick of sleeping outside or hate the streets being full of tents or want your dumbass 23 year old to move out finally please, you go learn about construction, or hook up with your local construction club/crew? If nobody owns stuff that isn’t meaningfully personally theirs, it gets much easier to do shit.
The lady who runs the best construction crew and her friend who designs the most beautiful houses still get prestige for being standouts, they still get to feel awesome, just like the guy who throws those amazing parties, but there’s not this huge bundled abstraction layer of bullshit.
Its not like people want to do nothing, unless they’re totally crushed by capitalism. Maybe the ways we do things change. We build more safely (or way less safely, hell yeah! Watch this!), or work shorter hours, or there’s an air separated musicians cubicle in operating rooms for live dramatizations, it whatever sensible cool or insane shit we decide to do. You can’t really argue we would make worse decisions than the ones currently governing us.
You go through a lot of insane implausible contrivances to keep this ‘money’ system you admit has basically never not been extremely fucked up.
Fix? Not without some eugenics (traditional or modern). Mitigate? We can definitely mitigate it. There was a study recently that showed that it’s not really the punishment for a crime that dieters people, it’s the probability they will or won’t get caught that’s the primary factor. So for instance if there’s a 98% chance they will get caught people are unlikely to commit the crime and if there is a 5% chance they will be caught they are much more likely to commit the crime even if the punishment is extremely harsh. There’s of course a balancing act between personal freedoms and privacy and the ability to catch people aka the more privacy people have the more difficult it is to catch crime and generally the less privacy (and ability to parse large sums of data) the easier it is.
Laws aren’t a tool for preventing bad outcomes, and if you think they’re the primary tool you are not a serious person and will not create a functional society.
You would rather change what humanity is on a biological level than fucking acknowledge that existing power structures are nonsense and horrible?
I would ask what drugs you’re on, but since monday I’ve been on or around people who were on acid molly coke meth weed severe head trauma alcohol none of their prescribed antipsychotics dilotted and some rich people designer bullshit that’s just strings of letters and numbers I can never remember. None of it made any of them this deranged.
I mean we’ve already started modern eugenics with gene therapies to cure genetic diseases and soon there will be services offering designer babies not unlike the movie Gattaca. Why would you not want to have your child’s IQ increased 20 points along with removing their asthma and near sightedness?
There’s no political system devoid of corruption and people willing to harm others to get what they want. We can prevent a lot of crime but we’re not preventing human behavior anytime soon. I mean we can but we won’t.
What is crime? How does it relate to undesirable outcomes? Why do you think laws, just threatening people and public punishment and awfulnes, are a good tool for anything you want?
Not even going to start on the ‘eugenics’. You get that gattaca was not a “we should do this!” Movie, right? Jesus buckets of frothy diarrhea Christ are you from fucking San Francisco or some shit?
It’s not always a crime necessarily but harming people to get what one wants is usually a crime. As for constraining human behavior there’s really only two tools, benefit the behaviors you want and punish the ones you don’t want. People will obviously be self interested and will sometimes cause a lot of harm to get what they want but they wouldn’t if they knew for a fact they would be caught and punished. It’s more so the likelihood of being caught than the punishment that’s actually the deterrent. You can have an extreme punishment for something but if it’s unlikely someone will be caught then they will take their chances. Downside is with a higher rate of catching bad behaviors we diminish privacy. An extreme would everyone being watched and recorded 24/7 would make it trivial to catch any bad behavior or crime but there would be zero privacy.
As for Gattaca,. I think it’s more so that they used it to differentiate society into two groups where one was treated very poorly more so than the gene editing itself being the issue. For sure we will cure genetic diseases and then move into grey area stuff like giving people perfect eyesight and so on. I think it’ll be far too tempering to make designer babies though, higher IQ, better looking (subjective), better physique, better health and so on. Of course anyone who’s ever bred animals knows you can breed them to constrain their behavior so one could theoretically alter humanity to be more compassionate and less of a jerk to itself.
The idea of making the behaviors you want easier, the outcomes you want more likely to happen, just does not occur. Like, if you want less reckless driving, make it less necessary or convenient to drive.
You realize punishment is harm, right?
You understand nothing
I’m really not interested in your extremely remedial analysis. I am aware of the various philosophies of law. The idea of making the outcome you want easier just does not occur.
It’s all about proximal causes and assigning ultimate responsibility to a person you assume must be evil and not helping them to do what you want even when its something that’s usually a function of recklessness irresponsibility or incompetence but just hurting people until the world is better.
The violently incurious crescendo of dunning-kruger that you would take out on others is absolutely disgusting. Everything you’ve said here is violently stupid, literally violently. Never stop posting. Not for a moment.
I was more so getting at a scenario like The Giver where humanity modifies itself to be more peaceful with itself more than what you’re getting at. Of course maybe not to such an extreme like the giver. Anyways I think we could have a better conversation without the name calling but to each their own I guess.
We totally can. It’s just difficult to get past that some people want more than others even if that means harming them.
I’m not even against some people having a little more or less. Some people genuinely like subsistence farming and singing in the town choir and chilling in the woods. Some people like gaming computers or kayaks or rock climbing. Some people like cocaine, or rockets, or super computers. That’s all fine. You don’t need to push a rocket powered super computing gaming yacht on the peasantry fetishist. They don’t want that and will not appreciate you for it.
Its the hoarding and bullshit I can’t with. The inefficiency. The having so much at the expense of more existing. The militarized bullshit to keep the inequalities and inefficiencies. The arrangement of the entire world around them.
No real notes except I kinda dream of combining your first two examples into one lifestyle, I dunno if that’s even really a thing but…
…I mean, also, like, if you can run fiber optic cables along the ocean floor, you should be able to run them into the woods.
I dunno. An honest simple life aligned with nature and enjoying computers should be a thing. Nat Geo explorers and people that run solar powered websites off of Pis and stuff know what I’m talking about lol.
I’ve gamed on a secret weed farm deeeep in the woods. The networking is a little iffy sometimes, but even with our current infrastructure it can be done. We had an electric water heater, TV, full kitchen, and game consoles, half an hour’s hard hike and half an hour’s drive to the general store in summer (more complex in winter), a couple hours to the nearest town. Latency spikes happened, weather happened, but the internet was there. We never had to go out for fruit or veggies, but didn’t grow our own grains/carbs, and didn’t have any meat/dairy animals.
You don’t need to live by a script. Figure out the life you want. As long as it doesn’t fuck with anyone else, you deserve it.
For sure money has departed from actual real world value essentially from the moment it was created and people ought to be compensated for the value they actually create and of course taxed for the value they take from society. It’s kinda the same issue with climate change, if things actually cost what they truly cost the problem would fix itself over night. The issue is we externalize the cost to the environment, to the poor, and to our future so we don’t have to pay it today.
With actually correct value being represented by money and goods and services actually having their true cost that would mostly solve everything.
‘Compensated’.
What if their work was its own reward? Like if you want a smart grid, you build one, or check in with the people building one and ask how to help, and if private property is abolished, you just build shit for everybody, or everybody it’s convenient to build for? So you can’t really hoard shit. You can only inspire and build for everyone?
Or if you want more houses because you’re sick of sleeping outside or hate the streets being full of tents or want your dumbass 23 year old to move out finally please, you go learn about construction, or hook up with your local construction club/crew? If nobody owns stuff that isn’t meaningfully personally theirs, it gets much easier to do shit.
The lady who runs the best construction crew and her friend who designs the most beautiful houses still get prestige for being standouts, they still get to feel awesome, just like the guy who throws those amazing parties, but there’s not this huge bundled abstraction layer of bullshit.
Its not like people want to do nothing, unless they’re totally crushed by capitalism. Maybe the ways we do things change. We build more safely (or way less safely, hell yeah! Watch this!), or work shorter hours, or there’s an air separated musicians cubicle in operating rooms for live dramatizations, it whatever sensible cool or insane shit we decide to do. You can’t really argue we would make worse decisions than the ones currently governing us.
You go through a lot of insane implausible contrivances to keep this ‘money’ system you admit has basically never not been extremely fucked up.
Some people take joy in hurting others. I have no faith that we can fix that.
Fix? Not without some eugenics (traditional or modern). Mitigate? We can definitely mitigate it. There was a study recently that showed that it’s not really the punishment for a crime that dieters people, it’s the probability they will or won’t get caught that’s the primary factor. So for instance if there’s a 98% chance they will get caught people are unlikely to commit the crime and if there is a 5% chance they will be caught they are much more likely to commit the crime even if the punishment is extremely harsh. There’s of course a balancing act between personal freedoms and privacy and the ability to catch people aka the more privacy people have the more difficult it is to catch crime and generally the less privacy (and ability to parse large sums of data) the easier it is.
Eugenics, yeah, cool. Love it.
Laws aren’t a tool for preventing bad outcomes, and if you think they’re the primary tool you are not a serious person and will not create a functional society.
You would rather change what humanity is on a biological level than fucking acknowledge that existing power structures are nonsense and horrible?
I would ask what drugs you’re on, but since monday I’ve been on or around people who were on acid molly coke meth weed severe head trauma alcohol none of their prescribed antipsychotics dilotted and some rich people designer bullshit that’s just strings of letters and numbers I can never remember. None of it made any of them this deranged.
I mean we’ve already started modern eugenics with gene therapies to cure genetic diseases and soon there will be services offering designer babies not unlike the movie Gattaca. Why would you not want to have your child’s IQ increased 20 points along with removing their asthma and near sightedness?
There’s no political system devoid of corruption and people willing to harm others to get what they want. We can prevent a lot of crime but we’re not preventing human behavior anytime soon. I mean we can but we won’t.
‘Prevent crime’
What is crime? How does it relate to undesirable outcomes? Why do you think laws, just threatening people and public punishment and awfulnes, are a good tool for anything you want?
Not even going to start on the ‘eugenics’. You get that gattaca was not a “we should do this!” Movie, right? Jesus buckets of frothy diarrhea Christ are you from fucking San Francisco or some shit?
It’s not always a crime necessarily but harming people to get what one wants is usually a crime. As for constraining human behavior there’s really only two tools, benefit the behaviors you want and punish the ones you don’t want. People will obviously be self interested and will sometimes cause a lot of harm to get what they want but they wouldn’t if they knew for a fact they would be caught and punished. It’s more so the likelihood of being caught than the punishment that’s actually the deterrent. You can have an extreme punishment for something but if it’s unlikely someone will be caught then they will take their chances. Downside is with a higher rate of catching bad behaviors we diminish privacy. An extreme would everyone being watched and recorded 24/7 would make it trivial to catch any bad behavior or crime but there would be zero privacy.
As for Gattaca,. I think it’s more so that they used it to differentiate society into two groups where one was treated very poorly more so than the gene editing itself being the issue. For sure we will cure genetic diseases and then move into grey area stuff like giving people perfect eyesight and so on. I think it’ll be far too tempering to make designer babies though, higher IQ, better looking (subjective), better physique, better health and so on. Of course anyone who’s ever bred animals knows you can breed them to constrain their behavior so one could theoretically alter humanity to be more compassionate and less of a jerk to itself.
The idea of making the behaviors you want easier, the outcomes you want more likely to happen, just does not occur. Like, if you want less reckless driving, make it less necessary or convenient to drive.
You realize punishment is harm, right?
You understand nothing
I’m really not interested in your extremely remedial analysis. I am aware of the various philosophies of law. The idea of making the outcome you want easier just does not occur.
It’s all about proximal causes and assigning ultimate responsibility to a person you assume must be evil and not helping them to do what you want even when its something that’s usually a function of recklessness irresponsibility or incompetence but just hurting people until the world is better.
The violently incurious crescendo of dunning-kruger that you would take out on others is absolutely disgusting. Everything you’ve said here is violently stupid, literally violently. Never stop posting. Not for a moment.
I was more so getting at a scenario like The Giver where humanity modifies itself to be more peaceful with itself more than what you’re getting at. Of course maybe not to such an extreme like the giver. Anyways I think we could have a better conversation without the name calling but to each their own I guess.