Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrRoboto75]

Going back to actual issues, we need to have a system to prevent human beings from being made obsolete as automation becomes more sophisticated. I don't mean the guy who screws caps onto toothpaste tubes, I mean the plurality of American workers who drive trucks. Or the first ten years of white-collar careers when they're doing tedious and unspecialized stuff until they get enough experience to be a knowledge worker. Or doctors, lawyers, and other specialized technicians.+

My honest fear is that the US is culturally incompatible with the idea of a basic income system to support obsolete workers.

[Magistrum]

I fear you guys will not be able to see that UBI is another tool of the bourgeois to pacify and blind the proletariat with scrapes.

[MrRoboto75]

I fear you guys will not be able to see that UBI is another tool of the bourgeois to pacify and blind the proletariat with scrapes.

First you'd have to actually get people on board with UBI.

We'll burn that bridge when we get there.

[Max™]

You know what's really funny for someone who paid more attention to what that beardy old fool Marx was talking about--rather than how others talked about his ideas--is the way dude never would have expected trying to flip a switch and declaring society to be communist could do anything but fail horribly.

He did however note that capitalism wasn't compatible with a situation where production handles itself through automation and predicted a pitchfork-y end for those who tried to force the vast majority of people to remain within that stage of societal development, and of course those same folks extracting the most benefit from capitalist ideas would be least likely to promote the idea that capitalism is far from the only--much less anything but the best--way to progress as a species.

Indeed this would probably be why so many assume that capitalism has been the exclusive driver of growth, progress, and development by acting like a selfish profit motive is somehow inherent in all people.

Which touches on the jewelry acquisition thing above, yes, if you're viewing it as adornments to collect and accumulate to display to others how much better you're doing than they are, then that might seem like it makes sense.

I make jewelry for the missus because I enjoy making stuff for her and she enjoys receiving said handmade gifts. These aren't meant to somehow illustrate to others how we're better off or whatnot, I'm a bower bird decorating my lair for my girl, she's already gotten but she still likes perusing the shiny pretties I gathered for her, and vice versa. We're outside of a capitalist system and happier for it, and I only say this to encourage others to question not just boxes they've been told to stay in, but to question any who would tell you staying in them is fine or normal or good.

Marx saw capitalism as a step which society progresses through, not towards or within.

[Naturegirl1999]

This is interesting. It makes sense for capitalism to be temporary, as constant growth cannot be sustained. The problem is that all national attempts at communism so far turned into dictatorships/authoritarian governments.

[Max™]

Which is to be expected without automation being universal, trying to flip a switch and turn capitalism into communism is going to end badly until capitalism is made obsolete, dude wasn't a hippie idealist or rabblerouser pushing for immediate change, he was a futurist hoping that people might get it right in a few centuries.

[SalmonGod]

This is interesting. It makes sense for capitalism to be temporary, as constant growth cannot be sustained. The problem is that all national attempts at communism so far turned into dictatorships/authoritarian governments.

Which is to be expected without automation being universal, trying to flip a switch and turn capitalism into communism is going to end badly until capitalism is made obsolete, dude wasn't a hippie idealist or rabblerouser pushing for immediate change, he was a futurist hoping that people might get it right in a few centuries.

It's also an incomplete/meaningless observation, when you don't take into account that every attempt has been subject to immense hostility either by WW2-era fascists or after that the world's dominant global superpower.  Every example I'm aware of besides the Soviet Union was either exterminated or survived as a dictatorship by design.  Beware survivorship bias.

As for the thing about social status -- like Max, I don't believe this is universal.  It's a product of perceptual limitation and confirmation bias.  The very nature of social status is that people who achieve it are highly visible and have influence over culture and the evolution of society's functions.  While those who don't achieve high social status are invisible and have little influence.  So it's a matter of course that society is twisted around the assumption that everybody wants status, and forces everyone to behave as if they want it as a matter of survival, while we're all constantly bombarded with messaging and imagery from people who have status.  This works on our collective psychology and perception of the world.  Supposedly, lots of rich and famous people are miserable.  Maybe it's because they were tricked into believing they wanted something that they really didn't?

[Dunamisdeos]

Now, not to bash your views, but the arguments you've presented recently seem based on maybes and suppositions that aren't really backed up by experience (at the time at which you're presenting them). You're coming across as a sort of yeah I know what all of our observed data says, but I don't think any of it is true because we can't literally have 100% proof in front of us. Like psychological models of humanity are somehow not taking any data from anyone but the 1%.
 
Sure, maybe all of our observation of humanity including the majority of our findings in the field of psychology are wrong and it's just some people that are hardwired to pursue a means of rising above the rest of humanity through cold competition. But that's not really enough to draw a conclusion. My own position is not that humanity is inherently or predominantly greedy or malicious, just that there are negative traits endemic to humanity. No person lacks greed or cruelty, and it's by speaking to these parts of us that society has been able to steer itself the way you describe.

EDIT: I'm trying to dance around being that asshat who attacks your argument rather than talking to you. Do you have some links to some material about your position? Thanks muchly!

[Max™]

I mean, I've never desired more than I need, and my cruelty was a learned trait which grew from wanting to return said behavior to my father for his treatment of my mother. While I can't remember a time before I wanted to torture him in new and creative ways (ooh, I bet rasping someone's fingernails off would suuuuuuuck) I've been around enough children and babies to doubt I was born with this drive to specifically injure the man injuring the woman who gave me life, and by extension return said treatment to others who bully and victimize.

[bloop_bleep]

For about 90% of human history humans have existed almost exclusively in hunting-gathering societies. Almost all such societies have exactly zero class structure. Supporting others and sacrificing yourself for the group are central parts of life and are greatly valued, perhaps above everything else, and people who try to put themselves before the group are often punished, or in extreme cases, exiled. People routinely overlook this majority of human history (during which, arguably, humans were doing what was most natural to them) when making sweeping statements about the inherent nature of human beings.

By the way, even modern-day hunting-gathering societies (like the Kalahari bushmen, which live in a desert) spend less time on getting food and all other chores combined than a single full-time job nowadays (40 hrs / week).

[wierd]

Yes and no.

Hunter gatherer societies tend to have a nuclear familial unit, in which the parental figures are given deference.  However, there is still drive to stand out with inter-familial meetings, since that is when adult children hook up.

[SalmonGod]

Now, not to bash your views, but the arguments you've presented recently seem based on maybes and suppositions that aren't really backed up by experience (at the time at which you're presenting them). You're coming across as a sort of yeah I know what all of our observed data says, but I don't think any of it is true because we can't literally have 100% proof in front of us. Like psychological models of humanity are somehow not taking any data from anyone but the 1%.
 
Sure, maybe all of our observation of humanity including the majority of our findings in the field of psychology are wrong and it's just some people that are hardwired to pursue a means of rising above the rest of humanity through cold competition. But that's not really enough to draw a conclusion. My own position is not that humanity is inherently or predominantly greedy or malicious, just that there are negative traits endemic to humanity. No person lacks greed or cruelty, and it's by speaking to these parts of us that society has been able to steer itself the way you describe.

EDIT: I'm trying to dance around being that asshat who attacks your argument rather than talking to you. Do you have some links to some material about your position? Thanks muchly!

I assume you're responding only to the point about status.  This is more just adding together personal experience + some other bits that I know about psychology + perspective that I think is rarely taken into account.  Science isn't immune to bias/unrecognized assumptions.  On top of that, psychology isn't a hard science, and it's questionable how objective a science it can possibly be.  As the practice of studying human thought must be undertaken from a frame of reference captured within human thought, it is going to be twisted by self-ideation, which effects what questions are asked, the manner in which observation takes place, and how observations are interpreted.

Personal Experience:  Whenever this topic comes up, I feel like I must be an alien.  Because I really don't relate to it.  I don't want to be a billionaire or world leader.  Never have.  I enjoy spending time around people that I admire, not people I feel superior to.  I also feel gross giving orders to anyone.  And I used to feel like I was alone in this, up until young adulthood.  But then I started meeting a wider variety of people in different contexts.  And since then, when I really think about the people that I know, most of them seem to have pretty modest desires and aspirations. 

Other Psychology Bits and Perspective:  Internalization is something that's been studied in psychology a lot for a while, and relates to this subject pretty strongly.

Racism is a good place to look for what I'm talking about.  White people were the dominant culture in the USA throughout the 20th century.  They controlled the vast majority of media, and made it in their own image, with positive representation being almost exclusively associated with whiteness.  As a result, black people growing up in this culture suffer problems with negative self-image on a massive scale, related to their appearance and beliefs about their own nature.  And this isn't about some great conspiracy of white people looking to destroy the psyches of black people.  White people just happened to be those doing media work, and they of course made what they personally related to.

Now when we're talking about the desire for status, you're speaking directly about dominance itself.  Whoever has it.  Wealth, political power, authority, and respect.  A concept which runs directly parallel to who has the most control in guiding the very direction and functioning of civilization as a whole.  So following the same principle, don't you think it would be natural that those with status will guide society in a direction that relates to what they can personally relate to, which is the experience of living with and desiring status?  And that this would trickle down to pervasive internalizations that everyone would struggle with?

Think about this mechanically.  Just as white people made media on the assumption that it was for people like themselves, we live in a society designed on the assumption that everyone is greedy.  Thus, the structure we all live in forces us to behave as if we are greedy in order to survive.  Even if we don't want it, we have to compete with others for material security, which often comes through association with other forms of status, not just direct ownership of material wealth.  So this is what everyone sees everyone else doing.  It's what we organize our lives around.  It's what we plan and strive for.  So if we build data from this based on empirical observations, what will that data show if the right questions are not asked to frame its context?

Let's say there's a management opportunity opened up in an office environment.  There may be 5 people fighting for that promotion - everyone considered eligible.  It may be possible that only 1 of them actually wants that position.  One person who dreams of climbing the corporate ladder to become a rich executive, who actually cares about having authority, or is interested in money for reasons beyond basic self-preservation.  Maybe 2 of them are fighting for it because they're drowning in bills and desperately need the pay raise no matter what, another because of high pressure expectations put by family, and another because it's what they've been told they want their whole lives and never truly reflected to determine for themselves if it's what they want.  If you were to engage in straightforward empirical observation of that situation, what data would you come away with?  That 100% of people eligible for receiving more wealth and authority were eager to compete for it.

And what type of research is likely to be most prevalent within the context of a society that subjects every attempt to establish a more egalitarian society to ridicule and violence?  Did anthropological and psychological research related to race in the slavery and Jim Crow days critically analyze the assumptions underlying race relationships in those days, or was it just a platform for reinforcing confirmation bias?  Assuming there is a great amount of scientific literature behind the idea that everyone desires wealth and status (I'm not aware of it), how much do you really believe that modern science is immune to foundational biases?

Even in harder sciences, we're still discovering those biases pretty regularly.  Here's an example.

[wierd]

I too do not fit normal molds of human behaviors, (and suffer for it, quite a bit), but there's the rub.  It's not about disproof through identification of anomalous humans, it's about the total group's statistical behavior.

More people act in this way than don't.  That's why it (Marxism) wont work with current humans.  You could possibly play the long game, and instead of direct genetic engineering you could use societal pressures over a protracted period to reshape human genetic psycho-social norms.  (EG, use slowly increasing socialist norms, and let the flaggers fail, to give selective pressure.)

[SalmonGod]

My point was it's not enough to observe "this is how people act".  You also have to account for the context of social/material pressures and cultural/psychological feedback cycles when gauging what conclusions you can derive from those observations without further exploration.

[wierd]

That's getting into nature vs nurture.  The best I can do to control for nurture is to look at as wide a spectrum of human civilizations as possible, and look for persistent commonalities.

If I am too quick to ascribe to nature what is nurture, bear in mind that nature does play a very profound role in pro-social behavior.  Exactly where the divide is?  Sorry, I can't answer that. The kind of experiments needed to qualitatively determine that are ... Unethical.. We'll put it at that.