Print

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

Definitely yes.

Technically yes.

Technically no.

Definitely no.

Uncertain.

Other.

Don't care.

[Soadreqm]

The reason these topics exist is because it's the fucking year 2010 and we have no technological utopia. Apparently all the work done in the 20th century to bring us to modernity was for, if not absolutely nothing, then for precious little.

So, you're saying that the reason we're not living in a technological utopia is that too many people spend all their time in virtual worlds killing imaginary monsters rather than doing something worthwhile. A significant portion of the populace is killing time, sitting in their homes, engaging in various simulated activities, ranging from lining up colored blobs to single-handedly winning world war two. Chatting with their friends on the other side of the globe using a vast information network, running on omni-purpose computation machines, which were manufactured by a robot from a space-age polymer. Yeah, that's probably it. We'll never get any technological progress with all these inane distractions taking our time.

[mainiac]

I don't think people can be happy without competition. There have been studies that indicate that people don't get happy by having money but they do get happy when they start getting more then their neighbors. A system that eliminates competition would only breed other forms of competition.

That just shows that money is worse then showing up your neighbors.  But best case scenario of the show up your neighbors plan is half of people are miserable.  There are kinds of happiness that don't involve money OR being a dick to your neighbor however.

[The Transcendent Tyrant]

I don't think people can be happy without competition. There have been studies that indicate that people don't get happy by having money but they do get happy when they start getting more then their neighbors. A system that eliminates competition would only breed other forms of competition.

That's due to being a part of a society where success is considered to be how much more stuff you have than everyone else.

[Eugenitor]

Fuck man, and by that logic we should get rid of Dwarf Fortress. You're some smart thinker there man, you might have just highlighted that people shouldn't be having fun in their free time. Ever.

You're missing my point. This goes beyond 'people playing video games in their spare time'. The purpose of a modern MMO is to provide the illusion of growth and prosperity while keeping the "player" constantly trying to achieve the next goodie, like a mule chasing a carrot at the end of a stick. Although people were addicted to Evercrack before Blizzard's MMO was a glint in their eye, it was WoW that brought the addiction to the mainstream and spawned so many copycats. It's not really a game anymore. You're an object, not the player.

I dream about living in a Utopian society where I my labor goes towards a productive end.  So much of what I see when I look around me is people working hard at jobs that barely matter because they need the money.  Maybe it's because I live in an area with a lot of retired people and a lot of people providing services to the retired people.  But how many damn waiters does the world need?  How many sales clerks?

We say that capitalism is necessary because there is scarcity.  But at some point we need to ask why we produce so much more then we used to but there is still so much scarcity.  We've got five times as much stuff per person then we did a hundred years ago.  How can we be rich enough to afford more cars then people but not be rich enough to afford decent public transportation or making sure everyone has food?

This, this, so many times this, oh sweet Satan this, shout it from the rooftops and echo it in the valleys.

So, you're saying that the reason we're not living in a technological utopia is that too many people spend all their time in virtual worlds killing imaginary monsters rather than doing something worthwhile. A significant portion of the populace is killing time, sitting in their homes, engaging in various simulated activities, ranging from lining up colored blobs to single-handedly winning world war two. Chatting with their friends on the other side of the globe using a vast information network, running on omni-purpose computation machines, which were manufactured by a robot from a space-age polymer. Yeah, that's probably it. We'll never get any technological progress with all these inane distractions taking our time.

I know, right?

The futurists of the '50s were fixated on interplanetary, sometimes interstellar space travel. Moon colonies. Flying cars. Fusion power. Only the far-futurists or space opera writers (with a tiny handful of exceptions) had anything to say about synthetic worlds. We took a shortcut; we went straight to unreality as fast as we could, living there as much as we possibly can. And then so, so many of us look back on reality and wonder "Geez, why hasn't anyone cleaned that shit up yet?" because the concept of doing it ourselves is practically unthinkable. We don't have the money. We don't have the ownership of the means of production. We have no political/social anything other than occasionally Anonymous (and Anonymous is what happens when semi-real people play unreality-based games on real people).

If there's anything the late 20th and early 21st centuries have taught, it's that people will start lotus-eating the moment they get the chance. Rats will kill themselves hammering a bar wired to their pleasure centers. We built the apparatus, shoved the electrodes in ourselves, and are now hammering that bar as fast as we can.

[Vertigon]

Still, everyone is still talking about class warfare...

That's part of being human.  It's what makes all the -isms work... even Communism.  There's still going to be that one person who manages the stocks and gets elevated to a position where they are more important than someone else.  People (humans) seek recognition and approval.  Unless you fundamentally change humanity (or severely increase the rate of technological advance,) the utopia is a pipe dream.

Even if we got to the point of "Star Trek" technology, you'd still have people fighting over the Captain's chair because of the perceived glamor and state.  "You could be one of the few people who is immortalized in a statue!"  (And that means someone else needs to step aside, or be pushed aside, to make that happen.)

Sadly the people making the statues don't just make statues of themselves. That would solve nothing but be entertaining.

[Bauglir]

Still, everyone is still talking about class warfare...

That's part of being human.  It's what makes all the -isms work... even Communism.  There's still going to be that one person who manages the stocks and gets elevated to a position where they are more important than someone else.  People (humans) seek recognition and approval.  Unless you fundamentally change humanity (or severely increase the rate of technological advance,) the utopia is a pipe dream.

Even if we got to the point of "Star Trek" technology, you'd still have people fighting over the Captain's chair because of the perceived glamor and state.  "You could be one of the few people who is immortalized in a statue!"  (And that means someone else needs to step aside, or be pushed aside, to make that happen.)

Sadly the people making the statues don't just make statues of themselves. That would solve nothing but be entertaining.

Dwarves have definitely one-upped us on that. The number of murals of murals is kind of insane.

[fqllve]

I know, right?

The futurists of the '50s were fixated on interplanetary, sometimes interstellar space travel. Moon colonies. Flying cars. Fusion power. Only the far-futurists or space opera writers (with a tiny handful of exceptions) had anything to say about synthetic worlds. We took a shortcut; we went straight to unreality as fast as we could, living there as much as we possibly can. And then so, so many of us look back on reality and wonder "Geez, why hasn't anyone cleaned that shit up yet?" because the concept of doing it ourselves is practically unthinkable. We don't have the money. We don't have the ownership of the means of production. We have no political/social anything other than occasionally Anonymous (and Anonymous is what happens when semi-real people play unreality-based games on real people).

If there's anything the late 20th and early 21st centuries have taught, it's that people will start lotus-eating the moment they get the chance. Rats will kill themselves hammering a bar wired to their pleasure centers. We built the apparatus, shoved the electrodes in ourselves, and are now hammering that bar as fast as we can.

Except that humans have always jumped first into unreality and synthetic worlds. Our current preoccupation with them is just the next in a long line. I mean, that's what all fiction is, unreal. Someone who reads novels all day isn't really any better than someone who reads comic books all day, or plays video games all day, except for the perceived value of these. What about dreams? What about hallucinogenic drugs to increase spiritual awareness? Humanity has always been shit-deep in ignoring the real world because we have imaginations and the real world sucks compared to those.

So really, the problem is consciousness. Therefore I move we go back to bicameralism. It's the only sane course of action.

That's due to being a part of a society where success is considered to be how much more stuff you have than everyone else.

I'm as anti-consumerism as the next drugged out hippie communist, but what other definition of success is there?

[The Transcendent Tyrant]

I'm as anti-consumerism as the next drugged out hippie communist, but what other definition of success is there?

Go to Wikipedia.

Search "buddhism".

There's at least one.

[fqllve]

What? Enlightenment? Isn't that just having more wisdom?

We achieve success by accomplishing goals, we set those goals by comparing ourselves with the baseline. Success will always be measured against something else, it is inherently competitive.

e: also, from my limited understanding, i'd guess that a buddhism with success is opposed to the teachings of buddhism. isn't it about 'life is a game that is suffering. do not play the game?'

[Phmcw]

It is a ethical ideology that has a basis in every century.

It is not sufficient. Yes it have a basis, but it was adapted to his time. Not ours.

I'm not rich as I'm still a student. My parent are comfortable (own more than one house).My grandparent were rather poor.
My mother's family come form extremely poor farmers, and immigrated in Belgium around 1950 (my mother was five).
I used to talk with my grandmother a lot, and have a pretty good idea of what was living in her time.

Read Stallman to get a better idea of how freedom of speech, ethical spending, environmentalism and free software can combine into a new left that still respect Marx's Idea. You'll get nowhere if you don't adapt.

[The Transcendent Tyrant]

What? Enlightenment? Isn't that just having more wisdom?

We achieve success by accomplishing goals, we set those goals by comparing ourselves with the baseline. Success will always be measured against something else, it is inherently competitive.

No, not really. It's about self-fulfillment.

It's about completion of the self rather than competition with others.

It is not sufficient. Yes it have a basis, but it was adapted to his time. Not ours.

I'm not rich as I'm still a student. My parent are comfortable (own more than one house).My grandparent were rather poor.
My mother's family come form extremely poor farmers, and immigrated in Belgium around 1950 (my mother was five).
I used to talk with my grandmother a lot, and have a pretty good idea of what was living in her time.

Read Stallman to get a better idea of how freedom of speech, ethical spending, environmentalism and free software can combine into a new left that still respect Marx's Idea. You'll get nowhere if you don't adapt.

Owning a single house (without a mortgage, at least) is an impossibility for many, many, MANY people in England. Even with the discounts from living in the house for a certain number of years etc, there's little to no chance of people being able to buy one before they're retired.

And I used to talk to my grandfather a lot, who still saw class warfare in the '90s. I still see it today, because it's still around. Just because you're blind to the realities of the world, doesn't mean they're not there.

That's not a leftist philosophy. At least read the Wikipedia page on what left-wing politics are. What you're suggesting is libertarian politics, not left-wing. There's a considerable difference.

[Phmcw]

[quote author=The Transcendent Tyrant link=topic=71520.msg1747241#msg1747241 date=1290641024
It's about completion of the self rather than competition with others.
Owning a single house (without a mortgage, at least) is an impossibility for many, many, MANY people in England. Even with the discounts from living in the house for a certain number of years etc, there's little to no chance of people being able to buy one before they're retired.

And I used to talk to my grandfather a lot, who still saw class warfare in the '90s. I still see it today, because it's still around. Just because you're blind to the realities of the world, doesn't mean they're not there.

That's not a leftist philosophy. At least read the Wikipedia page on what left-wing politics are. What you're suggesting is libertarian politics, not left-wing. There's a considerable difference.
[/quote]
"In politics, Left, left-wing and leftist are generally used to describe support for social change to create a more egalitarian society."

Stallman is definitely a left wing personality, and isn't even remotely Libertarian.
You clearly don't know what you're speaking about. He support green party, and is all for universal health-care.

You may see whatever you want anywhere, but social warfare is dead with the rise of the consumerism.
Anyone can own, provided he have money, and anyone can get money, provided he is lucky.
It was not the case before.

If you cannot see that the world have moved on, then you are blind.

[The Transcendent Tyrant]

"In politics, Left, left-wing and leftist are generally used to describe support for social change to create a more egalitarian society."

Stallman is definitely a left wing personality, and isn't even remotely Libertarian.
You clearly don't know what you're speaking about. He support green party, and is all for universal health-care.

You may see whatever you want anywhere, but social warfare is dead with the rise of the consumerism.
Anyone can own, provided he have money, and anyone can get money, provided he is lucky.
It was not the case before.

If you cannot see that the world have moved on, then you are blind.

I give up.

Evidently growing up as a middle-class, priviledged kid has covered your eyes with wool to the necessity of social welfare even in first-world countries. Americans who live in trailer parks, sharing single room caravans with their families due to a lack of social welfare. People in England who make more money on social welfare than they do in jobs because of the system failing them. Scottish people living with families with drug and drink problems and then being sucked into the underworld themselves because of no support programs.

And yet you have the audacity to tell me these people don't exist. People who would not be able to even survive without the meagre handouts they're given whilst you claim that "anyone can get money". Of course you can get money, if you have money to start with. Money goes to those with money.

You are not blind. You're just ignorant.

[fqllve]

It's about completion of the self rather than competition with others.

Competition doesn't have to be with others.

The point is that if you have a goal you are defining that goal by comparison. Competition is goal-oriented comparison. A philosophy with an idea of success is inherently competitive.

I'm not saying buddhism is competitive (I don't think it is) I'm saying that buddhism with goals is competitive, even if that competition is only against onself.

[Criptfeind]

Really good straw man Transcendent Tyrant. Doing nice.