FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
I'm going to take this in several different directions. I do not mean to claim to be an authority on any of these topics, and I'm quite certain someone out there can provide more information (possibly refuting a position I outline). It should go without saying, but I welcome criticisms on any and all points, and am firmly in favor of quoting a single section to evaluate, or doing a comprehensive point-by-point rebuttal. My aim here is simply to stimulate conversation and provide multiple paths for discussion.
I think it behooves us to consider ancient Athens a little further. My limited understanding of it is that Athens saved the other city-states' asses by sinking the Persian fleet, after which the other city states offered 100 years of 'tribute.' The way it was told to me (in a philosophy class) was that three things followed from this opulent wealth:
1) Romantic Love - when subsistence farming, you marry for economic status, not for love; but with limitless resources, you're free to marry for subjective reasons
2) Childhood - when subsistence farming, children are treated as 'miniature adults' and work alongside you in the field; with limitless resources, you're free to send children to school or afford them free time to play and explore
3) Philosophy - when subsistence farming, little time is set aside to consider the 'big questions'; with limitless resources, you're free to wander about the farmers marking talking about shit like 'virtue' and 'wisdom.'
Athens, as a result of this privileged economic status, became the seat of western civilization - producing some of the greatest thinkers of any generation.
skipping forward a bit...
The shift from zero-sum thinking to non-zero-sum is reflected, I believe, in the shift from mercantilism to capitalism. Precious metals are rare, and therefore their accumulation is necessarily zero-sum. Capitalism is built on the concept of 'Utility', which is an attempt to measure inter-subjective value. Differences in perception of value between individuals can produce gains in utility simply by distributing resources differently. There is a great deal of room for growth in this model - and this (inter-subjective, non-zero-sum) model gets a knock-on effect from fiat currency.
In the field of Sustainability, much is being made of the need to shift to Net Zero Growth. Not zero-growth in a comprehensive sense, but economic growth in which what we put into the environment (as a whole; from atmosphere to soil to water and so on) offsets what we take from it. Net Zero Growth, in this sense, is incredibly ambitious (and requires an unprecedented degree of cooperation), but we have - thanks to the previous industrial revolutions - significantly more tools at our disposal than we did four hundred years ago. Moreover, Net Zero Growth could - if achievable - provide a model wherein we abandon our faith in and need for logarithmic or exponential growth while still providing significant gains in quality of life and social justice*.
One of the challenges of Net Zero Growth is preserving class mobility. Growth lends credibility to the claim that you can make a better life for yourself, or to the idea that your children can enjoy a higher social status than your parents. It is also important to acknowledge that 'eating the rich' is NOT a solution to the challenge we face. While the top 1% control a significant portion of the wealth in the world, they do NOT consume that same portion of the total resources (though they do, on average, consume significantly more than the average person). And the lesson I take from Athens - that privilege can enable significant gains that *do* 'raise all boats' - also implies that eliminating privilege can weaken or erase future gains. But there must be an upper limit to the degree of privilege one might enjoy. Privilege must be seen as something to be shared, not something to be hoarded or squandered. And the long-term aim must be to provide that degree of privilege to as many people as possible.
A few points I would advocate for, not as a fully fleshed out plan, but as necessary prerequisites for a solution:
1) Free education to any who desire it
2) Free access to broadband internet for every human on the planet - uncensored, unfiltered, and with guarantees for anonymity
3) A smartphone and netbook for every human (we must embrace the idea that cyborgs are better adapted for the task than hairless singing monkeys)
4) Free access to birth control
5) Basic guarantees for medical care and a social safety net that keeps people out of abject poverty
6) An existential enlightenment wherein our species comes to terms with the inevitability of death, considers the costs of dying within the context of economic realities, and commits to caring for those who are facing end-of-life issues
7) A 'great migration' wherein significant urbanization takes place, enabling more efficient public transit options and a significant reduction in the cost of distributing food and water
8) A serious, global conversation on the roles of authority, gender, and on concepts of value, ownership and sustainability
I do think it's worth exploring the concept of wealth as control over the allocation of resources, rather than freedom to consume resources. As I said, the 1% do not consume 50% of the world's resources - but they do have power over the allocation of those resources. And to a degree, I think that can be wise - a person that is better at efficiently allocating resources (to meet the needs of many people) 'deserves' more control than someone that continuously squanders resources and fails to care for many people at all. This is the dilemma between capitalism and democracy - do we want a plutocracy or a 'tyranny of the masses'? In this context, look at the trend in control of resources over time -
Kings and Queens used to control the vast majority of resources. The Magna Carta expanded that to include feudal lords. The House of Commons further expanded the number of people who could significantly impact the allocation of resources (though such expansion also dilutes the degree of power any individual person wields). In the capitalist world, the shift from sole ownership to a board also expands this control over the allocation of resources, and selling public shares further expands that control. And, of course, the American Constitution deserves some mention here as well. The fear over Socialism (from the right) seems to focus on the belief that it will once more concentrate control over allocation of resources to the few, while the fear over Direct Democracy (also from the right) seems to focus on the belief that it will dilute control over allocation of resources to the point that resources are not used efficiently. Many in the Left hold their political views because they are optimistic that an ideal balance can be struck. I do believe that the information revolution provides us the tools and resources to further distribute that control in a way that allows for significant gains in efficiency (here I'm referencing the 'Cognitive Surplus). This is the position many on this board parody as 'techno-fetishism.'
*I do think access to birth control, over-the-counter (eliminating expensive medical services as the gatekeepers to reproductive freedom) and free (funded either by the government or something like the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation) is a prerequisite for that sort of solution.
I think it behooves us to consider ancient Athens a little further. My limited understanding of it is that Athens saved the other city-states' asses by sinking the Persian fleet, after which the other city states offered 100 years of 'tribute.' The way it was told to me (in a philosophy class) was that three things followed from this opulent wealth:
1) Romantic Love - when subsistence farming, you marry for economic status, not for love; but with limitless resources, you're free to marry for subjective reasons
2) Childhood - when subsistence farming, children are treated as 'miniature adults' and work alongside you in the field; with limitless resources, you're free to send children to school or afford them free time to play and explore
3) Philosophy - when subsistence farming, little time is set aside to consider the 'big questions'; with limitless resources, you're free to wander about the farmers marking talking about shit like 'virtue' and 'wisdom.'
Athens, as a result of this privileged economic status, became the seat of western civilization - producing some of the greatest thinkers of any generation.
skipping forward a bit...
The shift from zero-sum thinking to non-zero-sum is reflected, I believe, in the shift from mercantilism to capitalism. Precious metals are rare, and therefore their accumulation is necessarily zero-sum. Capitalism is built on the concept of 'Utility', which is an attempt to measure inter-subjective value. Differences in perception of value between individuals can produce gains in utility simply by distributing resources differently. There is a great deal of room for growth in this model - and this (inter-subjective, non-zero-sum) model gets a knock-on effect from fiat currency.
In the field of Sustainability, much is being made of the need to shift to Net Zero Growth. Not zero-growth in a comprehensive sense, but economic growth in which what we put into the environment (as a whole; from atmosphere to soil to water and so on) offsets what we take from it. Net Zero Growth, in this sense, is incredibly ambitious (and requires an unprecedented degree of cooperation), but we have - thanks to the previous industrial revolutions - significantly more tools at our disposal than we did four hundred years ago. Moreover, Net Zero Growth could - if achievable - provide a model wherein we abandon our faith in and need for logarithmic or exponential growth while still providing significant gains in quality of life and social justice*.
One of the challenges of Net Zero Growth is preserving class mobility. Growth lends credibility to the claim that you can make a better life for yourself, or to the idea that your children can enjoy a higher social status than your parents. It is also important to acknowledge that 'eating the rich' is NOT a solution to the challenge we face. While the top 1% control a significant portion of the wealth in the world, they do NOT consume that same portion of the total resources (though they do, on average, consume significantly more than the average person). And the lesson I take from Athens - that privilege can enable significant gains that *do* 'raise all boats' - also implies that eliminating privilege can weaken or erase future gains. But there must be an upper limit to the degree of privilege one might enjoy. Privilege must be seen as something to be shared, not something to be hoarded or squandered. And the long-term aim must be to provide that degree of privilege to as many people as possible.
A few points I would advocate for, not as a fully fleshed out plan, but as necessary prerequisites for a solution:
1) Free education to any who desire it
2) Free access to broadband internet for every human on the planet - uncensored, unfiltered, and with guarantees for anonymity
3) A smartphone and netbook for every human (we must embrace the idea that cyborgs are better adapted for the task than hairless singing monkeys)
4) Free access to birth control
5) Basic guarantees for medical care and a social safety net that keeps people out of abject poverty
6) An existential enlightenment wherein our species comes to terms with the inevitability of death, considers the costs of dying within the context of economic realities, and commits to caring for those who are facing end-of-life issues
7) A 'great migration' wherein significant urbanization takes place, enabling more efficient public transit options and a significant reduction in the cost of distributing food and water
8) A serious, global conversation on the roles of authority, gender, and on concepts of value, ownership and sustainability
I do think it's worth exploring the concept of wealth as control over the allocation of resources, rather than freedom to consume resources. As I said, the 1% do not consume 50% of the world's resources - but they do have power over the allocation of those resources. And to a degree, I think that can be wise - a person that is better at efficiently allocating resources (to meet the needs of many people) 'deserves' more control than someone that continuously squanders resources and fails to care for many people at all. This is the dilemma between capitalism and democracy - do we want a plutocracy or a 'tyranny of the masses'? In this context, look at the trend in control of resources over time -
Kings and Queens used to control the vast majority of resources. The Magna Carta expanded that to include feudal lords. The House of Commons further expanded the number of people who could significantly impact the allocation of resources (though such expansion also dilutes the degree of power any individual person wields). In the capitalist world, the shift from sole ownership to a board also expands this control over the allocation of resources, and selling public shares further expands that control. And, of course, the American Constitution deserves some mention here as well. The fear over Socialism (from the right) seems to focus on the belief that it will once more concentrate control over allocation of resources to the few, while the fear over Direct Democracy (also from the right) seems to focus on the belief that it will dilute control over allocation of resources to the point that resources are not used efficiently. Many in the Left hold their political views because they are optimistic that an ideal balance can be struck. I do believe that the information revolution provides us the tools and resources to further distribute that control in a way that allows for significant gains in efficiency (here I'm referencing the 'Cognitive Surplus). This is the position many on this board parody as 'techno-fetishism.'
*I do think access to birth control, over-the-counter (eliminating expensive medical services as the gatekeepers to reproductive freedom) and free (funded either by the government or something like the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation) is a prerequisite for that sort of solution.
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
I imagine that the serious conversation over ownership will go something like this...
"Ok billionaires, have a seat on the sofa, we're going to have to have a serious talk... you've had your fun and games but now it's time we get down to business as we discuss the very nature of ownership"
*stern look*
"You guys own quite a bit more than some wou- oh, oh sorry, this is your sofa? My apologies."
*stands up quickly, signs free trade agreement*
"Ok billionaires, have a seat on the sofa, we're going to have to have a serious talk... you've had your fun and games but now it's time we get down to business as we discuss the very nature of ownership"
*stern look*
"You guys own quite a bit more than some wou- oh, oh sorry, this is your sofa? My apologies."
*stands up quickly, signs free trade agreement*
[account deactivated]
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
Think of it as guaranteed cradle to grave welfare and 100% employment
ggw
ggw
Post rating:
~
One thing the Greeks did seem to note was that a LOT of their heroes came about because a god raped a woman. I don't think most myths sugar-coated it. Zeus didn't take you out on the town and wine and dine you. At best he knocked you up in the form of a literal shower of gold light. At worst he abducted you as a fucking bull and left you on an island to have babies. Or he got you turned into a cow. Or he burned you to a crisp when showing himself.
I wonder, was Hades the ONLY god who wasn't down with rape? Even Apollo was down with that shit.
I wonder, was Hades the ONLY god who wasn't down with rape? Even Apollo was down with that shit.
jools
jools
Post rating:
~
uh bro persephone was abducted by hades
kinch
kinch
Post rating:
+
well my attempts to recreate the ideal city in dwarf fortress are not going so well. first of all dwarfs start vomiting when they see the form of the good. also they refuse to raise their children in common, and they have no word for gymnastic. in conclusion its a nice idea but will never work in practice.
e: thrasymachus has entered a fey mood
e2: philospher king still hates the sun
e: thrasymachus has entered a fey mood
e2: philospher king still hates the sun
Edited by kinch ()
swampman
swampman
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating:
~
ggw posted:One thing the Greeks did seem to note was that a LOT of their heroes came about because a god raped a woman. I don't think most myths sugar-coated it. Zeus didn't take you out on the town and wine and dine you. At best he knocked you up in the form of a literal shower of gold light. At worst he abducted you as a fucking bull and left you on an island to have babies. Or he got you turned into a cow. Or he burned you to a crisp when showing himself.
I wonder, was Hades the ONLY god who wasn't down with rape? Even Apollo was down with that shit.
It isn't rape when a god does it.
getfiscal
getfiscal
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating:
+
god is one of my headmates
angelbutt_dollface
angelbutt_dollface
Post rating:
~
mods change "fsad" to "dangry"
TG
TG
Post rating:
~
if someone asks you if you're a god, you say yes!
BadNewzKennels
BadNewzKennels
Post rating:
~
peepaw
peepaw
Post rating:
~
i'm eternally disappointed behoove doesn't mean to stick hooves on to something
jiroemon1897
jiroemon1897
YUNG JIRO AKA SHOWA STUNNA AKA
Post rating:
~
Language is dynamic. We can change things mate
swampman
swampman
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating:
+
jiroemon1897 posted:Language is dynamic. We can change things mate
Not with that attitude!