nbohr1more on 18/9/2011 at 03:49
The problem is: if we accept that our current capittolist system is the best possible solution, what happens when self-assembling nanotechnology makes all physical production obselete and AI makes all mental labor obselete? Do we now live with the terrible end-game conclusion that a small fraction of industrialists own every means of production and require no labor? If the rest of humanity cannot provide anything to trade or barter to this small population of elites, what will happen to them? I'd rather live with my foolish idealisms that humans can evolve past the need to compete and trade than face those bleak scenarios. Maybe it is a form of willful ignorance but any moral stance could be accused of the same.
Fafhrd on 18/9/2011 at 04:07
Might as well ask what happens when angels show up to give everyone blowjobs, dude.
Vernon on 18/9/2011 at 05:20
Master of Orion wasn't meant to be taken as future gospel, brew
Shug on 18/9/2011 at 13:51
We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death
Rug Burn Junky on 18/9/2011 at 16:57
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
Maybe it is a form of willful ignorance but any moral stance could be accused of the same.
No. Emphatically no.
This is exactly an example of "Hey, that's just like, your opinion, maaaaan."
Aja on 18/9/2011 at 17:56
RBJ that was an excellent post (on page 5). My problem is that I don't know any of the buzzwords that comprise most of the discussions I see on this subject, but the fact that it can be discussed in English, as you demonstrate, gives me hope. What publication were you writing it for?
nbohr1more on 18/9/2011 at 17:56
Are you saying that my adherence to (and advocacy for) an "idealized techno-utopia communism" is less valid than vegetarianism, ecological conscience, feminism, etc? Any other social agenda born of a moral stance?
To be clear, I don't believe that you are positing your concepts as morally driven agendas but rather logical solutions to existing issues within the realm of existing regulatory structure.
Are you accusing me of trying to compare my beliefs to your logical assertions?
june gloom on 18/9/2011 at 18:03
Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. Next silly question?
also lol "idealized techno-utopia communism" wow and i thought anarcho-capitalists lived in a fantasy land
Rug Burn Junky on 18/9/2011 at 18:06
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
Are you saying that my adherence to (and advocacy for) an "idealized techno-utopia communism" is less valid than vegetarianism, ecological conscience, feminism, etc? Any other social agenda born of a moral stance?
Yes. Because any advocacy for a future-state is path dependent, and when the stance you're taking requires loopy assumptions, loopy assertions, and loopy solutions to unlikely and unrealized potential problems, with clearly loopy logical leaps, that stance is laughable at best.
nbohr1more on 18/9/2011 at 18:18
Wasn't it you who explained that we must hold to the less precise (and therefore, less predictive) mathematical models of what markets will do because "it's the best method we've got" ?
What do futurists say about the ongoing progress in the areas of Robotics, AI, Biotech and Nanotech?
Are their predictions less valid than those forged by economists' ? As a man of trends, surely you must have seen the shift from a production economy to a services economy? Do you suppose these trends will change?
As time moves forward, will we eventually need MORE labor or less?
Will things be more automated or less?
The question of how to deal with that eventuality is not loopy.
It is a moral choice.
Rebuild the system for it. Or let them starve and die.
