|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet)
That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club.
That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself.
Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on.
On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. I don't understand why you think we need to remove selfishness Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others. But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment.
For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it.
Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond:
"often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse"
|
On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. I don't understand why you think we need to remove selfishness Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others. But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment.
Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution.
|
On July 21 2019 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. I don't understand why you think we need to remove selfishness Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others. But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution. Getting a system that doesn't suffer from exploitation that is going to get worse as time goes on is, imo, impossible. Getting something that is better then what we have now is possible but risky and, based on recent history, unlikely.
|
On July 21 2019 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. [quote] www.scientificamerican.com What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. I don't understand why you think we need to remove selfishness Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others. But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution. Getting a system that doesn't suffer from exploitation that is going to get worse as time goes on is, imo, impossible. Getting something that is better then what we have now is possible but risky and, based on recent history, unlikely.
I don't think I'm understanding you here, sorry. Could you rephrase and maybe expand a little bit?
|
On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. I don't understand why you think we need to remove selfishness Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others. But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality.
I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone.
You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse.
Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives.
|
On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. [quote] www.scientificamerican.com What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. I don't understand why you think we need to remove selfishness Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others. But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives.
No one is arguing for a blind revolution?
I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives.
Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water).
The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed.
We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it).
|
"incremental change" is also something that needs to be defined a little more specifically. "I want the government to give incentives for companies to be organized in worker cooperatives" is an incremental change, and it's quite different from "I want more women prison guards", also an incremental change. There's a plurality of possible views hiding behind that terminology.
|
On July 21 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]What do you think is more likely?
All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. I don't understand why you think we need to remove selfishness Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others. But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. No one is arguing for a blind revolution? Show nested quote +I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water). The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed. We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it). Did I miss the conversation where you expanded on how your revolution would work and what systems would be put in place afterwards that lead to a better future? Entirely possible, I don't read everything. Last I saw it was still 'We need to have a revolution, we'll worry about the finer details afterwards', which is, imo, a recipe for disaster. And not just for 'white club'.
|
On July 21 2019 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]What do you think is more likely?
All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. I don't understand why you think we need to remove selfishness Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others. But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution. Getting a system that doesn't suffer from exploitation that is going to get worse as time goes on is, imo, impossible. Getting something that is better then what we have now is possible but risky and, based on recent history, unlikely. I don't think I'm understanding you here, sorry. Could you rephrase and maybe expand a little bit? I think any system run by people is eventually going to suffer from groups being marginalised and exploited for the benefit of others and that as time goes on that divide will get bigger and bigger.
We might come up with a new system to replace capitalism that is 'better' for a while but as time goes on and greedy/selfish people get into places where they can enrich themselves and their friends the same problems will inevitably crop up and grow bigger over time.
A long term solution where this doesn't happen is, imo, impossible because we will always have greedy/selfish/powerhungry people.
|
Norway28665 Posts
For the people saying the revolution inevitably leads to disaster (at least unless the how to get there is thoroughly mapped out), are you also supplying a mapping out of how incremental improvement will (not 'may as a consequence of yet unknown technology') solve our impending disaster?
I mean I am definitely more of an incrementalist myself, but I'm not sure whether it's out of selfishness or what I believe is best for humanity/the world on a reasonably long term scale. Like, I think it was a good thing that the french revolution happened - but I wouldn't want to live through it, especially in my current position where I'm certainly much more part of a global aristocracy than I am an impoverished peasant. I don't want to neglect or diminish the consequences of what an actual revolution could be likely to entail (I think war is pretty bad for the environment too, tbh), but I'm also not sure incremental improvement will see us stay below 2.5+ degrees, and I think the consequences of 3+ are hard to distinguish from the consequences of violent revolution.
|
On July 21 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you think we need to remove selfishness Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others. But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution. Getting a system that doesn't suffer from exploitation that is going to get worse as time goes on is, imo, impossible. Getting something that is better then what we have now is possible but risky and, based on recent history, unlikely. I don't think I'm understanding you here, sorry. Could you rephrase and maybe expand a little bit? I think any system run by people is eventually going to suffer from groups being marginalised and exploited for the benefit of others and that as time goes on that divide will get bigger and bigger. We might come up with a new system to replace capitalism that is 'better' for a while but as time goes on and greedy/selfish people get into places where they can enrich themselves and their friends the same problems will inevitably crop up and grow bigger over time. A long term solution where this doesn't happen is, imo, impossible because we will always have greedy/selfish/powerhungry people.
Well the idea isn't that we change the system and then everything is fine. The idea is that we change the system and then we keep fighting. I think it's okay. I'm fine with a good fight.
What I'm not getting from you is the connexion between "people will still try and exploit people in another system" and "therefore this system entirely based on exploitation isn't worth changing". To IgnE's point from a while back we might benefit from having a different word for the exploitation of minorities specifically, as it's important not to lose sight of the fact that every single worker is exploited under capitalism.
|
On July 21 2019 01:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:
For the people saying the revolution inevitably leads to disaster (at least unless the how to get there is thoroughly mapped out), are you also supplying a mapping out of how incremental improvement will (not 'may as a consequence of yet unknown technology') solve our impending disaster?
I mean I am definitely more of an incrementalist myself, but I'm not sure whether it's out of selfishness or what I believe is best for humanity/the world on a reasonably long term scale. Like, I think it was a good thing that the french revolution happened - but I wouldn't want to live through it, especially in my current position where I'm certainly much more part of a global aristocracy than I am an impoverished peasant. I don't want to neglect or diminish the consequences of what an actual revolution could be likely to entail (I think war is pretty bad for the environment too, tbh), but I'm also not sure incremental improvement will see us stay below 2.5+ degrees, and I think the consequences of 3+ are hard to distinguish from the consequences of violent revolution. I personally think that ship has sailed. Incremental changes aren't going to do enough but no revolution would either.
It would take a large global effort, the US deciding to take it super serious starting today wouldn't be enough right?
|
On July 21 2019 01:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:
For the people saying the revolution inevitably leads to disaster (at least unless the how to get there is thoroughly mapped out), are you also supplying a mapping out of how incremental improvement will (not 'may as a consequence of yet unknown technology') solve our impending disaster?
I mean I am definitely more of an incrementalist myself, but I'm not sure whether it's out of selfishness or what I believe is best for humanity/the world on a reasonably long term scale. Like, I think it was a good thing that the french revolution happened - but I wouldn't want to live through it, especially in my current position where I'm certainly much more part of a global aristocracy than I am an impoverished peasant. I don't want to neglect or diminish the consequences of what an actual revolution could be likely to entail (I think war is pretty bad for the environment too, tbh), but I'm also not sure incremental improvement will see us stay below 2.5+ degrees, and I think the consequences of 3+ are hard to distinguish from the consequences of violent revolution.
I don't think it's helpful for socialists to choose between incrementalism and revolution. Like, if you ask me, incrementalism is probably the most likely way to get somewhere given that we already have an excellent tool for leftwing ideas, which is democracy (although GH's point that we are pressed for time now and that incrementalism demands more time is also taken). But regardless I would definitely take a revolution.
As I said in the last post I think the main problem with incrementalism is that it's framed as "we have the same goal with different methods", and that's not actually true, really. A lot of people who talk about incrementalism don't have the same goal, for example a lot of them want to maintain the social hierarchy of capitalism but make the exploitation of the lower classes more bearable for humans. That's not the same goal, that's social democracy, which is definitely better than liberalism but is still not what I'd settle for. You could still be a left-leaning liberal, not even a social democrat, and reasonably say that you want some "incremental change", for example in representation of minorities.
|
On July 21 2019 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others.
But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution. Getting a system that doesn't suffer from exploitation that is going to get worse as time goes on is, imo, impossible. Getting something that is better then what we have now is possible but risky and, based on recent history, unlikely. I don't think I'm understanding you here, sorry. Could you rephrase and maybe expand a little bit? I think any system run by people is eventually going to suffer from groups being marginalised and exploited for the benefit of others and that as time goes on that divide will get bigger and bigger. We might come up with a new system to replace capitalism that is 'better' for a while but as time goes on and greedy/selfish people get into places where they can enrich themselves and their friends the same problems will inevitably crop up and grow bigger over time. A long term solution where this doesn't happen is, imo, impossible because we will always have greedy/selfish/powerhungry people. Well the idea isn't that we change the system and then everything is fine. The idea is that we change the system and then we keep fighting. I think it's okay. I'm fine with a good fight. What I'm not getting from you is the connexion between "people will still try and exploit people in another system" and "therefore this system entirely based on exploitation isn't worth changing". To IgnE's point from a while back we might benefit from having a different word for the exploitation of minorities specifically, as it's important not to lose sight of the fact that every single worker is exploited under capitalism. Capitalism indeed exploits everyone but I think its undeniable that at the same time capitalism has done more to improve the standard of living for everyone then any other system.
Despite the many flaws of capitalism I haven't heard of a practical system that works better.
(Note that I do believe the government should be heavily involved to keep the excesses of capitalism under control, to pre-empt talk of socialism)
|
On July 21 2019 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution. Getting a system that doesn't suffer from exploitation that is going to get worse as time goes on is, imo, impossible. Getting something that is better then what we have now is possible but risky and, based on recent history, unlikely. I don't think I'm understanding you here, sorry. Could you rephrase and maybe expand a little bit? I think any system run by people is eventually going to suffer from groups being marginalised and exploited for the benefit of others and that as time goes on that divide will get bigger and bigger. We might come up with a new system to replace capitalism that is 'better' for a while but as time goes on and greedy/selfish people get into places where they can enrich themselves and their friends the same problems will inevitably crop up and grow bigger over time. A long term solution where this doesn't happen is, imo, impossible because we will always have greedy/selfish/powerhungry people. Well the idea isn't that we change the system and then everything is fine. The idea is that we change the system and then we keep fighting. I think it's okay. I'm fine with a good fight. What I'm not getting from you is the connexion between "people will still try and exploit people in another system" and "therefore this system entirely based on exploitation isn't worth changing". To IgnE's point from a while back we might benefit from having a different word for the exploitation of minorities specifically, as it's important not to lose sight of the fact that every single worker is exploited under capitalism. Capitalism indeed exploits everyone but I think its undeniable that at the same time capitalism has done more to improve the standard of living for everyone then any other system. Despite the many flaws of capitalism I haven't heard of a practical system that works better. (Note that I do believe the government should be heavily involved to keep the excesses of capitalism under control, to pre-empt talk of socialism)
Do you think the specific thing that would change from capitalism to socialism is responsible for the improvement that you speak of?
|
On July 21 2019 01:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]But that is pretty much where we are now.
And apparently things are not ok.
I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution. Getting a system that doesn't suffer from exploitation that is going to get worse as time goes on is, imo, impossible. Getting something that is better then what we have now is possible but risky and, based on recent history, unlikely. I don't think I'm understanding you here, sorry. Could you rephrase and maybe expand a little bit? I think any system run by people is eventually going to suffer from groups being marginalised and exploited for the benefit of others and that as time goes on that divide will get bigger and bigger. We might come up with a new system to replace capitalism that is 'better' for a while but as time goes on and greedy/selfish people get into places where they can enrich themselves and their friends the same problems will inevitably crop up and grow bigger over time. A long term solution where this doesn't happen is, imo, impossible because we will always have greedy/selfish/powerhungry people. Well the idea isn't that we change the system and then everything is fine. The idea is that we change the system and then we keep fighting. I think it's okay. I'm fine with a good fight. What I'm not getting from you is the connexion between "people will still try and exploit people in another system" and "therefore this system entirely based on exploitation isn't worth changing". To IgnE's point from a while back we might benefit from having a different word for the exploitation of minorities specifically, as it's important not to lose sight of the fact that every single worker is exploited under capitalism. Capitalism indeed exploits everyone but I think its undeniable that at the same time capitalism has done more to improve the standard of living for everyone then any other system. Despite the many flaws of capitalism I haven't heard of a practical system that works better. (Note that I do believe the government should be heavily involved to keep the excesses of capitalism under control, to pre-empt talk of socialism) Do you think the specific thing that would change from capitalism to socialism is responsible for the improvement that you speak of? Are you talking about government intervention?
Its a part of it for sure, as seen by the generally higher standard of living in more socialist countries but the underlying bases for the economy and the prosperity that goes with it is still capitalism.
You can take the socialism out of Europe and you get the US.
You can take the capitalism out of Europe and you get China from several decades ago.
To paint a very very rough picture.
But, imo, you don't need a revolution to increase socialism in America.
|
On July 21 2019 02:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 01:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system.
Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution. Getting a system that doesn't suffer from exploitation that is going to get worse as time goes on is, imo, impossible. Getting something that is better then what we have now is possible but risky and, based on recent history, unlikely. I don't think I'm understanding you here, sorry. Could you rephrase and maybe expand a little bit? I think any system run by people is eventually going to suffer from groups being marginalised and exploited for the benefit of others and that as time goes on that divide will get bigger and bigger. We might come up with a new system to replace capitalism that is 'better' for a while but as time goes on and greedy/selfish people get into places where they can enrich themselves and their friends the same problems will inevitably crop up and grow bigger over time. A long term solution where this doesn't happen is, imo, impossible because we will always have greedy/selfish/powerhungry people. Well the idea isn't that we change the system and then everything is fine. The idea is that we change the system and then we keep fighting. I think it's okay. I'm fine with a good fight. What I'm not getting from you is the connexion between "people will still try and exploit people in another system" and "therefore this system entirely based on exploitation isn't worth changing". To IgnE's point from a while back we might benefit from having a different word for the exploitation of minorities specifically, as it's important not to lose sight of the fact that every single worker is exploited under capitalism. Capitalism indeed exploits everyone but I think its undeniable that at the same time capitalism has done more to improve the standard of living for everyone then any other system. Despite the many flaws of capitalism I haven't heard of a practical system that works better. (Note that I do believe the government should be heavily involved to keep the excesses of capitalism under control, to pre-empt talk of socialism) Do you think the specific thing that would change from capitalism to socialism is responsible for the improvement that you speak of? Are you talking about government intervention? Its a part of it for sure, as seen by the generally higher standard of living in more socialist countries but the underlying bases for the economy and the prosperity that goes with it is still capitalism. You can take the socialism out of Europe and you get the US. You can take the capitalism out of Europe and you get China from several decades ago. To paint a very very rough picture. But, imo, you don't need a revolution to increase socialism in America.
Nope I'm talking about workers owning the means of production instead of the capitalist class.
You can have more or less government intervention under both economic systems.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 21 2019 02:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 02:07 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 02:04 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 01:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution. Getting a system that doesn't suffer from exploitation that is going to get worse as time goes on is, imo, impossible. Getting something that is better then what we have now is possible but risky and, based on recent history, unlikely. I don't think I'm understanding you here, sorry. Could you rephrase and maybe expand a little bit? I think any system run by people is eventually going to suffer from groups being marginalised and exploited for the benefit of others and that as time goes on that divide will get bigger and bigger. We might come up with a new system to replace capitalism that is 'better' for a while but as time goes on and greedy/selfish people get into places where they can enrich themselves and their friends the same problems will inevitably crop up and grow bigger over time. A long term solution where this doesn't happen is, imo, impossible because we will always have greedy/selfish/powerhungry people. Well the idea isn't that we change the system and then everything is fine. The idea is that we change the system and then we keep fighting. I think it's okay. I'm fine with a good fight. What I'm not getting from you is the connexion between "people will still try and exploit people in another system" and "therefore this system entirely based on exploitation isn't worth changing". To IgnE's point from a while back we might benefit from having a different word for the exploitation of minorities specifically, as it's important not to lose sight of the fact that every single worker is exploited under capitalism. Capitalism indeed exploits everyone but I think its undeniable that at the same time capitalism has done more to improve the standard of living for everyone then any other system. Despite the many flaws of capitalism I haven't heard of a practical system that works better. (Note that I do believe the government should be heavily involved to keep the excesses of capitalism under control, to pre-empt talk of socialism) Do you think the specific thing that would change from capitalism to socialism is responsible for the improvement that you speak of? Are you talking about government intervention? Its a part of it for sure, as seen by the generally higher standard of living in more socialist countries but the underlying bases for the economy and the prosperity that goes with it is still capitalism. You can take the socialism out of Europe and you get the US. You can take the capitalism out of Europe and you get China from several decades ago. To paint a very very rough picture. But, imo, you don't need a revolution to increase socialism in America. Nope I'm talking about workers owning the means of production instead of the capitalist class. You can have more or less government intervention under both economic systems. Does workers owning the means of production create equality? How do you keep the successful workers of the production not becoming the new capitalist class?
No it doesn't create equality, nor is it designed to; it stops exploitation from being the core principle at the center of the economic system, which has several direct consequences in terms of equality and inequality (specifically equality of opportunity), but it doesn't "create equality" in the strictest sense.
How can you become the new capitalist class if there's no capitalist class? It's a meaningless objection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
