|
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 March 11 2021 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote: Those are different things as I understand them. I'm an advocate of communism (so I reject both), but I'd hope we at least eliminate earthbound absolute poverty (this doesn't mean there is no economic inequality) before having people off earth living in absolute poverty (or struggling to simply live a dignified life imo). It's a sad statement on our society that it's probably so much easier for us to imagine luxury space hotels staffed with people that can't afford to leave them than an earth where everyone has food, water, clothing, shelter, sanitation, education, and healthcare even if they can't find another job after being replaced by a robot.
I understand the idea that humanity spends a lot of time on luxury and non-critical advancements before all of the critical stuff is done. I used to think that most realms of science and engineering should just be abolished so that scientists could instead focus on more critical issues.
Previously, I believed these 3 things should be the only permissible scientific endeavors aside from critical stuff like medicine:
1. Carbon capture
2. Desalination
3. Cold fusion
Once I made it through grad school, I realized that a ton of work being done in the world is driven by passion and enthusiasm and that a lot of people do significantly worse work when it is something they aren't naturally driven by. Some people are truly obsessed with frogs. And after working in research for a while, I realized there are numerous times where someone's obsessive, seemingly unrelated work becomes critical for something I am working on. The amount of accidental collaboration is surprisingly high and I started to wonder if its possible we are still working well towards those 3 things. I would prefer a system significantly more structured and forceful, but I have realized our current system isn't *quite* as wasteful as I used to think.
That being said, almost all work done in the financial sector needs to be shot in the head. We simply should not have mathematicians working on computational finance and other similar "how can we invent weird things to trade" work. It absolutely is a complete waste of humanity and I do not believe people should have the right to pursue that kind of work. I think it is an abomination and a major point of shame for our species.
|
If we are talking about stuff to cut, i can offer a bunch of additional things which don't really add anything to society. Top of the line are people whose only job it is to fight other people of the same profession. These can be soldiers or lawyers. You need them, because if you don't have them, you get fucked over by people who have them. But they don't actually add to the pie, they just change the distribution of it. Which i think is a huge waste of human effort. But a lot of the banking stuff is also up there.
|
On March 12 2021 04:53 Simberto wrote:
If we are talking about stuff to cut, i can offer a bunch of additional things which don't really add anything to society. Top of the line are people whose only job it is to fight other people of the same profession. These can be soldiers or lawyers. You need them, because if you don't have them, you get fucked over by people who have them. But they don't actually add to the pie, they just change the distribution of it. Which i think is a huge waste of human effort. But a lot of the banking stuff is also up there.
Would the criminal justice system really be viable without any prosecutors or defense attorneys?
|
|
|
Something I found interesting from work:
https://www.sap.com/integrated-reports/2020/en.html
Because of covid and all the related WFH, lack of travel etc, we've reduced carbon emissions from a projected 238kt to 135kt in 2020 (300kt in 2019). It's a pretty gigantic shift for a company our size. I'm presuming most other high-tech companies to see similar savings (Google, Apple etc), where most of the workforce can effectively work remotely.
We'll see if this continues into the future, but covid was probably the single biggest influencer in our carbon emissions in the last 20-30 years (I guess bitcoin might be close here)
|
On March 12 2021 05:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2021 04:53 Simberto wrote:
If we are talking about stuff to cut, i can offer a bunch of additional things which don't really add anything to society. Top of the line are people whose only job it is to fight other people of the same profession. These can be soldiers or lawyers. You need them, because if you don't have them, you get fucked over by people who have them. But they don't actually add to the pie, they just change the distribution of it. Which i think is a huge waste of human effort. But a lot of the banking stuff is also up there. Would the criminal justice system really be viable without any prosecutors or defense attorneys?
I think there are times when law is used as a weapon and times when law is useful. Weaponized lawyers from dueling billion dollar companies is pure waste.
|
On March 12 2021 05:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2021 05:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 12 2021 04:53 Simberto wrote:
If we are talking about stuff to cut, i can offer a bunch of additional things which don't really add anything to society. Top of the line are people whose only job it is to fight other people of the same profession. These can be soldiers or lawyers. You need them, because if you don't have them, you get fucked over by people who have them. But they don't actually add to the pie, they just change the distribution of it. Which i think is a huge waste of human effort. But a lot of the banking stuff is also up there. Would the criminal justice system really be viable without any prosecutors or defense attorneys? I think there are times when law is weapon used and times when law is useful. Weaponized lawyers from dueling billion dollar companies is pure waste.
From the inside looking out, I agree with this.
|
On March 12 2021 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2021 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:We'll always have poor people or
lower end classes on earth. Those are different things as I understand them. I'm an advocate of communism (so I reject both), but I'd hope we at least eliminate earthbound absolute poverty (this doesn't mean there is no economic inequality) before having people off earth living in absolute poverty (or struggling to simply live a dignified life imo). It's a sad statement on our society that it's probably so much easier for us to imagine luxury space hotels staffed with people that can't afford to leave them than an earth where everyone has food, water, clothing, shelter, sanitation, education, and healthcare even if they can't find another job after being replaced by a robot. I understand the idea that humanity spends a lot of time on luxury and non-critical advancements before all of the critical stuff is done. I used to think that most realms of science and engineering should just be abolished so that scientists could instead focus on more critical issues. Previously, I believed these 3 things should be the only permissible scientific endeavors aside from critical stuff like medicine: 1. Carbon capture 2. Desalination 3. Cold fusion Once I made it through grad school, I realized that a ton of work being done in the world is driven by passion and enthusiasm and that a lot of people do significantly worse work when it is something they aren't naturally driven by. Some people are truly obsessed with frogs. And after working in research for a while, I realized there are numerous times where someone's obsessive, seemingly unrelated work becomes critical for something I am working on. The amount of accidental collaboration is surprisingly high and I started to wonder if its possible we are still working well towards those 3 things. I would prefer a system significantly more structured and forceful, but I have realized our current system isn't *quite* as wasteful as I used to think. That being said, almost all work done in the financial sector needs to be shot in the head. We simply should not have mathematicians working on computational finance and other similar "how can we invent weird things to trade" work. It absolutely is a complete waste of humanity and I do not believe people should have the right to pursue that kind of work. I think it is an abomination and a major point of shame for our species.
I agree. Unfortunately the obsession with monetary wealth and power (extending beyond the financial sector) has driven us to unimaginably horrific ends. So much so, the grotesque reality that kids in the wealthiest country on the planet don't have reliably safe drinking water at school/home is treated as if it is unavoidable and something we'll eventually get to rather than consequences of our choices as a society/country and fundamentally unacceptable (as well as a crime against humanity, but hardly the worst from the US imo).
Edit: I'd add that my concern/argument extends beyond the very obviously necessary and achievable 21st century goal of the wealthiest country on the planet providing its children reliably safe drinking water, but I chose something so rudimentary and necessary to life as well as fully achievable now/in the past to make the point as clear as I could.
|
Northern Ireland26070 Posts
On March 12 2021 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2021 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:On March 11 2021 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:We'll always have poor people or
lower end classes on earth. Those are different things as I understand them. I'm an advocate of communism (so I reject both), but I'd hope we at least eliminate earthbound absolute poverty (this doesn't mean there is no economic inequality) before having people off earth living in absolute poverty (or struggling to simply live a dignified life imo). It's a sad statement on our society that it's probably so much easier for us to imagine luxury space hotels staffed with people that can't afford to leave them than an earth where everyone has food, water, clothing, shelter, sanitation, education, and healthcare even if they can't find another job after being replaced by a robot. I understand the idea that humanity spends a lot of time on luxury and non-critical advancements before all of the critical stuff is done. I used to think that most realms of science and engineering should just be abolished so that scientists could instead focus on more critical issues. Previously, I believed these 3 things should be the only permissible scientific endeavors aside from critical stuff like medicine: 1. Carbon capture 2. Desalination 3. Cold fusion Once I made it through grad school, I realized that a ton of work being done in the world is driven by passion and enthusiasm and that a lot of people do significantly worse work when it is something they aren't naturally driven by. Some people are truly obsessed with frogs. And after working in research for a while, I realized there are numerous times where someone's obsessive, seemingly unrelated work becomes critical for something I am working on. The amount of accidental collaboration is surprisingly high and I started to wonder if its possible we are still working well towards those 3 things. I would prefer a system significantly more structured and forceful, but I have realized our current system isn't *quite* as wasteful as I used to think. That being said, almost all work done in the financial sector needs to be shot in the head. We simply should not have mathematicians working on computational finance and other similar "how can we invent weird things to trade" work. It absolutely is a complete waste of humanity and I do not believe people should have the right to pursue that kind of work. I think it is an abomination and a major point of shame for our species. I agree. Unfortunately the obsession with monetary wealth and power (extending beyond the financial sector) has driven us to unimaginably horrific ends. So much so, the grotesque reality that kids in the wealthiest country on the planet don't have reliably safe drinking water at school/home is treated as if it is unavoidable and something we'll eventually get to rather than consequences of our choices as a society/country and fundamentally unacceptable (as well as a crime against humanity, but hardly the worst from the US imo). Edit: I'd add that my concern/argument extends beyond the very obviously necessary and achievable 21st century goal of the wealthiest country on the planet providing its children reliably safe drinking water, but I chose something so rudimentary and necessary to life as well as fully achievable now/in the past to make the point as clear as I could.
The strange disconnect to me being if you ask most people what they value and want out of life there’s usually rather a lot of desire for social interactions, novel experiences, time to pursue one’s passions etc.
Wanting to have more money to buy more things, beyond a certain level of base comfort doesn’t feature too heavily, but suggesting a level of retooling things to facilitate the former and you get a kind of defeatist ‘it can’t be done’, or more bizarrely that greed is human nature from the very folk who’ve just said accumulation of wealth isn’t one of their main drivers.
While I’m not exactly a massive fan of capitalism to put it lightly, even within that framework there’s still considerable room to make things appreciably better for a good many people.
|
Sister who works at the Fed Res says to be on the lookout for Biden Bucks to hit this weekend.
|
On March 12 2021 07:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2021 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 12 2021 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:On March 11 2021 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:We'll always have poor people or
lower end classes on earth. Those are different things as I understand them. I'm an advocate of communism (so I reject both), but I'd hope we at least eliminate earthbound absolute poverty (this doesn't mean there is no economic inequality) before having people off earth living in absolute poverty (or struggling to simply live a dignified life imo). It's a sad statement on our society that it's probably so much easier for us to imagine luxury space hotels staffed with people that can't afford to leave them than an earth where everyone has food, water, clothing, shelter, sanitation, education, and healthcare even if they can't find another job after being replaced by a robot. I understand the idea that humanity spends a lot of time on luxury and non-critical advancements before all of the critical stuff is done. I used to think that most realms of science and engineering should just be abolished so that scientists could instead focus on more critical issues. Previously, I believed these 3 things should be the only permissible scientific endeavors aside from critical stuff like medicine: 1. Carbon capture 2. Desalination 3. Cold fusion Once I made it through grad school, I realized that a ton of work being done in the world is driven by passion and enthusiasm and that a lot of people do significantly worse work when it is something they aren't naturally driven by. Some people are truly obsessed with frogs. And after working in research for a while, I realized there are numerous times where someone's obsessive, seemingly unrelated work becomes critical for something I am working on. The amount of accidental collaboration is surprisingly high and I started to wonder if its possible we are still working well towards those 3 things. I would prefer a system significantly more structured and forceful, but I have realized our current system isn't *quite* as wasteful as I used to think. That being said, almost all work done in the financial sector needs to be shot in the head. We simply should not have mathematicians working on computational finance and other similar "how can we invent weird things to trade" work. It absolutely is a complete waste of humanity and I do not believe people should have the right to pursue that kind of work. I think it is an abomination and a major point of shame for our species. I agree. Unfortunately the obsession with monetary wealth and power (extending beyond the financial sector) has driven us to unimaginably horrific ends. So much so, the grotesque reality that kids in the wealthiest country on the planet don't have reliably safe drinking water at school/home is treated as if it is unavoidable and something we'll eventually get to rather than consequences of our choices as a society/country and fundamentally unacceptable (as well as a crime against humanity, but hardly the worst from the US imo). Edit: I'd add that my concern/argument extends beyond the very obviously necessary and achievable 21st century goal of the wealthiest country on the planet providing its children reliably safe drinking water, but I chose something so rudimentary and necessary to life as well as fully achievable now/in the past to make the point as clear as I could. The strange disconnect to me being if you ask most people what they value and want out of life there’s usually rather a lot of desire for social interactions, novel experiences, time to pursue one’s passions etc. Wanting to have more money to buy more things, beyond a certain level of base comfort doesn’t feature too heavily, but suggesting a level of retooling things to facilitate the former and you get a kind of defeatist ‘it can’t be done’, or more bizarrely that greed is human nature from the very folk who’ve just said accumulation of wealth isn’t one of their main drivers. While I’m not exactly a massive fan of capitalism to put it lightly, even within that framework there’s still considerable room to make things appreciably better for a good many people.
The early science also supports the idea that increased wealth beyond having your material needs met (perhaps a bit fancier than people would accept those who don't/are unable to work having) doesn't make you happier (and probably makes you less satisfied.
+ Show Spoiler +That's the conclusion of a recent study that found $105,000 to be the ideal income for life satisfaction in Northern America. Earnings past that point tended to coincide with a lower levels of happiness and well-being, researchers found.
...exact satiation points would vary depending on just where a person resides within a Northern America, the authors said.
The research follows a much-discussed 2010 study from Princeton University that found emotional well-being only rises with income to a point of about $75,000 for Americans (or $86,000 in today's dollars).
But the Purdue study goes further, its authors said, using more precise income figures from around the world and accounting for household size. www.usatoday.com
I think Kwark nailed it a while ago.
Consider the practice of decimation of the Roman Legion. Divide it into groups of ten, have them draw lots, and then the nine lucky members beat the unlucky tenth to death with clubs. It might have been rational for the group to collectively refuse, after all, it's five thousand heavily armed soldiers, it's pretty hard to make them do anything they don't want to do. But they're all hoping that they won't be the unlucky one, the only ones arguing for solidarity and resistance are the ones who have already drawn short straws, and their luckier comrades gain nothing from listening to them. They've already survived the decimation, the last thing they need is another display of insubordination.
If we mostly have our material needs met and/or feel they are in reach, we feel we have little-nothing to gain (and a lot to lose) from really reconciling our ostensible worldview with realities like children not having reliably safe water drinking water in the wealthiest country ever.
So we come up with endless (and often contradictory as you point out) rationalizations (which is one reason why I picked such a naked example) for why our role in the perpetuation of these vicious cycles of exploitation and terror (eventually we recognize neutrality/empty hope it'll get better over time is a cruel illusion in the face of oppression) doesn't implicate our morality, dignity, and/or socioeconomic position.
Given a choice between confronting a lifetime (whatever length that's been/will be for us) of helping (however unwittingly) to perpetuate such a system/society that still fails to meet such basic human needs as ensuring their children have reliably safe drinking water (while one person has more personal wealth than cost-estimates to get the kids the water) while risking whatever comfort we've found in it
OR
Enjoying/securing/celebrating that comfort (or increasingly just basic relief) and dignity even if that means some 'decimation', I think it helps to understand why people turn on each other (especially anyone trying to rally them) rather than the tool pressuring us to kill each other.
|
This idea of having more people give out vaccines is genius. I totally love this.
|
After Biden’s speech today, I’d like to once again rub people’s face in the fact that they were saying he was not mentally fit for office
|
Hmm... There is a very final balance act between giving the vaccine to as many as possible and feeding the far too many anti-vaxxers.
I don't know how hard it is to get the right dosis in the right place, but I know getting the maximum amount of dosis out of each vial can be pretty complicated.
|
On March 12 2021 15:18 Mohdoo wrote:
After Biden’s speech today, I’d like to once again rub people’s face in the fact that they were saying he was not mentally fit for office
Well it was always cheap republican propaganda, but lots of people are not too regarding when it's about attacking someone they don't like.
On a related note, the amount of narratives that simply don't hold water anymore but that people cling on to because they have invested too much into it is also quite impressive.
|
Northern Ireland26070 Posts
On March 12 2021 15:18 Mohdoo wrote:
After Biden’s speech today, I’d like to once again rub people’s face in the fact that they were saying he was not mentally fit for office
Still not morally fit though :p
|
On March 12 2021 17:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2021 15:18 Mohdoo wrote:
After Biden’s speech today, I’d like to once again rub people’s face in the fact that they were saying he was not mentally fit for office Well it was always cheap republican propaganda, but lots of people are not too regarding when it's about attacking someone they don't like. On a related note, the amount of narratives that simply don't hold water anymore but that people cling on to because they have invested too much into it is also quite impressive.
And that’s why it’s so important we don’t let people get away with it. It’s easy to spew bullshit when it’s easy for their narrative. Then once it’s debunked they try to pretend it never happened. Nope. All the far left shit bags who would say anything to get Bernie in office deserve to be shamed for their nonsense. I would have preferred Bernie too but there are right and wrong ways to behave during an election. People need to not feel like it’s totally free to shit out of their mouths
|
On March 12 2021 17:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2021 15:18 Mohdoo wrote:
After Biden’s speech today, I’d like to once again rub people’s face in the fact that they were saying he was not mentally fit for office Still not morally fit though :p
exactly. anyone sleepy and woke at the same time is morally suspect.
|
Northern Ireland26070 Posts
On March 12 2021 18:38 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2021 17:29 WombaT wrote:On March 12 2021 15:18 Mohdoo wrote:
After Biden’s speech today, I’d like to once again rub people’s face in the fact that they were saying he was not mentally fit for office Still not morally fit though :p exactly. anyone sleepy and woke at the same time is morally suspect.
Oh god, it was bad enough hearing he was senile, now I’m hearing he’s some sort of 4th dimensional Eldritch horror beyond our puny mortal conceptions of time?
Still preferable to Trump mind.
But yeah Mohdoo the senility stuff was a huge stretch and something I just generally dislike, along with amateur diagnoses of public figures with mental illness/personality disorders etc. Certainly not a train I was on anyway.
The only caveat to that is if Biden was going senile or what have you that IMO plenty of the DNC establishment would still have pushed him forward as a candidate anyway.
|
On March 12 2021 17:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2021 15:18 Mohdoo wrote:
After Biden’s speech today, I’d like to once again rub people’s face in the fact that they were saying he was not mentally fit for office Well it was always cheap republican propaganda, but lots of people are not too regarding when it's about attacking someone they don't like. On a related note, the amount of narratives that simply don't hold water anymore but that people cling on to because they have invested too much into it is also quite impressive.
If anyone is heavily invested in any narrative, it takes a lot of courage to give it up, the easy ways out are often to ignore it or resort to whataboutism. I can easily see a scenario where Bernie were elected president, but ended up splintering the democratic block and causing a decadelong red wave, undoing everything he somehow achieved. Would you still think Bernie was a good choice?
I dont' see a big difference between how democrats united to elect Biden and how republicans united to elect Trump. It is the nature of the system, and nothing to be upset about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
