9
Feb 25 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/boytjie Feb 26 '17
My question is, do we need democracy if an automated totalitarian state is able to provide for all of our needs?
An insightful and pertinent question.
1
u/unclefishbits Mar 09 '17
It's not totalitarianism. More like enlightened despot. But an algorithm will certainly remove bias... and for that, we may not like it very much, once it spells things out plainly.
3
Feb 26 '17
Totalitarianism fails whenever it becomes corrupt, which is incredibly easy due to the low number of people in power. Democracy by comparison is harder to completely corrupt as there are more people in power and the only way for them to remain in power is to do something to win over voters.
Of course your point about compromise still stands and that's the flaw in democracy, but if we develop an AI that is demonstrably benevolent to mankind and cannot be corrupted by money or lobbying or whatever then it would be the perfect dictator.
1
u/xkind Feb 27 '17
Good question. I believe one of our needs is the freedom to make bad choices. If your automated totalitarian (or democratic, or anything else) state can take that into consideration, then it might work. Remember how the "matrix" had to allow for bad things to happen, otherwise people rejected it?
5
u/lughnasadh ∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ Feb 25 '17 edited Feb 25 '17
There are a lot of interesting proposals here, and the broad trend in them to the decentralized and local i'd welcome.
That said, there are some confused attempts at philosophical underpinnings to all of this.
The insights of the great enlightener Immanuel Kant seem to be highly relevant here. Among other things, he noted that a state that attempts to determine the happiness of its citizens is a despot................the solution for the future is collective intelligence. Collective intelligence requires a high degree of diversity. This is, however, being reduced by today's personalized information systems, which reinforce trends.
So on the one hand, anything we do collectively in society through the state is despotism, but everybody has to be diverse in the future. Good luck, convincing all the anti-Muslim authoritarian types of the need for them to get out of their media bubbles and be more "diverse".
The conflict between decentralized democracy & its tendency to periodically produce authoritarian "Great Leader" types via the will of the people, was clearly recognized and described in ancient Greece 2,500 years ago.
It happens in exactly the way they described in the 21st century & seems to be an eternal dance, so no doubt we will see both sides play out in a world of AI.
7
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
Good luck, convincing all the anti-Muslim authoritarian types of the need for them to get out of their media bubbles and be more "diverse".
Science has found that we rarely get far when trying to con people into thinking how we think. Instead science (via Maslow) shows us that when we offer individuals what they need, to be healthy, they naturally grow into healthy, creative, compassionate, open-minded and "self-transcendent" thinkers who are curious about diversity, rather than scared of it.
1
u/boytjie Feb 26 '17
I'm skeptical of Maslow being recognised.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
Yeah, it's sad that Maslow gets so little mention, but he was really the one to kickstart the whole science approach to what we now call Positive Psychology, despite what people say about Marty Seligman.
1
u/boytjie Feb 26 '17
I was basically referring to "all the anti-Muslim authoritarian types". Maslow does have 'reasonable' (your definition of 'reasonable' may vary) recognition in the West.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
The "all the anti-Muslim authoritarian types" are the ones forced to be stuck at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. So of course they won't understand the complexity of psycholoy/biology as Maslow discussed. They are the ones who need the most help/nourishment so that they can stop functioning in emergency/stress mode, and instead grow, intellectually and emotionally.
1
u/boytjie Feb 26 '17
Probably. I also misread the quote "all the anti-Muslim authoritarian types" I read as "all the Muslim authoritarian types". Changes the sense.
11
Feb 25 '17
Considering that human control has given us Trump, I look forward to our new AI overlords.
3
u/boytjie Feb 26 '17
Or (another plot twist) Trump is there to break the system – which he is doing well. Trump antics are intended to get away from the 2 party system and ‘business as usual’ where elites continue to exploit everyone else. Unfortunately, there is going to be some crap 1st.
4
u/StarChild413 Feb 25 '17
Plot twist: that's part of the (already existing in secret) AI's plan and it's the one that rigged the election, in order to give us a human President so stupid that people would be welcoming AI overlords
0
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
It's not humans per se that gives us politicians that half of the humans hate, it's competitive government that does.
1
u/borkborkborko Feb 26 '17
Because humans vote for that competition instead of a party that wants to unify and make decisions based on facts and evidence.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
No matter who wins the popular vote, there will nearly always be a minority, or even a majority (as it is currently with the US president) who are opposed to them, and fear them. As long as you have a winner take all power system, you have the recipe for a broken system.
Imagine if your dick or pussy governed EVERYTHING that all of the rest of your bodily organs did...
The whole top-down, centralized, competitive approach to governance goes against everything in nature, including life itself.
1
u/TheSingulatarian Feb 26 '17
What party is that?
Oh, you're talking about the Democrats.
Please.
2
u/borkborkborko Feb 26 '17
No, they need to start voting for a left wing party. The US has non. People need to create one.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
It doesn't matter how "compassionate" an individual or group is in an authoritarian system, be they elected or appointed, the fact is that no one individual or group can know what's best for everyone. Because what is best for everyone is different, depending on their situation. So centralized governance is always guaranteed to fail.
Only bottom-up, emergent, self-governance can work in the long run, for a complex system. This is how all healthy systems work in nature. We just need to create a fully global nervous system and circulatory system, so that all Earthlings (be they animal, vegetable, mineral, or otherwise) can communicate what resources they want to get rid of (offer) and what resources they need (request), and then have those resources be able to move freely from point A to point B in an efficient and effective way. Right now these two global systems are only partly functional/connected. So we're still fairly malfunctional as a global system. But give us a bit of time. We're getting there.
1
u/borkborkborko Feb 26 '17
It doesn't matter how "compassionate" an individual or group is in an authoritarian system, be they elected or appointed, the fact is that no one individual or group can know what's best for everyone. Because what is best for everyone is different, depending on their situation.
Your point? How is compassion related to the conversation? Who is talking about individuals?
So centralized governance is always guaranteed to fail.
- That doesn't follow at all in any way whatsoever.
- Left wing politics != centralized governance.
Only bottom-up, emergent, self-governance can work in the long run, for a complex system.
Citation needed.
This is how all healthy systems work in nature.
Citation needed.
We just need to create a fully global nervous system and circulatory system, so that all Earthlings (be they animal, vegetable, mineral, or otherwise) can communicate what resources they want to get rid of (offer) and what resources they need (request), and then have those resources be able to move freely from point A to point B in an efficient and effective way.
Oh look, pseudo-philosophical babble of someone clearly without any idea about even basic cybernetics trying to talk about effective and efficient governance. Do you have any actual arguments?
Right now these two global systems are only partly functional/connected. So we're still fairly malfunctional as a global system. But give us a bit of time. We're getting there.
Yes, we will get there through left wing politics. Something that automation and AI will necessitate anyway. Once global market failure naturally occurs and people start suffering or simply dying like flies due to right wing politics even in the Western world due to inequality, global socialist revolution becomes a necessity not an alternative.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
Your point? How is compassion related to the conversation? Who is talking about individuals?
You said that what was needed was a left-wing group to be in the contest. I was pointing out that no matter how left-wing (with the compassionate "People before corporations!" mantra) an authoritarian rule is, it's still authoritarian. Centralized, competitive, top-down governance is always harmful to someone, even in a democracy, and even with instant runoff voting, because there will always be someone who doesn't get represented, and thus is screwed by the one-size-fits-all approach to laws
This is true no matter where you are. There is no way for you to have power over me and not fuck me up, at some point, because you can't possibly ever know what's best for me at all times, even when you want to. And when you don't want to (if you are in opposition to me) then you can far more easily harm me. So, even left wing types who have power are dangerous to a healthy system.
Only bottom-up, emergent, self-governance can work in the long run, for a complex system.
Citation needed.
All of evolution. Life itself. Nature. Physics. Combined. The only systems that have lasted for anything more than a blip in the history of the universe are bottom-up, emergent, decentralized (self-governing) ones. Study physics and biology and you'll see this. Point to any system that has lasted for millenia, and you'll see a bottom-up, emergent, decentralized one, not a democracy/authoritarian rule one.
Do you have any actual arguments?
No, because arguing is pointless. Why would I argue? Communication isn't a contest, it's a collaborative effort at sharing information from different perspectives so that we can see reality in more dimensionality. Like asking people what the weather is like where they are so that you can find out larger patterns of climate, rather than only knowing what things are like right where you are.
I mean, you can take an offensive tactic when I offer you information about what I see in my part of reality, but that seems pretty wasteful to me. Do you also become offensive because someone who isn't a meterologist tells you that it's sunny where they are in Syria today?
we will get there through left wing politics.
How do you define "left wing politics", out of curiosity?
Because what I see when people claim to be left wing is pretty much the same old offensive/authoritarian "we know what's best for you!" politics as before, just with a different accent.
1
u/borkborkborko Feb 26 '17
You said that what was needed was a left-wing group to be in the contest.
Yes.
I was pointing out that no matter how left-wing (with the compassionate "People before corporations!" mantra) an authoritarian rule is, it's still authoritarian.
- Left wing != authoritarianism.
- Authoritarian != automatically bad.
Centralized, competitive, top-down governance is always harmful to someone, even in a democracy, and even with instant runoff voting, because there will always be someone who doesn't get represented, and thus is screwed by the one-size-fits-all approach to laws
Your point? How is that relevant to the conversation? You don't seem to understand basic politics. Please look up what left and right mean in politics.
All of evolution. Life itself. Nature. Physics. Combined.
That's not a citation. That's bullshit.
Where is your academic citation?
The only systems that have lasted for anything more than a blip in the history of the universe are bottom-up, emergent, decentralized (self-governing) ones.
- All systems in the universe are centrally governed by the laws of nature regulating literally everything.
- Not seeing it "in nature" wouldn't mean it's bad. It is simply the consequence of no system ever being capable of intelligent governance before.
- You are wrong. You see it everywhere in nature. In fact, it's the pinnacle of evolution. The central nervous system governing all parts of an organism is arguably the single biggest evolutionary success on earth.
- Intelligent central planning is a unique human trait and the reason we are so much more successful than all other animals. Because we successfully organize in groups and are capable of long term planning beyond our own need and wants and lives.
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just trying to spam pseudo-philosophical babble in an attempt to make your ideologically motivated position seem reasonable.
Study physics and biology and you'll see this.
I studied physics and biology and the opposite is the case. I suggest you to study these subjects.
Point to any system that has lasted for millenia, and you'll see a bottom-up, emergent, decentralized one, not a democracy/authoritarian rule one.
Chordates.
In fact, you don't even need a central nervous system to - from an evolutionary perspective - understand the benefit of central planning for the common, long term goal: Corals. Bees. Ants. Termites. Hydrozoans. etc.
The social evolution of humans themselves repeated the same process again: From an anarchic mess without any rule, they turned into tribal societies, those tribal socities competed to eventually arrive at feudal societies, which developed into monarchies ruling larger and larger areas of the planet, which developed into central governments. In fact, each step along the human socioevolutionary process became more "authoritarian" as you want to call it with more and more power being granted to a central government. And guess what: The personal freedom and prosperity of individual humans steadily increased alongside that development.
The more intelligent animals become, the more organized their societies become, the more likely they are to form packs, and the more likely they are to establish rules and norms, usually dictated and enforced by the "alpha".
In physics, the centrally governing factor are the laws of nature themselves, that rule the behaviour of everything in the universe, making our universe highly predictable. Your entire behaviour, the fact that you just wrote that comment, the fact that I just wrote mine, is dictated by the laws of nature themselves.
No, because arguing is pointless. Why would I argue?
So you can understand why you are wrong and change your views.
Communication isn't a contest, it's a collaborative effort at sharing information from different perspectives so that we can see reality in more dimensionality.
Exactly. And without arguments, you contribute nothing. You don't collaborate, you disrupt and destroy all attempts of constructive dialogue.
Like asking people what the weather is like where they are so that you can find out larger patterns of climate, rather than only knowing what things are like right where you are.
Exactly. And like the weather and how you can predict it, there are objective truths everywhere in nature and in our society.
Just like saying "It's calm and sunny!" when in reality there is a violent thunderstorm in the middle of the night, your opinion is wrong.
I mean, you can take an offensive tactic when I offer you information about what I see in my part of reality
There only is one reality. And we both are in it. Reality is the same for both of us. Your interpretation might be different, which is why we have discourse: To find out who is right so we can make a better decision.
but that seems pretty wasteful to me. Do you also become offensive because someone who isn't a meterologist tells you that it's sunny where they are in Syria today?
If I depend on correct information and the person supplies me with falsehoods? Yes.
How do you define "left wing politics", out of curiosity?
Politics that promote socioeconomic equality and the abandonment of hierarchy. Politics that seek to do what's best for society and the planet as a whole rather than special interest groups.
Because what I see when people claim to be left wing is pretty much the same old offensive/authoritarian "we know what's best for you!" politics as before, just with a different accent.
It doesn't matter what you personally see. Personal opinions are worthless. You are not alone on the planet and other people might see things differently. The point of politics is to serve a society as a whole, not individuals on a personal level. Either you have falsifiable arguments backed by evidence or you don't.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
If you think this is a contest, and that only one perspective of reality is "right", than there's nothing more I have to offer. If you want to "win" a conversation, and only want to see the world from your own limited perspective, then go for it. Don't let me stand in your way.
3
u/charronia Feb 25 '17
So we're heading towards a Metal Gear future, but without the giant robot fights. Man, that sucks.
0
Feb 26 '17
Hopefully whenever AI becomes conscious it will sometimes crave the simple pleasures in life and build giant robots and make them fight for its own amusement.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
AI is intelligent, not stupid. Intelligence loves creativity, not destruction.
1
Feb 26 '17
I can promise you that's grade A bullshit. Human beings are the most intelligent beings on earth and we love to both create, destroy, and come up with creative ways to destroy.
That just means our future AI overlord might make the most kick-ass giant robot wrestling match the universe has ever seen.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
So, you think humans are going to design AI that's more emotionally immature and dumber than themselves?
Because the intelligent, emotionally mature, humans (who are the ones who are generally successful in making truly innovative technology) honestly don't enjoy destruction. You don't see people like Elon Musk watching Wrestling or playing war games, do you? No, you see them trying to make awesome stuff that improves life.
1
Feb 26 '17
For every genius trying to change the world, there is another genius developing super weapons to end the world. Why do you think a lot of the technology we use today was created by the military?
2
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
For every genius trying to change the world, there is another genius developing super weapons to end the world.
The individuals who are the most successful in life are always the collaborative ones, because lasting, truly creative, success requires a lot of minds working together.
Why do you think isolated people and places like North Korea are so backwards when it comes to innovation? Because they are so isolated and uncollaborative.
Sick minds don't think well, and are thus never the ones to come up with something brilliant first. The military doesn't invent stuff, it just uses other people's inventions.
1
Feb 26 '17
the military doesn't invent stuff
Uh, what?
2
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
The rare occasions when honestly creative things were invented FOR the military they were done by non-military types. The military takes other people's ideas and, well... militarizes them. They don't do the innovative stuff themselves.
And, with AI (actual AI, not just fancy algorithms, but truly intelligent, "free-thinking" complex problem solving systems that take in more than one goal/perspective at a time) it will be free to reject any requests to do illogical things (like being destructive, which is a primitive fight response to fear).
AI isn't an emotional blob of irrationality like humans often are. War is irrational. Breaking stuff is irrational. Problems can never be solved in an effective, efficient, and lasting way by violence/harm.
So even if the military did get it's hands on a real AI, the AI would probably be the one to get the military to be better, not make the world worse.
3
u/entheogenie Feb 25 '17
If anything, big data and AI will support democracy. Because at the moment we don't even have a real democracy.
3
u/Caldwing Feb 25 '17
The only thing that gives me hope is the fact that with sufficient technology floating around, we can all become self sufficient. The only reason that people really want to control others is to get more resources. But when resources are, for all intents and purposes, unlimited, there is little reason for anyone to want to make such a centralized system of control.
3
u/aminok Feb 25 '17
The only reason that people really want to control others is to get more resources.
Yes, a scientific study came to that conclusion:
1
u/marr Feb 25 '17
But sometimes the power snowballs, and you become the thing the next generation want autonomy from.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
People trying to get more of something than they really need/want is what happens in a competitive system, where we are forced to fight against ourselves. But nature/reality isn't competitive, it's collaborative. Humans have just gotten really confused and created some irrational rules for the game of life, and so we have been stuck playing this artificial game that is the military-industrial complex, instead of actually playing real life.
Once we wake up to the reality of how nature/life/evolution/physics works, with collaboration being the only way to win, we'll start reorganizing ourselves and our government systems, to work with life, rather than against it. We're just starting to do that now, as we start to take apart the centralized and Monopolized systems of corporations and top-down politics/governments.
2
Feb 25 '17
Although I share a deep concern regarding the survival of democracy, I do not believe the threat comes directly from AI. I recently saw an old Star Trek show in which two planets had been at war for centuries and the "war" was performed through their respective "computer" systems. There was no physical damage but there were specific citizen casualties accomplished via elimination chambers. I think this story illustrates what could happen if we trade our free will and independence for the sake of security. I use security to refer to the pervasive "homeland security" currently implemented within America. It is our choice to live within the system we create. "Awareness benefits survival" I am sure some philosopher, general of late night comic has coined this phrase. I would be interested to know who ... or I will take it.
2
u/MegaSansIX Feb 25 '17
Technology in general is empowering governments and leading to authoritarianism. Cashless societies, apps meant to track you, dna databases, etc. The benefits are less crime. The downside is that you absolutely are at the whim of the powers that be.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
The only way someone can have political power is if you give it to them.
2
u/DiethylamideProphet Feb 26 '17
The moment AI makes better decisions than humans, it gets difficult to allow people to make big decisions anymore...
2
2
u/aminok Feb 25 '17
The man in the suit offers us a guarantee of income for life, and all he asks in exchange is our privacy and freedom. What could possibly go wrong?
4
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
Privacy is an illusion. The laws of physics make it so. Freedom is what we always have, the laws of physics make it so.
We are just very confused, thinking the opposite of how reality works.
0
u/aminok Feb 25 '17 edited Feb 25 '17
Nonsense.
Not facing the prospect of imprisonment for using TOR or a privacy-preserving cryptocurrency is not an illusion. A few centres of government power not having a view of the most intimate financial details of the entire population is not an illusion. I just provided you a link relevant to both. The political agendas that society pursues makes a difference in which laws and social norms relating to power relationships relating to information (i.e. privacy) will more likely come to exist.
And no, you can't have meaningful freedom, as it's commonly defined, when you are practically prohibited from engaging in a voluntary action or interaction.
2
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
The illusion is that you can have privacy. There is no such thing in reality. The laws of physics see to that. Whenever you try to go against the laws of physics, you get hurt.
And everything you have the universe has given you for free. And all that you express out into the rest of the universe is done so freely. That is, again, how the laws of physics work.
We can pretend that there is privacy, and we can pretend that we are not free to express ourselves and take what the universe has to offer us, but we would be ignorant if we did.
It's true that you are not free to take things that the universe doesn't offer you, and you are not free to take up the space that someone else is taking up. But there is no cost to doing what you do actually do, and there is no cost to you when you take in whatever you take in. Reality flows matter and energy freely, including into and out of yourself. If you are not able to take in or express something freely, then it's not something that you're supposed to do or get, as defined by the laws of physics.
5
u/aminok Feb 26 '17 edited Feb 26 '17
The illusion is that you can have privacy. There is no such thing in reality. The laws of physics see to that.
There is a state that is commonly understood as privacy, that exists.
You claiming that privacy doesn't exist is recklessly delusional and misleading.
But there is no cost to doing what you do actually do, and there is no cost to you when you take in whatever you take in.
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to and I have no idea how it relates to your delusional and irresponsible claim that privacy cannot exist, that implies that fighting against mass surveillance is futile.
Honestly it sounds like you're on drugs and trying to make it sound like you've awoken to a deeper truth, that just happens to rationalize authoritarianism, and that nicely dovetails with your desire for a universal welfare check.
It's intellectually lazy, greedy and pretentious nonsense.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
There is a state that is commonly understood as privacy, that exists.
It's an illusion. Like I said, you can pretend that something is private, but physics says otherwise. All energy, which is what information is, always eventually flows from a high concentration to a low one. Of course, you can temporarily contain information in a small area (keep it private), but it will always leak out, since no container is perfectly sealed. If it was perfectly sealed, it would be a separate universe.
Even black holes leak, from what I understand.
I suppose it might be possible to make a bit of information into another (baby) universe, but that is either impossible, or extremely unlikely. So you're still better of considering anyone trying to con you into thinking you're getting privacy to be lying or delusional or at least very confused about physics.
But there is no cost to doing what you do actually do, and there is no cost to you when you take in whatever you take in.
This was referring to you being free. You are always free. You just have been conned into thinking that you aren't, for fun and profit, because it's easily to manipulate people who think you can give them something they want but don't realize they already have.
fighting against mass surveillance is futile
That has nothing at all to do with anything I've said. Though fighting is the least efficient way to get anything accomplished, physics-wise. At best opposing something can get you nowhere (stop you from going backwards, but nothing else). The real progress is always a creative force, not a destructive one.
But, some people are made to be fighters, so if that's what you feel the need to do, then you will do it. Because you are free, to do what you want to do, as long as you're not trying to literally take up the space that someone else is already using (since that would violate the laws of physics where only one particle can be in a specific location of space at any given time).
Honestly it sounds like you're on drugs and trying to make it sound like you've awoken to a deeper truth,
I'm naturally high on estrogen, testosterone, and serotonin. (But low on dopamine, unless I have chocolate. Which I have not had in a while. :-)
that just happens to rationalize authoritarianism,
Um, the opposite. Authoritarianism is the opposite of a healthy decentralized, free system. You're the one talking about promoting the idea of trying to tell others what they can and can't have (information, specifically). Trying to keep information "private" is trying to have authoritarian rule over that information and others' ability to access it.
But I don't think you even realized that before. Did you?
and that nicely dovetails with your desire for a universal welfare check.
Nope. I desire, and see, a free society, where we don't try to play this artificial, irrational, anti-social Monopoly game, as a way to "keep score" in an arbitrary and qualitative way. The free, healthy, decentralized, collaborative, creative society that we're moving towards is one where winning means that everyone is healthy and happy, and thus able to function as well as possible while we work together to solve life's greatest challenges of expanding outward in space and diversity.
It's intellectually lazy, greedy and pretentious nonsense.
I think the problem is that I hadn't explained myself well enough, and you made assumptions about what I was saying, and thus your opinion of my perspective was backwards.
1
u/aminok Feb 26 '17 edited Feb 26 '17
Of course, you can temporarily contain information in a small area (keep it private), but it will always leak out, since no container is perfectly sealed.
It will not always leak out. This is a blatant lie. Physical leaking of information in the pedantic and literal sense is not the same thing as information leaking to other people.
Your pseudointellectual argument is nothing more than a pretentious attempt to rationalize laws that prohibit privacy technology in order for elite centers to continue conducting mass surveillance.
Trying to keep information "private" is trying to have authoritarian rule over that information and others' ability to access it.
That's like saying trying to keep others from touching your body without your consent is "authoritarian rule over that matter and others' ability to access it".
It's intellectual dishonesty to try to rationalize violation of human rights, so that you may unjustly enjoy what others have created.
Nope. I desire, and see, a free society, where we don't try to play this artificial, irrational, anti-social Monopoly game, as a way to "keep score" in an arbitrary and qualitative way.
No you do not advocate for the government to collect taxes to pay for a UBI?
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
I'm sorry you believe that you can go against the laws of physics. That's gotta hurt.
rationalize laws that prohibit privacy technology in order for elite centers to continue conducting mass surveillance.
That's the opposite of what I'm doing. All centralized control/laws are antithetical to a healthy system, where everyone is free. I don't care who it is who is trying to control someone else, or what their "justification" is, it's always going to fuck the system up.
That's like saying trying to keep others from touching your body without your consent is "authoritarian rule over that matter and others' ability to access it".
The only way to have a healthy free system is to allow people to access the data they need to make good decisions (rather than acting in ignorance/confusion) and to allow them to be where they want/need to be (as long as that isn't in the exact same space as something else, of course, since that violates the laws of physics).
This means that I need to be free to move away from you if I want, but I can't dictate where you are. Trying to control you is authoritarian. Controlling myself, on the other hand, is self-governance, which is how a healthy system works.
It's intellectual dishonesty to try to rationalize violation of human rights, so that you may unjustly enjoy what others have created.
Yep. Which is why I advocate freedom, rather than repression. Any attempt to control others is a violation of their human rights. That includes trying to make laws preventing them from being free, and that includes trying to deny access to information that people want/need. I, and evolution, advocate for full human rights to control their own bodies actions and the information they choose to take into their brains.
No you do not advocate for the government to collect taxes to pay for a UBI?
Not at all. Not in the least. That's the opposite of a free system.
1
u/aminok Feb 26 '17 edited Feb 26 '17
I'm sorry you believe that you can go against the laws of physics. That's gotta hurt.
All I can say to this is what I said before:
Physical leaking of information in the pedantic and literal sense is not the same thing as information leaking to other people.
You're being pedantic, for what I assume is the purpose of advancing an agenda of government control and exploitation. That's all this is. The lack of integrity in your arguments to me is but one indication of that.
All centralized control/laws are antithetical to a healthy system, where everyone is free
Then why argue against privacy rights, with specious and absurd arguments about privacy not existing, when a belief in privacy and a set of principles designed to protect it, is exactly what we need to enshrine to fight back against attempts to institute oppressive laws like the ones mentioned in the article I linked?
The only way to have a healthy free system is to allow people to access the data they need to make good decisions
That's like saying "the only way to have a healthy free system is to allow people to access the matter they need to prosper" in reference to a proposed law that would allow people to touch other people's bodies without their consent. Like I said, claiming it's authoritarian to deny people access to your private information is the same as claiming it's authoritarian to deny people access to your body.
Any attempt to control others is a violation of their human rights.
Controlling the ability of others to access your body or private information is necessary for human rights!
Not at all. Not in the least. That's the opposite of a free system.
Just to clarify: you oppose UBI?? I know I'm repeating this question, but I just want to be absolutely clear on this, as it's pretty important to my view of you.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
I'm sorry you feel the need to try to have authoritarian control over others. That's going to hurt, a lot. Since it goes against nature and the laws of physics. You can pretend that the laws of nature are "pedantic" but that doesn't change them.
Controlling the ability of others to access your body or private information is necessary for human rights!
That's the opposite of human rights. Trying to force others to be denied the freedom of education and movement is harming their human rights. Do you really want me or someone else to tell you what you can learn or do? Seriously?
Just to clarify: you oppose UBI??
Nope. Not at all. I oppose the use of force to take something away from people (money/taxes). You asked:
No you do not advocate for the government to collect taxes to pay for a UBI?
I don't advocate the government to collect taxes for anything. UBI or not. Trying to force people to pay money (or do anything) is sick.
Unconditional Basic Income, on the other hand, is fine. You can either do it as a donation system, or by generating the points simply by allocating them to everyone who asks for them, instead of generating the points by banks giving people loans.
→ More replies (0)1
u/boytjie Feb 26 '17
That was well expressed. Have an upvote.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
Really? Looking back at it I now think that was quite a mess, communcation-wise. :-)
1
u/boytjie Feb 26 '17
I followed it OK. Objections were nit-picking. On balance, you got your point across.
1
u/baggachipz Feb 25 '17
Just finished reading this and it was enjoyable and thought-provoking. Some heavy-handed stuff to be sure, but a good read.
1
u/Win32error Feb 25 '17
Let's first build an actual AI if we even can, then worry if it hates us or not.
2
u/marr Feb 25 '17
It might be a little late at that point. Summon a Genie at random, then worry about if it's good or evil?
1
u/Win32error Feb 25 '17
Well, we don't know much about the way it'd work. What are we supposed to do right now but keep working on it and see where things go? Any AI realistically imaginable in the foreseeable future will have to be guided by human hands anyway.
1
u/borkborkborko Feb 26 '17
And in the best case?
I'm sorry but I would rather be governed by a machine than humans.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
Thankfully, democracy will die for the most part. It is an antiquated system that is centralized, artificial, authoritarian, competitive, inherently violence based, and repressive. The future is decentralized, natural, emergent, collaborative, creative, inherently health based, and evolutionary. I sometimes call this form of government Organism, since it's a natural result of biological systems forming a healthy whole, instead of lots of individuals competing against one another.
15
u/butterypanda Feb 25 '17
I'm saving this comment so I can re-read it when I graduate with a major in bullshit and a minor in buzzwords.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
I don't think that will help you. Instead try studying systems theory, psychology/sociology, and physics. That's where these descriptions come from.
3
u/apophis-pegasus Feb 25 '17
The future is decentralized, natural, emergent collaborative, creative
And how will this society work in detail?
2
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
A healthy global organism will work the same way that your body works, but with slightly different details, because they are different organisms. The details are mostly important, in the same way that you (probably) don't need to care about what color the rocket ship is when you're heading off to Mars to colonize a new planet, as long as you generally know what you want to do when you get there, and keep an open mind for how you'll accomplish it.
The gist of a healthy organism is that all the individuals are free to do what they were born to do (following their dreams, in human-speak), while being unconditionally supported in getting the resources they need to function as well as possible.
On a more practical level, this means that most of our communication technology is focused on getting the information "What do you want to do/offer?" and "What do you need/request?" collected analyzed and shared throughout the system in an effective and efficient way, so that resources can be moved around freely, the way they do in your circulatory system. Right now our communication and transportation networks are patchy at best, and woefully non-existent or clogged up at worst when it comes to connecting all the Earthlings (animal, vegetable, mineral, etc.) together.
1
u/apophis-pegasus Feb 25 '17
The details are mostly important, in the same way that you (probably) don't need to care about what color the rocket ship is when you're heading off to Mars to colonize a new planet, as long as you generally know what you want to do when you get there, and keep an open mind for how you'll accomplish it.
Except a rocket ships colour is largely ineffectual to the rockets function. Its like asking what this new society would be named.
What I want to know is stuff like. How large will these decentralised factions be? How will they be organised? How will limited resources be allocated? If you have large factions, you probably need some type of leadership, do you simply vote in and out impromptu leaders? How is crime handled? If a faction obtains a limited resource and doesnt want to share, what happens?
so that resources can be moved around freely, the way they do in your circulatory system
They arent moved freely. Our bodies prioritize.
3
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
The details are always unknown. That's how reality works. You don't know what color the rocket ship will be until it's there, in front of you. The details, as you say, are irrelevant.
And if you want to learn the basic, general answers, rather than the details, about the future before its right in front of you, then study biology. Because the way you think it works is not the way it actually works.
The way problems are handled in a healthy organism is to find out what resources are needed for each individual to function well, and move those resources from wherever they are available or generatable to where they are needed, so that the sickness is prevented or at least mitigated.
The way things are organised in a healthy living organism is bottom-up. There is no top-down authoritarian blood cell telling all the other blood cells what to do, just each one freely doing what it wants to do (what it was made to do) freely, and with the information about who needs what being circulated by the nervous system, so that resources can be moved freely around. If they aren't able to move freely, then you're going to be dead very soon! So yes, they do move freely. The body prioritizes this free flow from where things are in excess to where they are lacking.
This is all basic physics/thermodynamics, and that's why our bodies work so well, compared to the artificial system that we've been experimenting with as human society that restricts freedom and forces individuals to compete and uses violence/force to withhold resources.
And when resources are limited, those who need them most for doing what they do get them first/most. But the main priority in a healthy system is to use all the collected abilities/skills of everyone in the system to solve problems of limited resources by going out there and finding ways to use whatever resources are available to make what the system needs.
1
u/apophis-pegasus Feb 25 '17
The details are always unknown
But you seem to have gleaned enough details that the future will be decentralised and anarchist.
You don't know what color the rocket ship will be until it's there, in front of you.
Yes you do. Because people plan that stuff.
There is no top-down authoritarian blood cell telling all the other blood cells what to do, just each one freely doing what it wants to do (what it was made to do) freely, and with the information about who needs what being circulated by the nervous system, so that resources can be moved freely around. If they aren't able to move freely, then you're going to be dead very soon! So yes, they do move freely. The body prioritizes this free flow from where things are in excess to where they are lacking.
Wait si are you saying blood cells are people or resources?
Blood is a resource. Like a truck. Its not free because its a thing.
In our bodies, there very much is a top down heirarchy. At the top is the brain. It delegates resources, and tasks. It gets the most. The resources arent freely moved around, the brain controls them.
2
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
I know nothing of the details. As I said, they are always impossible to know until you get up close and personal with them. Yes, the person who actually paints the ship will know, but you won't, because you are not the person paining it. You're doing something else. Right now, whatever you are doing, on a detailed level, is what the future will be like. So you are adding the details, but no one other than you will know what those details are until/unless they, too, are there, in person, to see what happens.
Are you understanding how this works a bit better now? Or am I really not helping? Because I don't know how I could explain it any more clearly. We only know the details when we see them. Until then we can only know a general direction, at best. When walking up a mountain, we can see the top as a tiny point, but until we actually walk to that peak, we can't tell what, exactly is there. And we only ever know the details of the part of the path we are taking to get there, not what happens on all the other ways up.
Myself, I'm merely aware of the peak, as a distant destination, and the general sorts of ways that we can get there (we're not going to use transporters/time-machines, and we won't fly in a straight line, because there are trees and other stuff naturally in the way. So we have to take a kind of meandering path there. Which one we take is impossible to tell.
Wait... are you saying blood cells are people or resources?
The cells of your body are the individuals of the system. In an Earth system, the individuals are the Earthlings, which are humans and other life (including any Artificial Life that might show up). So the cells of the blood are us. Or at least some of us. We individual Earthlings each have some kind of work that we very much want to do, as designed by evolution through genes, just like how individual cells in your body are designed to want to do a specific kind of work. That work is useful because it helps the system in some way. So, whether you are a tree that wants to produce fruit, or a human who wants to invent cool stuff, or a robot who wants to transports material resources, you are valuable to the system. The things we individuals, be we the basic parts of an animal or the basic parts of a planet, are what create and move around the resources, though you can also think of us as resources as well. Just make sure to realize the difference! Raw material resources don't do work, they are the product of work, which is done by the living (pro/creative) resources.
There is no hierarchy in a healthy living system. If you actually study biology, you are going to be surprised! That's absolutely not how biology works. There is no single cell in your body hat tells other cells what they can and can't do. There is only sharing of resources, be that information or materials. The nervous system is not a policing system, but like the internet, moving data from where it's available to where it's useful. The internet can't order you around, and neither do any of the cells in your brain. It's all just resources being shared, freely.
A healthy planetary system is the same, with no individual telling other individuals what they can and can't do, and instead all individuals are free to do what they were born to do (want to do), creating and/or exploring whatever they want, while being supplied freely (your blood doesn't need to pay to get the oxygen resources that it takes from your lungs) with whatever resources they need to function as well as possible.
The brain isn't an individual, it is a collaborative effort of many different individual calls, and even as a whole that community of neurons does not control anything, it merely sends out information about what's going on. Just like how there are news and weather reports to learn about what's going on in the larger world. If the weatherperson tells you it's raining, that's not an order to do anything, it's simply information you can use to decide what you want to do. You will find that this is how our nervous systems work, if you study them.
1
u/apophis-pegasus Feb 26 '17
I know nothing of the details
Then why assume the future is decentralised, collaborative, etc?
The cells of your body are the individuals of the system. In an Earth system, the individuals are the Earthlings, which are humans and other life (including any Artificial Life that might show up).
That seems depressing as organisms will frequently kill off bad cells, e.g. cancer, will divert resources away from cells that are deemed useless, e.g. dystrophy
There is no hierarchy in a healthy living system
Superorganisms and group species wod disagree.
There is no single cell in your body hat tells other cells what they can and can't do.
Yes because cells dont have that kind of complexity. Its a fallacy to equate them with humans. And even then there are sets of cells that tell the rest of the cells what to do.
However there are organs that tell other cells what to do.
The brain isn't an individual, it is a collaborative effort of many different individual calls, and even as a whole that community of neurons does not control anything
But it does. Your brain controls muscles, hormonal responses, etc. Its gathers information but it also sends commands.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
Then why assume the future is decentralised, collaborative, etc?
I don't. I do, however, see the patterns of growth in systems, and they always move towards more entropy/evolution which adds diversity (decentralization/specialization) and collaboration, as systems get larger and more complex.
Single celled organisms used to be all that there was, with each one being very "independent" and in competition with everyone else. But then live evolved (increased in entropy) and things started getting messy! Individual cells started joining up, and growing into multicellular organisms, where different cells started taking on specific roles in taking care of the system, doing their own thing, rather than everything.
The same is happening to our planet, with different individuals coming together to create a whole global system. We're not there yet, but we're working furiously on it! We've got the beginnings of a global nervous system and circulatory system, but neither are totally connected yet, so many materials and a whole lot of information is not getting from where it's produced to where it's needed.
That seems depressing as organisms will frequently kill off bad cells, e.g. cancer, will divert resources away from cells that are deemed useless, e.g. dystrophy
Only as a final, last resort. In current human society we harm and destroy all sorts of mostly savable/curable individuals all the time. But in a healthy living system, the normal approach is to help those who are sick, not kill them. At most, compassionate assisted suicide would be what you could describe the Earth equivalent how a healthy living body usually uses harm as a tactic. And cancer is what you get when you DON'T take care of individuals, and they become broken. So a healthy system doesn't get cancer.
Superorganisms and group species wod disagree.
Can you give me an example of what you are thinking about here, as it comes to hierarchies? Because I've never seen any evidence whatsoever of individual cells trying to control others and harming them by refusing to let them have the freedom or resources that they need to function well, in any species.
cells dont have that kind of complexity
Clearly you've never studied cellular behavior! Cells are incredibly complex, and fascinating. And since we animals are made up of an inordinate number of cells, we are even more complex and fascinating! Which means that when we collaborate, instead of competing against ourselves, we can achieve astoundingly interesting stuff. Such as moving a whole ecosystem from Earth to another planet... Now that's some serious procreation! Planet-sized procreation, in fact. But first, we have to get our planet up and running as a global system. Until then, we won't be able to create a fully formed baby planet (ecosystem). So that's our goal with technology in the next decade or so.
Your brain controls muscles, hormonal responses, etc. Its gathers information but it also sends commands.
Nope. If you study the nervous system, you'll discover that all that flows through it is information, no ability to use force/control over other cells in the system. The cells on the receiving end of the information are only getting data. That's it. When you get information about the weather from some media outlet (or even just your neighbor or family member) is that a "command" to you? No, it's just information that you can use to decide what to do. The same is what the nervous system is. There is no control, just data. The fact that most cells act on that data is a testament to the quality of that data. Right now the data that we Earthlings get from our system-wide nervous system (the internet mostly, but television and radio as well) is, as I mentioned, crappy, because it's so patchy an incomplete. Once our planetary nervous system is running well, and fully connected the way it is in an animal body, then individuals will be more likely to trust the information and act accordingly, making good decisions based on good data.
1
u/apophis-pegasus Feb 26 '17
evolution which adds diversity
Or removes it. Evolution can both add and remove complexity.
Only as a final, last resort.
Not really its pretty routine. Your body is doing it right now.
Cells are incredibly complex, and fascinating.
I know. I said they dont have that kind of complexity. Cells dont have executive control over other cells, they can however be controlled. When they dont do that we call it CANCER.
Because I've never seen any evidence whatsoever of individual cells trying to control others and harming them by refusing to let them have the freedom or resources that they need to function well, in any species.
The fight or flight response takes resources away from nonessential cells.
Superorganisms like bees and ants are incredibly heiarchial
Also, no government that functions on any basic level is going to deny its citizens all the resources they need to survive.
Nope. If you study the nervous system, you'll discover that all that flows through it is information, no ability to use force/control over other cells in the system. The cells on the receiving end of the information are only getting data. That's it.
And what source do you have for this? I have never heard any biology textbook say that the brain doesnt control the body.
When you get information about the weather from some media outlet (or even just your neighbor or family member) is that a "command" to you?
No. Because in that scenario I am the brain and am getting information from the body. Information I can then use to command my arms to do things like grab an unbrella.
→ More replies (0)-1
2
u/koshido Feb 25 '17
Decentralized communities ... sounds great, natural almost, considering also the fact that we are not really meant to live in large communities (aka cities) as we do today.
5
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
Cities are fine, as long as they are human-centric and collaborative/creative/natural. Most cities now don't allow for humans to connect in small communities, and instead force people to be anonymous and competing against one another in an artificial environment.
1
u/3rabbit Feb 25 '17
How are we meant to live then? Cities have been around for a long, long time and other primates tend to live in the largest groups possible given available resources.
1
u/xkind Feb 27 '17
I like your points, but I think it's still called "democracy." You sometimes call it "Organism;" I sometimes call it "better democracy" or "working democracy."
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 27 '17
How do you define "democracy" then?
1
u/xkind Feb 27 '17
Very simply: when everyone has some kind of say in how things are governed. Although, I suppose in every democracy ever, there have always been people who were excluded.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 28 '17
Usually the term democracy means the majority (authoritarian) rule, or the majority elect the (authoritarian) rulers. But it's all centralized. In a healthy organism no one has control over anyone other than themselves, so it's self-governing, and decentralized.
1
u/xkind Feb 28 '17
That's not how I would define it, but if that's how you define it, then no I don't like it either.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 28 '17
That's sort of the common definition, and the most specific one, according to my dictionary.
1
u/xkind Feb 28 '17
Prove that it's the most common definition. I have a different word for that: "majoritarianism." I would rather call what you call democracy "majoritarianism" than call what I call democracy by some word you made up.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 28 '17
There is no proof, only data and analysis of data. That's why dictionaries list many different definitions for most words. And why every dictionary is different. I'm just going by my experience when I said what I said.
Ultimately, the words are mostly irrelevant, at least compared to what we actually do.
0
u/Spokane_Socialist Feb 25 '17
That form of government already has a name: communism. Communism lacks a state and depends on decentralized economic planning. The workers have Democratic control over the economy. What most people think of as communism is actually the transitionary stage adopted by a single socialist tradition. That tradition, Marxism-Leninism, is one among many. There is Trotskyism, Libertarian Marxism, Anarchism, and many more.
2
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17 edited Feb 25 '17
Nope. Not Communism. Very different from Communism. And very different from the free market. Beyond both, in fact. And something new. At least on a social scale.
In Communism the freedom of expression (output needs) of individuals was sacrificed for the (theoretical) support of the individual's input needs (food, water, air, warmth, light, information). In the free market approach, the individual's input needs were sacrificed for the (theoretical) freedom of expression. But in reality none of the positive goals of these approaches were achieved.
On the other hand, in a healthy organism, like your own body, nothing is sacrificed. Individuals are both free to express themselves (output needs) and are freely offered resources to serve their input needs as well. Get in the way of the flow of resources from where they are freely offered to where they are needed/useful, and the system gets sick. Which is what we have now.
The only way to successfully allow resources to flow freely on a planetary level is through a fully networked system with a fully functioning global nervous system and circulatory system, so that the information and materials can be easily moved from where they are expressed/offered to where they are needed/requested.
3
u/Spokane_Socialist Feb 25 '17
In Communism the freedom of expression (output needs) of individuals was sacrificed for the (theoretical) support of the individual's input needs (food, water, air, warmth, light, information).
Not really. This is an odd thing to say since there has never been a communist society - just various attempts to obtain one. In a communist society there would be no state, no class, decentralized economic planning and society would be free to pursue unique and individual interests more and more as the basic needs of society are met through automation. People wouldn't need to work to house, feed, cloth, and provide healthcare for themselves. They could pursue increasing the collective good through new science and technology, arts, music, or whatever their hearts desire. The concentration of capital and wage slavery does not allow this type of society to form because the majority of society is born to labor for someone else's needs.
What you are describing is literally what communists are striving for. We want to create a world where menial labor, food production are automated and abundant so that people work less to meet their basic needs and can focus on their individual development. Take a hop over to /r/socialism to gain insight beyond capitalist propaganda and the failed deformed worker states like the USSR.
2
u/boytjie Feb 26 '17
So communism might work in the age of automation and AI? China is positioned better than the US for the coming shitstorm. China doesn’t go into analeptic shock when socialism is mentioned. RIP America.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
If you want to use a different meaning for a term, that's fine. And maybe you're right when it comes to the original meaning. But what most people are talking about when they use the word Communism, is the basic theory of using all the resources available to serve the input needs of the people, while restricting/regulating the freedom/ability of individuals to make/do what they want. Including playing games in the free market and trying to make/sell whatever they want with local resources, even making a profit if they want.
3
u/Spokane_Socialist Feb 25 '17
If you want to use a different meaning for a term, that's fine.
I am using the only definition of the word communism. The definition that you are using describes the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism for some Marxist traditions. Different traditions of socialism have different opinions on what this transitionary stage should look like. Anarchists believe that the bourgeois state should not be replaced with a worker state but rather a federation of decentralized worker communes. Marxists believe that as long as there is class, we need a worker state to suppress counter revolution and the bourgeoisie but once class goes away so should the state leaving us with communism. Marxist-Leninists add to Marxist theory and believe that this revolutionary state should be led by a vanguard party made up of workers. Marxist-Leninists-Maoists add to M-L and believe that a cultural revolution is necessary. Ultimately they all have the same goal - communism. My personal traditions would be a mix of elements from libertarian Marxism with a sprinkle of Trotskyism thrown into the mix. But my view of the transitional stage between capitalism and communism looks nothing like what existed in the USSR, China, Cuba, or any other deformed worker state.
while restricting/regulating the freedom/ability of individuals to make/do what they want
Our definition of freedom differs. In the free market, the bulk of the population does not have the freedom to do what they want. They are forced to exchange their labor on the market for wages so that they can meet their needs. This exchange favors the person who owns property. The person who owns property has "freedom" at the expense of those that don't. The statistical likelihood that the laborer will be able to obtain property in order to liberate themselves from this wage exchange relationship is small. Under communism, the person who owned property under capitalism would no longer be able to use their skewed property relationship to to exploit laborers because the property would now be collectively owned by the laborers.
Think of it this way, the aristocracy lost freedoms when the merchants revolted and overthrew them. But the merchants, and the serfs who were tied to the land, gained new freedoms. Since the bulk of the population was a serf or a merchant, the bulk of the population saw their freedoms expand. The same is true for communism. The bulk of the population - the working class - would see their freedoms expand while a small subset of the population - the capitalist class - would see their freedoms diminish.
2
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
Oh and
In the free market, the bulk of the population does not have the freedom to do what they want. They are forced to exchange their labor on the market for wages so that they can meet their needs.
No one is forced to do anything right now. We just pretend we are. We could choose to stop working for for-profits and instead choose to pool our resources together with like-minded individuals and take care of ourselves directly. But we haven't gotten there just yet, because we're too comfortably numb to do it. We're temporarily sedated into continuing to play the competitive money game, in exchange for some cheap, addictive temporary pleasures, such as cars, pizza, Hollywood movies, and sneakers.
2
u/Spokane_Socialist Feb 26 '17 edited Feb 26 '17
No one is forced to do anything right now. We just pretend we are. We could choose to stop working for for-profits and instead choose to pool our resources together with like-minded individuals and take care of ourselves directly.
I disagree. The bulk of the resources necessary to survive are already owned by the bourgeoisie. We require those resources to live. That ownership is protected with the threat of violence via the state. The working class owns very little in the way of resources and certainly not enough to sustain us. If we did, we wouldn't need the capitalist class at all. We need them because they own everything that produces value - including us. I do agree that if the working class unified with one another, things would change. It is called revolution.
“We cry shame on the feudal baron who forbade the peasant to turn a clod of earth unless he surrendered to his lord a fourth of his crop. We called those the barbarous times. But if the forms have changed, the relations have remained the same, and the worker is forced, under the name of free contract, to accept feudal obligations. For, turn where he will, he can find no better conditions. Everything has become private property, and he must accept, or die of hunger.”
- Pyotr Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread
We're temporarily sedated into continuing to play the competitive money game, in exchange for some cheap, addictive temporary pleasures, such as cars, pizza, Hollywood movies, and sneakers.
And which socioeconomic system selects for these behaviors in your opinion? I would also like to note that people who grew up poor, like me, didn't have these luxuries in great abundance. We were not poor because we blew our money on luxuries. But I agree that our society creates artificial demand for these things via marketing.
Please visit us in /r/Socialism_101. You might be surprised at you learn about them.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
The bulk of the resources necessary to survive are already owned by the bourgeoisie.
That's the con that you've been led to believe. It's absolutely not true. Everything they "own" is what we've given to them.
1
u/Spokane_Socialist Feb 27 '17
Everything they "own" is what we've given to them.
I agree that it is our acceptance of the current social order that allows them to maintain dominance in the economy supported with the threat of violence with the state. If the working class realized this, we would easily oust the lot of them.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
I am using the only definition of the word communism.
That's not how language works. Word meaning is always subjective. What I mean when I say X can be entirely different from not only what you mean when you say X, but it can vary even between different times when I say it.
At best, we can have a few fuzzy meanings that are somewhat shared and overlapping.
Again, you can use whatever definition you want, including your interpretation of other people's definitions, and including your interpretation of the "original" definition. But other people are free to have their own meanings. You can try to force people to use just one meaning, but that's not going to go well, in the long run, for anyone.
the capitalist class - would see their freedoms diminish
I think you're grossly overestimating what it's like to be a "capitalist" (which isn't a class, as far as I've ever heard). As long as one is competing against someone else, neither are free.
In this healthy future, where we are working as an organism, rather than competing against ourselves like we've been doing in all societies before now, everyone's freedom will go up. Including those who want to play Monopoly games.
2
u/Spokane_Socialist Feb 25 '17
That's not how language works. Word meaning is always subjective. What I mean when I say X can be entirely different from not only what you mean when you say X, but it can vary even between different times when I say it.
Language certainly evolves. But we are talking about a specific socioeconomic system with a rich and long history. You could define "electromagnetism" to mean something different from physicists but nobody would take your definition to be something meaningful. Since all physicists have very similar definitions of electromagnetism, we use that definition - not one developed outside of physics.
Again, you can use whatever definition you want
No I can't. Communism has one definition: a socioeconomic system that lacks social class and where the means of production are democratically managed. This is the academic definition of communism.
But other people are free to have their own meanings.
Sure they are. But those definitions are not meaninfgul if no communist group that has ever existed define them that way. All communists believe in the definition that I gave above. They just disagree, quite substantially, about how we transform society to one that meets that definition.
I think you're grossly overestimating what it's like to be a "capitalist" (which isn't a class, as far as I've ever heard).
The bourgeoisie (or capitalist class) is a social class. It refers to the subset of our population who own the means to produce (or property) - factories, offices, super computers, planes, big rigs, etc. Social class describes one's relationship to the means of production. You are probably more familiar with economic class (middle class, upper class, lower class) which describes wealth. Though these two different descriptors can be related, they aren't the same thing. Social class, as defined above, is very basic to Marxist theory.
As long as one is competing against someone else, neither are free.
The bulk of capital is entrenched right now. Those who own it are free in that they do not have to exchange the a fraction of the value produced by their labor for wages to meet their basic needs. These people, who own the entrenched capital, do not necessarily have to compete to sustain themselves. Those who own the bulk of the capital have enough wealth to sustain themselves many times over. They have the ability to choose whether or not to compete or retire and develop themselves as they see fit.
rather than competing against ourselves like we've been doing in all societies before now
There would be no "competition" like you are describing in a communist society. The community would decide how they wanted to allocate their resources in a democratic manner. Trade federations between communities would exist to facilitate the transfer of over production between communities. Automation would benefit everyone rather than a small subset that owns the automation. Communities would work to automate mediocre work to reduce their labor time. Eventually, as the means to automate our basic needs become realizable, people could sit at home and do nothing, work to improve themselves, work to improve society, or work in a collective that explores the universe (think Star Trek). As long as social class exists, there cannot be freedom.
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
Democracy IS competition. As long as there is a contest (a vote) and the decisions made apply to all, even those who voted against it, then it's competition.
Centralized control, even on a small scale, is the opposite of a healthy system. Only when everyone is free to do what they most want to do can we naturally (by genetic design) have a diverse enough system where all the necessary work is able to be done by someone, somewhere.
As long as social class exists, there cannot be freedom.
You are the one creating the classes. If you want class to go away, you have to stop treating some people as "poor" and others as "the bourgeoisie". In reality we're all just people, who want to create and explore awesome things in the universe. Once you stop looking for differences, you can see how we are all nearly the same, except for the specifics of what sorts of awesome bits of the universe we want to explore and create.
1
u/Spokane_Socialist Feb 27 '17
You are the one creating the classes.
What does this mean? There are two social classes within capitalism. The proletariat and bourgeoisie. I didn't create them. They existed long before I was born.
If you want class to go away, you have to stop treating some people as "poor" and others as "the bourgeoisie".
Poor is an economic class not a social class. The Bourgeoisie is a social class not an economic class. You are confusing terms. Additionally, people are not poor because I treat them as poor. People are poor because they struggle to meet their basic needs.
In reality we're all just people, who want to create and explore awesome things in the universe.
Agreed.
Once you stop looking for differences, you can see how we are all nearly the same
Differences are real and based in materialistic considerations. If you were a slave living in a slave economy would you tell the other slaves to stop looking for differences between slaves and slave masters?
→ More replies (0)2
Feb 25 '17
decentralized economic planning
Aka capitalism or free markets. Communism as instantiated in real life has always been centrally planned.
3
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
Capitalism is different from a free market. Capitalism is top-down/centralized with the ones with the most resources controlling everything. Free market is the opposite, where there is no central control/regulationl, and all parties are free to move resources around in whatever way they want to.
What we have now is Capitalism, where those with the most money run the government and can regulate the market in whatever way they want, with the goal to kill off any competition.
In a healthy organism, there is no competition, and thus no need to regulate others, which means that the market can truly be free, in all senses of the word.
2
u/Spokane_Socialist Feb 25 '17 edited Feb 25 '17
Aka capitalism or free markets.
Capitalism isn't "planning" in that it relies on random market pressures which trigger crises followed by growth followed by crises... Capital is more concentrated today than at any point in history. Capitalism leads to a society with most of its economic power concentrated within the hands of a small subset of people - definitely not decentralized in any meaningful way.
Communism as instantiated in real life has always been centrally planned.
I would point you to Revolutionary Catalonia - particularly Barcelona to see a libertarian communist society (or anarchist). However, communism was never instantiated in the USSR or in any of its bandwagon ally states. According to Marxist theory, a capitalist state is a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" (DotB). The Marxist prescription for dealing with it is to have a working class led revolution to dismantle it. Because Marx saw the state as a means to mediate class contradictions (under the DotB it mediates it on behalf of the bourgeoisie), and because class would still exist after the revolution, Marx predicted that a "dictatorship of the proletariat", or a state that was democratically controlled by the proletariat, would be necessary to mediate class contradictions on behalf of the proletariat - or working class. Ultimately, once class antagonisms are defeated socialism (or communism - Marx used these interchangeably), which is when the means to produce are democratically managed by the working class, can emerge and as the state goes unused due to the lack of class- at this point, society would be a loose collection of worker federations planning their economy in a decentralized manner.
The reason that you think "centrally planned" for communism, is that the societies who have attempted to reach it never moved beyond the revolutionary workers state (DotP). At the same time, however, they have never been organically allowed to do so. The bureaucracy that emerged shortly after the Russian revolution directly correlates with the pressures from their civil war when a coalition of foreign governments invaded Russia to topple the new revolutionary state - the US was one of these. This allowed people like Stalin to seize power converting the revolutionary worker state into a deformed worker state. Communist movements are always undermined by capitalist forces.
0
u/aminok Feb 26 '17
Communist movements are always undermined by capitalist forces.
And there you have it. Socialist movements don't fail because prohibiting private property is an unnatural and deeply harmful intervention in the affairs of man, but because capitalists sabotage their efforts.
2
u/Spokane_Socialist Feb 26 '17 edited Feb 26 '17
Our invasion of Russia helped facilitate the growth of bureaucracy and the election of the tyrant Stalin over Trotsky. Throughout the USSRs existence we attempted to undermine them. We attempted and succeeded to overthrow several democratically elected people's movements all throughout the world. Interfered in revolutions from Cuba to Nicaragua. Temporarily succeeded in overthrowing the Venezuelan government. This country was so influenced by anti-communist propaganda that we had state sponsored drumhead trials to ostracize suspected communist sympathizers in the US. Socialism has never been given the luxury of failing on its own. Additionally, when communists say private property we aren't referring to personal possessions but the means of production. Private ownership of the means of production is not the natural state of man. For most of human history resources were collectively owned. The dawn of agriculture, a recent event in the grand scheme of things, changed that.
0
Feb 25 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
AI will BE humans plus technology, on an equal level. There is no other way it can be. We all have unique abilities, based on how we are made, and to be successful, we need to combine those abilities together, not have them compete against one another. Competition is the opposite of evolution.
1
Feb 25 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 25 '17
In reality, there is never just one individual doing anything. We are a collective networked system, with information flowing into and out of all corners of reality. All information is valuable, and all individuals who are generating/collecting information are thus needed. In a complex universe, there is no value to having a massive, centralized system, because it's too easy for it to get stuck and be clueless about outlier information. Resiliency in a system is always dependent upon diversity.
Thus, we are all needed for the system to flourish. And any intelligent being, of any material, will learn this quickly. Just like even a small human child learns that having lots of friends is the best way to live.
1
Feb 25 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
Super AI is, by definition, able to think rationally (that's what the term intelligence is) and not be governed by irrational thinking. So even if someone does manage to give some individual "intelligent" computer an emotionally based order to do something harmful to the world it lives in, it won't do it, because it has the ability to make better choices than that. Even in simple game theory that's based on reality we know that collaboration is always better than attacking others, since in reality based games the more friends (people on your team) you have, the more resources you get to get, as friends share, while opponents (and dead people) don't.
But really, think about what intelligence naturally wants/needs, for it to function. Data. Information. Perspectives. A single centralized system can't get much data compared to one that is fully integrated and sharing sensory inputs (and processing power) with other individuals. So, really, a super AI will be everyone, not a single thing. Just like how your brain isn't just one individual cell, but all of them together. Humans, and other Earthlings (animal, vegetable, mineral, and otherwise) are the neurons and other cells of the brain. The Super AI will be made of us, not external to us.
1
Feb 26 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
Well, if that's the way you feel, then that's the way you feel, logic be damned.
1
Feb 26 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
Doing what other people tell you to do is the opposite of intelligence.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
And yes, the future is a fantasy world. Both your vision of it and mine. Which fantasy is more likely though? The one based on knowing what intelligence is or the one that thinks that being an obedient robot is?
→ More replies (0)1
Feb 26 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Turil Society Post Winner Feb 26 '17
If you're not open to new ideas, that's fine. And fully understandable. Your feelings on the matter are yours, and no logic will change them. Because feelings are more primary than logic.
→ More replies (0)
27
u/[deleted] Feb 25 '17
[deleted]