Billionaires

[Siro]

which capacities are increased? Are they increased at the expense of other capacities?

Communication, access to information, increased information processing, increased effective memory, and too many other benefits to count individually. And these are made available to billions of people, not just the elite few. At what expense? Maybe some environmental degradation, although I'd have to study the resource trade-off with replaced technologies. I'm sure you can come up with an argument about the value of face-to-face interaction or what have you, but the massive increase in capability is beyond dispute.

 

[Miggs]

Capitalists' contributions to progress FAR outweigh that of innovators. The iPhone hardly has any innovations, and yet, through solid design and clever marketing, Apple managed to change the landscape of technology and push human capabilities further than ever before. That is the case with pretty much all technological progress. And that is why the West, with their capitalist mentality, managed to become the world's dominant culture (and by far the most technologically advanced).


Ideas are dime a dozen. Most of the ancient world's great inventions were invented numerous times over, only to disappear once the few who had access to them were defeated or lost interest.

You mean the West we won by using such great advances to slaughter a group of people and help enslave another?

Ain't technology grand.

 

[Siro]

You mean the West we won by using such great advances to slaughter a group of people and help enslave another?

Ain't technology grand.

Yes, that's the one. And yes.

 

[NAOS]

Communication, access to information, increased information processing, increased effective memory, and too many other benefits to count individually. And these are made available to billions of people, not just the elite few. At what expense? Maybe some environmental degradation, although I'd have to study the resource trade-off with replaced technologies. I'm sure you can come up with an argument about the value of face-to-face interaction or what have you, but the massive increase in capability is beyond dispute.

c'mon dude, that's all you got? And you're giving it to someone else on a MESSAGE BOARD? I'd like to see a better effort, but whatevs.

Reading this brings me back to the opinion that you aren't as much a realist as you think. Sounds purrrrty idealist to me.

 

[Siro]

c'mon dude, that's all you got? And you're giving it to someone else on a MESSAGE BOARD? I'd like to see a better effort, but whatevs.

Reading this brings me back to the opinion that you aren't as much a realist as you think. Sounds purrrrty idealist to me.

I really enjoy being treated like a child who needs to impress you before you deem me worthy of a response.

 

[NAOS]

I really enjoy being treated like a child who needs to impress you before you deem me worthy of a response.

lol. ok. I guess this is played out.

"too many benefits to count" versus "face-to-face and what-have-you" as an answer to an honest question, and I'm the one who's degrading? Confusing. You're the one who didn't play. Maybe you were too adult?

 

[Siro]

lol. ok. I guess this is played out.

"too many benefits to count" versus "face-to-face and what-have-you" as an answer to an honest question, and I'm the one who's degrading? Confusing. You're the one who didn't play. Maybe you were too adult?

To me the benefits are clear. I mentioned some that I find rather huge. I can't think of any major downsides that mean much to me. If you disagree, then let's hear it. Or let's not. It's up to you. But I'm not interested in trying to meet that invisible threshold of approval that you've set for me.

 

[NAOS]

To me the benefits are clear. I mentioned some that I find rather huge. I can't think of any major downsides that mean much to me. If you disagree, then let's hear it. Or let's not. It's up to you. But I'm not interested in trying to meet that invisible threshold of approval that you've set for me.

why is there so much sensitivity in this thread? (That's a serious curiosity).

I think the origin of my questions are obvious. If someone fancies themselves a Realist (with respect to anything, but we've been talking about "technology"), then certainly they can comfortably/unsensitively list gains and losses in human capacities as a result of taking "technology" into the human biomass in greater densities and in different ways. Someone who lists a bevy of improvements, but seems to give little effort and care at thinking the capacities that might be lost is either an Idealist, or is working with a very strange notion of human capacities.

 

[Miggs]

To me the benefits are clear. I mentioned some that I find rather huge. I can't think of any major downsides that mean much to me. If you disagree, then let's hear it. Or let's not. It's up to you. But I'm not interested in trying to meet that invisible threshold of approval that you've set for me.

I'll try you on for ****s and gigs. Technology as we now know it gives everyone a voice. Great, right? Nope the world consists of massive amounts of dip****s. As soon as we start allowing these dip****s to spread their word, it only allows the rest of the dip****s out there to nod along and say, "See, this person gets me. I knew I wasn't crazy" as if their moronic thoughts actually carry any weight.

Bad things can happen as a result. Very, very bad things.

 

[Dr. Jones]

why is there so much sensitivity in this thread? (That's a serious curiosity).

I think the origin of my questions are obvious. If someone fancies themselves a Realist (with respect to anything, but we've been talking about "technology"), then certainly they can comfortably/unsensitively list gains and losses in human capacities as a result of taking "technology" into the human biomass in greater densities and in different ways. Someone who lists a bevy of improvements, but seems to give little effort and care at thinking the capacities that might be lost is either an Idealist, or is working with a very strange notion of human capacities.

u started it.

 

[NAOS]

u started it.

nah. takes two to tango.

 

[Siro]

I'll try you on for ****s and gigs. Technology as we now know it gives everyone a voice. Great, right? Nope the world consists of massive amounts of dip****s. As soon as we start allowing these dip****s to spread their word, it only allows the rest of the dip****s out there to nod along and say, "See, this person gets me. I knew I wasn't crazy" as if their moronic thoughts actually carry any weight.

Bad things can happen as a result. Very, very bad things.

What is your point? There is no such thing as positive power and negative power. There is only power. Technology is power. I would rather pay the price of wielding such power, than be completely powerless.

 

[Miggs]

What is your point? There is no such thing as positive power and negative power. There is only power. Technology is power. I would rather pay the price of wielding such power, than be completely powerless.

I think the point's pretty obvious. You're simply choosing to ignore it.

 

[♪alt13]

Siro you really have been kinda touchy lately. You can be just as smug as anyone else is when you are sticking to your guns. You seem to take a different pov especially if it is strongly held as a personal injury. Which is really weird cuz I remember you having a much thicker skin and an independent pov. Would you really prefer that no one challenged you? Cuz I for one can totally stay out of your way if you would rather pontificate than have a discussion.

 

[Siro]

Siro you really have been kinda touchy lately. You can be just as smug as anyone else is when you are sticking to your guns. You seem to take a different pov especially if it is strongly held as a personal injury. Which is really weird cuz I remember you having a much thicker skin and an independent pov. Would you really prefer that no one challenged you? Cuz I for one can totally stay out of your way if you would rather pontificate than have a discussion.

NAOS' repeated "is that all you can come up with" responses get old. I simply stated that I won't engage unless it's a two-way conversation. Nothing in this thread has had even the tiniest bit of an emotional effect on me.

As for the rest, I think I'll leave it you to decide whether you want to have discussions with me or not.

 

[Siro]

I think the point's pretty obvious. You're simply choosing to ignore it.

I'm sure. Let's hear it.

 

[Miggs]

Siro you really have been kinda touchy lately. You can be just as smug as anyone else is when you are sticking to your guns. You seem to take a different pov especially if it is strongly held as a personal injury. Which is really weird cuz I remember you having a much thicker skin and an independent pov. Would you really prefer that no one challenged you? Cuz I for one can totally stay out of your way if you would rather pontificate than have a discussion.

Hence why I said he'd be a douche if he became a mod.

I thought this was always pretty obvious about him.

 

[♪alt13]

NAOS' repeated "is that all you can come up with" responses get old. I simply stated that I won't engage unless it's a two-way conversation. Nothing in this thread has had even the tiniest bit of an emotional effect on me.

As for the rest, I think I'll leave it you to decide whether you want to have discussions with me or not.

What is your point? There is no such thing as positive power and negative power. There is only power. Technology is power. I would rather pay the price of wielding such power, than be completely powerless.

I'm sure. Let's hear it.

You don't think you sound a little condescending yourself?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Or, maybe your own sensitivities are such that you simply have a hard time with the force of my difference? Perhaps I'm not as big of a problem as you think.

You didn't slightly overstate anything. The terms and colors of what you said were very stark. ...But HeyHey already addressed this issue well enough. Thanks, HeyHey.



I'm not simply "anti-capitalist".... even PKM probably remembers one of my "gems" wherein I described the liberatory powers of capitalism. I don't like reductive, soapbox-style political reductions.

And I'm especially not someone who harbors a pessimistic psychology. I'm all for celebrating human drive, desire, affect, etc. If you'd read any of my posts about religion and morality this would be abundantly clear. Since you haven't, you'll just have to take my word for it, and know that you're way off on this point. ...But why are we talking about psychologies right now? Why was it necessary for you to construct an other who was reduced to such a clear negative stance? I'm confused.

To claim that something has "gained value" is to embody a certain perspective, and the metrics it has for measuring things. What perspective is privileged in your specific claims about the increase or invention of value? I, for one, think you romanticize this perspective (and yourself?) too much when you go on to wax poetic about human progress and the miraculousness of human life and fail to acknowledge that much of what you call "value" and "progress" has had very dark sides. The oil economy isn't simply benign. Moreover, it's not actually true that "human ingenuity/will" conjures these things into existence. That's just more romanticism.



"Pristine"; "untouched"; our human culture as "infinitely preferable" to other paths (and do you imply here that human intelligence was the beginning of intelligent life on earth and that there are no examples outside of it?); human appreciation as beyond the pale of other animal forms of appreciation. All very Romantic. I wonder what your perspective would sound like if you tried, for the sake of experiment, to drop this flowery stuff and justify your beliefs otherwise? Aren't you interested?

I concede that not every impact of humans is positive, but I think in the grand scale it is a net positive. Now if it was a dolphin keeping score they might feel differently about that, but I am a human and have already admitted that I'm a fan of human progress.

I already explained in a response to alt that my meaning with gaining value was gaining value to humans. So yes, clearly these objects were already there in their own right, and if you believe they had value to themselves that's fine, but my interest is in their value to humans.

Regarding the use of words that you find too romantic, I think the words I've used are apt for describing the things I've described. I think you should feel free to continue to use your pompous words, and I will continue to use my romantic ones.

 

[Siro]

You don't think you sound a little condescending yourself?

Only when taken out of context. NAOS literally said that me. "That all you got" was his exact quote. And my tone with CL pales in comparison to his tone with me. Hell, he just called me a douche. Like just a minute ago.