Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2d ago
It seems like there are still pockets of competence to be found and an increasing motivation to overcome short term political obstacles and create some robust institutions
Increasing motivation does not imply increasing ability. It doesn't matter how much people want to overcome the political obstacles if those obstacles are totally insurmountable. And it looks to me like they are just that.
I think that even in the worst case scenarios of the U.S. FedGov starting to collapse, state governments are capable of acting as a backstop.
I disagree. First, because as FedGov starts to collapse, one of the highest priorities for uses of its fading power will be to crush any and all rivals, particularly state governments. And even without that, well, it might just be me looking at the government of my state, but I don't see this capacity.
If Starship is successful and we get some orbital infrastructure, its JUST possible we can get some self-sufficient or semi-self sufficient off-world communities.
I attended talks by the Mars Society back at Caltech in the early aughts, so I'm far from unfamiliar with the topic of space settlement — and the barriers involved. Barring some miracle, I don't see us getting any kind of long-term off-world presence of biological humans, let alone "semi-self sufficient communities" in the next hundred years.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2d ago
I can understand why most republican policy is in the best interest of republicans, but I'm honestly stumped on this. Is it legitimately just ideological consistency? A willingness to suffer to Do The Right Thing?
I'd say it's that, despite all the talk of MAGA having wholly taken over the Republican party, much of the institutional core of the party is still the "what's good for Wall Street is good for Main Street" crowd. As someone in a several-hour-long Youtube video (on the county-level political map for Congressional elections, every two years, from the end of WWII to the turn of the century, with a focus on how, once you set aside the highly-granular and variable presidential elections — particularly the Reagan landslide — the South didn't really stop voting (D) until the 90s, as all the old "Dixiecrats" finally died, and the new generation of Dems were abandoning the working class for the professional managerial class and minorities) I once watched said, "the Republican Party was founded as the party of New England banking interests… and that's what it always will be."
I also recall, but can't find again, an interview with a GOP campaign strategist who got a bit too candid with the interviewer and ended up saying something to the effect that Republican candidates already know that their job is to make empty promises to working class rubes to get elected, then deliver for the "donor class" instead once in office, so his job, as strategist, is to help the politicians lie to those flyover rubes more effectively.
Both party elites are elites — while only Hilary may have said it openly, plenty of the top people in both parties consider blue-collar rural whites "deplorables" — R's are just the ones more reliant on winning their votes, and thus given more incentive to hold their noses and pander.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
Even in that case, you can easily satisfy yourself using hookers. According to quick AI search the prices ranges from $20 per hour for street hookers to around $150 for average escort to $300 plus for high end hooker in USA.
This fails to "price in" the associated legal risks — reputational damage, arrest, fines, jail time.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
I think the subset of the human species that has the necessary skills to achieve interplanetary spaceflight is probably going to figure something out in time.
What is your basis for concluding this? Because as I look at things, my view is that we most likely won't. (It seems to me like humanity has already peaked back in the late 20th century, things will never be that good again, and it's all downhill from here.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
non-human persons
Is there such a thing? I mean, AIUI, unless you're talking about the legal construct that is the "legal personhood" of things like corporations (and I don't think you are), modern US law says humanity is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for personhood; and, also AIUI, most countries aren't much different. (I've seen this discussed in the context of legal issues surrounding potential future contact with intelligent alien life, including the claim that the branch of the US Federal government with the proper legal authority over such contact would be the Fish and Wildlife Service.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
Let the people who are of sound mind and have a stable commitment to end their lives
Except I've seen plenty of people argue that these are completely mutually exclusive — a "commitment to end one's own life" being itself proof positive of an unsound mind. I once had a therapist argue, in all seriousness, that the 47 Rōnin must have been clinically depressed — along with every other samurai who ever committed seppuku — because suicidal intent always means depression, without exception.
This can be used to turn your proposal to a clear Catch-22: you can kill yourself via "legalized but regulated" suicide so long as you're of sound mind… but the fact you're seeking to do so proves you aren't — the only people allowed to kill themselves, then, are those who don't want to.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
I'm confident we'll 'figure it out' because the drive to reproduce and the forces of natural selection are not going to give in so easily.
Who is "we" in this context, who are going to figure it out? The human species… sure, this (alone, at least) probably won't result in the total extinction of *H. sapiens. Societies capable (and willing) to maintain post-Industrial Revolution tech levels? I'm not so sure. The West? Even less sure.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
deeply oppressive traditional cultures more generally- have a lot of supporting social structures which are much harder to generate de novo.
On the one hand, yes, this. It's why the atheist Confucian Xunzi is rather more conservative than many of his contemporaries — social technologies are a fragile inheritance, the accumulated wisdom and social capital of centuries, and are not easily regained (if they can be regained at all) once lost. I, too, find myself frustrated by people who act as if generating such institutions de novo is trivial or easy.
But on the other hand, the second best time to plant a tree and all that. Sure, working to rebuild all those social structures is, again, a multi-generational project requiring a lot of hard work and sacrifice… but what's the alternative?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
4d ago
"Sounds like someone's grandma" and "so offensive, it'll get you labelled as an misogynist and people will vanish at the speed of light" are not mutually-exclusive categories — far from it.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
4d ago
They have to realize the error of their ways and make efforts to fix them.
And if they, "the the dopamine-hacked", collectively don't realize the error of their ways?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5d ago
How do you all interact with LLMs?
I, for one, pretty much don't. I've never really figured out how — I'm not signing up for anything, let alone paying for something — or what webpage to even go to. But then, that's probably because I don't see any reason for me to put much effort into doing so, because I can't see any use for them in my life.
I know I, for one, referenced it (indirectly) here eight months ago, but other people have probably mentioned it on the Motte as well.
More options
Context Copy link