This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
All roads lead to no.3 IMO.
As you mentioned, UBI would likely cause class conflict. The capital-owning class already has an advantage since they can buy support from whatever remains of the state apparatus and fund traditional human professional soldiers. They could probably also print out powerful autonomous weapons as well. I think they'd win a war quite quickly.
Implicit UBI is already sort of what they have in many of the Gulf countries. The public sector is very large and there are fairly generous welfare policies, a great deal of work is 'automated' by guest laborers from poorer countries. But why does the govt go to such an effort to make an implicit UBI? They are afraid of being overthrown by the people for being grotesquely corrupt/autocratic/not Islamic enough. Saudi Arabia spent hundreds of billions in extra welfare when the Arab Spring happened, they were scared. If they had an option to crush their citizenry, that would totally change the game. The mere knowledge they could do that would change how they operated. They'd act more heavy-handedly, provide fewer and fewer benefits, substitute bribes with fear.
If the bulk of your population isn't contributing anything to your economy/military but draining resources and demanding protection, it makes sense from the perspective of the state to kill them off or expel them. Then you get whatever chunk of farmland, civilian industry and housing stock back, to be reprocessed into something more useful. That might be military industry, giant supercomputer complexes or giant nuke-proof underground factories/redoubts. If it's more efficient to be without a large population, then over time civilization will move in that direction.
I'd imagine it would be an oligarchy where each actor has their own industrial base in a certain part of the country, working together for now so they don't have to be sovereign and totally self-sufficient. The wealth they'd hold would be that they have command codes over many of the robots that do everything. Of course, this would be an unstable equilibrium since each actor has an incentive to remove all threats. Presumably this is all happening in an era of quick technological development, so the first to develop a powerful new weapon/AI would have a major advantage.
Eventually we'd end up with the last man standing, sovereign over the whole world and all the stars he could get his hands on. Maybe he'd have a family, friends or people frozen cryonically. But everyone else is totally dependent on him.
More options
Context Copy link