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 -
There are different grades of what we might call "post-scarcity", from the worst being something akin to modern welfare or even medieval charity, to the unbounded abundance if we somehow get infinite energy/negentropy (I'm not counting on that).
Thus, even if we don't all receive an equal share, given the sheer amount of resources out there, even just in the Solary System, I fully expect that even with a non-egalitarian distribution, we can all be wealthy beyond belief, or if you've got an exceptionally vivid imagination, leading the kinds of lives available to a modern billionaire or at least a multi-millionaire. That's still true even if the people with the lion's share are truly absurdly well off, the former represents a rounding error on available resources for a long, long time.
In other words, if they were motivated to maintain hierarchies, it could be on the scale of who has dibs over entire star systems or galaxies while the rest of us are merely filthy rich.
One can argue that, from the perspective of a medieval peasant or even nobility, we're already there, at least in the West.
Call me a congenital optimist, but I don't expect that the people who do opt to keep the rest of us alive after we're economically obsolete are likely to keep us at subsistence levels or even what we might call in hardship today if they wanted to cheap out, there's always VR, and I'm not one to turn my nose up at it. I'd obviously prefer a more equitable distribution, but there are plenty of ways to slice the lightcone such that the scraps provide eudaimonia..
Most people become rich through mutually positive sum trade with others, at least these days.
Bezos didn't become a billionaire by "taking resources" from others, he sold a product that people were willing to buy, in the form of something as incredibly useful as Amazon. I reject the "and opportunities" part because it means nothing of significance, sure, someone else might have come up with the idea later or perhaps executed it well enough to capture the value, but they didn't, and I fail to see how it's Bezos's fault for that.
This is broadly true for anyone who isn't wealthy via being a corrupt politician or oligarch.
I certainly disagree, at least with an attempt to clump such an amorphous group under the same banner as Soros and Co. Most of them aren't ideologically motivated to make us bugmen.
Besides, that's driven by (grossly wrong) opinions on the sustainability of modern capitalist growth, and I see no reason to assume they fetishize that for its own sake.
Barring the invention of FTL, dividing the light cone is a process of billions of years. I remind you that merely making everyone else supremely wealthy by modern standards is nothing next to that, even if they're not made true equals.
If they even tolerate our existence and subsidize our lives, then the additional expense of keeping us that way is nothing at all. I'm not claiming the former is a given, just that going to the latter when you're already there is no big deal, in much the same way that almost anyone who cares enough to tip a beggar isn't also going to the trouble of finding the smallest denomination of currency in the world to give them.
All it takes is one entity holding a non-negligible portion of the cosmic endowment having charitable urges, and they can take care of us for geological timescales. My opinion of the elite is nowhere low enough to think that low bar can't be met.
See, I strongly disagree that most of the "elite" are misanthropes who would consign us all to death if it was costless to do so, at least when simply giving us most of the things we do want is, in absolute terms, hardly any more expensive.
I don't think Soros wants us to endure privation for the sake of it, most people who espouse such claims (and many non-elite do! There are plenty of middle class people who demand austerity and "sustainable living" just as loudly), do so because they think expecting sustained economic growth will be catastrophic.
That is an incredibly stupid notion, but to the extent that it's a distinction worth making, that makes them misguided and not evil. Sure, there's quite a bit of aesthetic fetishism involved, such as Greens hating on nuclear power which is greener in both a literal and metaphorical sense than they ever could be, but it's not the overwhelming motivation.
As I've said in the past, one of the reason the wealthy dislike the poor is because the latter have enough power to be a nuisance or intrude on their sensibilities. They're uncouth, they demand a say in public affairs, they threaten your wellbeing if you don't surrender gibs and so on.
On the other hand, how many people hate monkeys in zoos? If you think that hobo on the subway was an incoherent shit-slinger, you've seen nothing yet. However, since they're modestly interesting, don't do any harm, and are utterly powerless, it's not a big deal at all to cough up the pocket change to keep them in conditions that, in the better class of zoo, constitute an improvement over their state in nature! Zoo lions might not roam the Serengeti, but they don't starve to death nor worry about outsiders killing them, then their cubs, so as to make their wives fertile and ripe for the raping.
Just about nobody advocates for both keeping lions and monkeys around and keeping them in conditions barely better than non-existence. The power differential and burden of care between us and godlike Masters of the Universe will be OOMs higher in the former and lower in the latter.
The way I see it, in an unevenly distributed post-Singularity world, the gulf between the people who dominate and the rest of us will easily be as large, if not larger, than that between us and monkeys today. At that point, assuming that status hierarchies exist, and that these entities care about them, I don't expect to see the people in charge weight their status therein on dominating us, not when they can measure relativistic kill penises with the Matrioshka Brain next door.
I expect that they'll be thinking along the lines of "damn, Bezos Prime Alpha 1.2 managed to get dibs on that pair of binary neutron stars I was eyeing" rather than obsessing over the 0.000001% of increased output they could gain by getting rid of us quaint throwbacks.
FWIW I don't believe Klaus Schwab wants the proles to eat the bugs for the sake of humiliation. More like he's of the kind of people who are completely detached from a) what the average person finds humiliating and b) the idea of personally acting on one's ecological beliefs. He hears that people are starving and his response is "let them eat
cakebugs".This attitude seems to extend to most genuinely high-up elites. Humiliation of proles is what the grunts of the system get a kick out of. The actual rulers are so far up there they don't notice the prole, if they do want to humiliate anyone it's their lowers within their class.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link