Billionaires

[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.

 

[Miggs]

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.

No, I didn't. Reading 101. Try it some time.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

No, I didn't. Reading 101. Try it some time.

So you said that because you are trying to help him avoid becoming a douche?

 

[Siro]

No, I didn't. Reading 101. Try it some time.

I won't respond. Wouldn't want salt13 calling me out on my manners again, would I?

 

[Miggs]

So you said that because you are trying to help him avoid becoming a douche?

Uh, sure. Whatever.

Love your sig.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Uh, sure. Whatever.

Love your sig.

Thanks. It's real, unlike his sig which he mocked up because he was butt hurt.

 

[moevillini]

Yep, I'm loving all the creative innovation taking place in this thread. It sure is adding a lot of value to the discussion.


And I have faith that there is a wealth of new ideas that will be shared, sooner or later.

So this is what progress looks like!

 

[NAOS]

It pushed the spread of computerization to a new level. Humans + computers > Humans - computers. Like I mentioned before, I have a very realist perspective on progress. It is increased capability. The romantics are the ones who talk about the "dark side", not me.

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

Siro, this interaction between us was really very simple. Do you honestly feel like you did your part to engage in a "two way conversation"? For my part, I'm very comfortable with the questions I asked in response to your post.

 

[NAOS]

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.

I'm seriously surprised at the level with with "progress" is being launched around here without any parachute. We're just barreling toward a net good, so who needs one? And at the ways in which "humanity" is being used as a general category. Together: "human progress." Wow.

It's moral zealotry. And while it's just me typing right now, I can assure you that thousands of well-informed people would like you to know (via proxy) that you've provided extremely thin evidence. (But you did rehearse a nice synopsis of the neoclassical synthesis in the opening pages of this thread. #Goosebumps)