Agreed. I also believe there is a sociological component. A situation such as we have is only possible when a critical mass of engineers/scientists/creatives/technicians consciously choose to work on anti-human technology. The political assholes could not develop this anti-human technology on their own.
We're moving towards a future in which "working" will be an optional activity.
If you can get enough farms/factories producing the widgets of everyday life essentially for the sum of the input commodity costs, energy costs, and some small overhead (and the free market/technology relentlessly drives overhead towards 0), you wind up being able to take care of everyone-- but you don't take care of everyone with jobs. You take care of the people by enabling them to not worry about the basics of life. You remove the survival problem from the game, and allow people to choose between living little or thriving through voluntary creative pursuits. Some people will certainly focus on the creative pursuits, and generate wealth that enables them to thrive instead of merely survive. But I have a feeling that a bunch of people will focus on their tennis game instead (which is fine with me).
I don't think most people yet realize that this sort of model is coming into humanity's reach. Most people are looking for ways to recreate the solutions of the past. But that's a horrible idea-- the past had problems because the solutions of the past create problems. We're almost on the verge of a technological/humanistic revolution in which everything will be changeable. But things won't change if we keep recreating the past (or, more accurately, if our ancient social structures keep trying to maintain control of the population by merely tweaking what are actually completely obsolete mechanisms).
I hope we can overcome the status quo and turn this world into a true utopia, instead of letting it continue to become yet another of the countless possible dystopias that are outlined by science fiction and other speculative fiction, and which have constituted the dystopian reality that most people ever born here have had to live through.
I'm very optimistic-- I think the hard part is mostly behind us. The social power structures (the institutions that use money, violence, and killing to control people) have not routinely killed scientist and engineer society-changers for probably several hundred years, at least in the West. Money is still used to this day-- e.g. the VCs (and other financial industry and government people) hold the capital-- not some science/engineering/humanist foundation headed by scientists/engineers/humanists. I think it's possible to work within these constraints though, and to have a significant impact.
> If you can get enough farms/factories producing the widgets of everyday life essentially for the sum of the input commodity costs, energy costs, and some small overhead (and the free market/technology relentlessly drives overhead towards 0), you wind up being able to take care of everyone-- but you don't take care of everyone with jobs.
Congratulations, you're a communist! (This is basically the communist manifesto, if you squint.)
(So am I, this is not sarcastic. Always good to find more here on HN.)
I'm probably more of a social anarchist than anything, but I think labels are often unhelpful. The beauty of our current situation is that we can build it on top of America as it exists today. No need to label it-- just build it. :)
I switch between autonomous Marxism, anarcho-communism, or post-{anarchy, communism} depending on how I'm feeling and who I talk to, so I know that feeling.
Labels are useful, but your emphasis on building is absolutely accurate.
I think labels can be useful when they are used to facilitate communication and understanding. But they can also be used as weapons and to manipulate people who have trouble communicating and understanding. I suspect we're on the same page. :)
I'd say that quote means he is a utopian. Communism describes a particular methodology (e.g. abolition of private property) that is theorized to lead to said utopia. I'm not so certain he is a proponent of Communist methods.
Yeah, I think the "Communist methods" that were tried in Eastern Europe and Asia are generally horrible ideas. And those methods are now tied up with the philosophy for better or worse. I def. don't think those methods work.
America provides a stable foundation upon which new experiments may be conducted. I know it's critical to take care of and fix America within the system as much as possible so that it can maintain its stability. But I think the real value of America involves it being that stable foundation upon which different people can try different ideas. America is not as wed-to/obsessed-with the past as much as many parts of the world-- thankfully. As breaking away from the past is critical to the advancement of humanity.
If you haven't already, it would be worth your time to read Player Piano by Vonnegut - the setting is very similar to what you describe above, and it's a pretty interesting take on those themes.
History and truth are often out of synchronization (esp. in these days of pervasive propaganda/active manipulation of the population using mass communication technology). The chapters of the human story that played out 15,000 to 5,000 years ago in Africa/Europe/Near East/India are still being figured out by a combination of archeological, genetic, and linguistic research. Concerning the worship of "Earth/Mother Goddesses" vs. "Sky Gods" (e.g. Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, etc.) and the interactions of the different groups of people who preferred (and oftentimes forced upon others) their own visions of deity, if you want to engage rationally on this topic, I recommend researching and understanding (and contesting in an actual rational manner if you believe that the hypothesis is false) the "Kurgan Hypothesis."[1] There are some good books about it.
I've observed this phenomenon/pattern in both California and Massachusetts. Also by direct experience, I've found that there are certain niche subfields of software engineering that seem to be practiced long-term only by people of this "Guild" sort.
At this year's SF Documentary Film Festival I watched a great documentary about modern origami called Between the Folds. If you have the opportunity to see it you should take advantage.
The book to read about folding is Origami Design Secrets: Mathematical Methods for an Ancient Art by Robert J. Lang.
Teaching a kid that people (and by implication the kid him/herself) are inherently good/bad (or in any way "fixed") is a really bad idea for a number of reasons. He's trying to keep her mindset growth-oriented.
"There are no neurotics or geniuses or failures or fools. There are only neurotic moments, flashes of brilliance, failed opportunities, and stupid mistakes."
-David K. Reynolds
A much better idea is to teach children to read other people's emotional state in the moment; to develop their intuition and teach them to trust it. It's that intuitive ability that will allow the child to escape arbitrary danger and to thrive in general.
I became aware of MBTI about fifteen years ago and it's been an ongoing fascination. I see it mainly as a useful conceptual framework upon which one may build a set of intuitive tools that enable effective interpersonal understanding. I've always felt it somewhat loose and inexact but unlike many of the posters here (borderline trollers actually) I don't have a problem with that looseness. And it's perhaps unsurprising that the type I seem to prefer to manifest is an extreme minority type both in the context of this site and in the context of the general population.
You seem to have a more rigorous and holistic understanding of the psyche than I do. I have a set of intuitions built from this framework. It seems you have understandings of additional surrounding frameworks, and probably a more clear understanding of MBTI itself than I do.
Do you have a reference (ideally a published book or books) that could help me expand my understanding of MBTI and the enveloping aspects of the psyche?
Learning how the psyche works is crucial, in my opinion, to being able to grow as a person. Intellectual skills increase with the understanding too, hence why I've been adamant about learning what I can.
Read Carl Gustav Jung's work, his psychoanalytic process and framework is very powerful. Particularly his works on the shadow self, symbols and the psyche, and alchemy as a transformative psychic tool.
I also pull quite a bit from Claire Grave's work on Spiral Dynamics. Ken Wilbur is also known for taking his work and expanding upon it (a simple Google search will turn up some good resources). Here's a blurb I've got copied on it:
