Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Galactus_Jones762 OP t1_je3tyow wrote

Reply to comment by phine-phurniture in Unmasking Fear and Greed: The Real Reason We Disagree About the Future by Galactus_Jones762

Can you close out the email scraper? Actually it’s pretty simple.

Again, it’s just a hypothesis on the root causes of disagreement in debates about the future.

And I don't see the harm in understanding shared values and goals (or where they diverge) BEFORE diving into feasibility concerns.

In fact, while it's not quite the same thing, it's a lot like “BACKCASTING,” a method used in urban planning and other policy discussions. They first establish a shared vision of a desirable future. This takes place BEFORE getting into feasibility concerns.

Then, you work backward from a group-defined ideal outcome. This often leads to better conversation between people from different camps.

I would like to separate it into two discussions for more productive discourse: First, discuss desirability, get agreement, and next, discuss feasibility. I talk about this in my essay, but as usual, I wrote it around an example of someone not finding peace and prosperity desirable, which, the essay explains, is due to fear, selfishness and ignorance. But regardless of why, it’s not about feasibility, he doesn’t WANT it whether it’s feasible or not. But people have a hard time saying what they want, so it’s easier to just argue the feasibility, which is always safely speculative.

This might explain why so much ink is wasted on ENDLESS feasibility discussion and almost no time discussing desirability among the people discussing.

One example, a person who argues that UBI is infeasible, but who deep down just doesn’t like the IDEA of UBI because it’s scary to change and also he doesn’t like how it feels to imagine people getting money for nothing. But instead of saying all this — which is awkward — he rebuts with an endless maze of feasibility problems.

1

phine-phurniture t1_je56tdb wrote

Interesting take on deliberation

Its hard to see the entire forest if you are on the ground. The norms folks have are coevolved with the systems they operate in and in most cases getting past them takes a wisdom they dont have.

I think you have something here boil it down.

1

Galactus_Jones762 OP t1_je6nei3 wrote

I think a lot of people don’t WANT certain outcomes that benefit a lot of humanity, but that instead of saying it outright, they want to hide behind feasibility arguments or just have us “take a hint.”

Feasibility arguments and evidence are extremely important, I’m not trying to dodge those. I’m trying to separate the wheat from the chafe.

My goal is to get it out in the open what people actually want. To press the issue. Because if many people secretly or privately want 7 billion people to just die off or go away in the event AI automates all production, that’s sort of an important thing to know NOW.

While I believe in the value of all human life, I can perfectly see where someone is coming from if they say “once we no longer need a large consumer base or labor force, I can’t really say I’d want there to be 8 billion people. There’s no benefit in a large population at that point and I’d prefer the world was inherited by the producers and the power elite. We won’t need useless eaters, and deep down I measure the value of a life by the use value it creates for society, not for its inherent value.”

So again, I wouldn’t agree with the person at all, I’d be appalled, but I’d get where they’d be coming from. Basically more of a Randian libertarian value of life versus a Kantian one. And that’s fine. But at the same time, since I’m Kantian, I worry that the Randian ideal is imminent. We are heading right for it — but very very very few people seem to want to talk about the potential for genocide of the population by the power elite. This could take the form of a slow genocide, a choking off of resources and morale, or a fast one. Because it does sort of logically flow from the premise that life’s value is determined by use and why would the elite want to share a planet with so many people if they don’t see inherent value in all human life and it’s no longer creating value?

I’m not saying it’s plausible that they consciously have a plan, although I wouldn’t rule it out. Also likely is a subconscious belief system that will naturally play out really bad if we don’t talk openly about it.

As George Carlin pointed out “THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU.” But they do need you. What happens when they stop needing you?

1

phine-phurniture t1_je6ubr0 wrote

Homo Economicas... Unfortunately issue fatigue has become the rule any compelling argument ends up attached to someone who tells us what we want to hear not what we need to hear.... they cant get elected otherwise.

I believe that this ironically the reason we have extremism the dialectic is out of whack with real world needs..

Dont forget "the will to power" and our primitive aspects.

2

Galactus_Jones762 OP t1_je6v4b0 wrote

Good points. Our primitive aspects are real. My hope is to get them out in the open to be examined. Just as man has always struggled, man also shows consistent capacity to slowly improve morally. It doesn’t happen by itself. It happens thru ideas and leadership that grow into movements that turn into change. There have always been the cynics and there have always been the idealists. There is massive futility in both, but less so for the idealists and dreamers, who rightfully own all the positive changes that have occurred in history, and when you add them up, you must admit there are MANY. Today’s idealists are no different. Most of us are spitting in the wind, but it is the combined efforts of millions that lead to the few whose names are associated with change. Which team are you on: that’s the only remaining question.

Your point about the mechanics of rhetoric and confirmation bias is astute. Articulating the problem is half of finding a solution, so you’re doing good work. Thank you.

1

phine-phurniture t1_je71nyk wrote

Massive futility..... :)

Pessimism in outlook MUST be accompanied with optimism of the will..

2

Galactus_Jones762 OP t1_je71t64 wrote

You’re big into Nietzsche, sounds like.

1

phine-phurniture t1_je8jbaa wrote

Nah my conception of will to power is likely more derogatory than his.

It is very important to contribute to the dialog of change as you never know when you touch a truth and in sharing it give a butterfly wings...

:)

2

Galactus_Jones762 OP t1_je8jech wrote

So you are saying will to power in a sarcastic way?

1

phine-phurniture t1_je8jx5r wrote

I see it as a blind instinct that lurks in the dark parts of our egos... and yes I think I do.

1

Galactus_Jones762 OP t1_je8lp5q wrote

Yeah that sounds about right. Sometimes I think the diff between Kant and Nietzsche is the difference between what we want to be true and sadly what is actually true. Although…

If it’s true that we want something to be true, eventually it will be, even if we have to fucking tear into our brains or genes and tinker with them until we powerfully will the will to power to it’s knees.

Nietzsche can’t hide from Galactus. I wield the power cosmic.

1