MootFile t1_j5cjl6i wrote
Reply to comment by Frumpagumpus in What do you think an ordinary, non-billionaire non-PhD person should be doing, preparing, or looking out for? by Six-headed_dogma_man
Why don't you go read what actual progressive engineers look like and advocated for. They're anti-capitalism and pro-scientism. Elon musk on the other hand, is one of the most wealthiest people on this Earth. And has spread anti-vaxx rhetoric.
Yes, electric vehicles are good. So is space colonization, brain chips, and vehicle automation. But all this was before Elon showed just how unhinged he really is.
Progress, is taking the means of production out of the hands of capitalists. And placing it in the hands of technicians, engineers, and scientists. Elon has not used his wealth to make this possible. Because he's a businessman.
​
And him being anti-leftist (which he is) is laughable when you look at the history of technology movements or the ideologies of utopian sci-fi authors.
His grandfather Joshua Haldeman, was a member in a left-wing movement known as Technocracy. So where do you think his ideas came from? Haldeman eventual left the movement for becoming "to communist" but still, technology enables the workers and musk is grifting off that.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/technocracy-incorporated-elon-musk
Howard Scott, Thorstein Veblen, Harold Loeb, M. King Hubbert, Jacque Fresco, H. G. Wells, Fred W. Taylor, Julian Huxley, etc. Read what they have to say about inefficiencies or improvement of mankind. Its more radical than Elon Musk's twitter verification.
MeiXue_TianHe t1_j5cs2s9 wrote
Makes sense. Considering in the end what matters is positive legacy or investments he did done in the right direction. Investing in space, AI, brain chips and renewable is already enough for one person.
If everyone could have similar impact then we be talking exponential chances across the globe. That's only possible currently with wealth. Because most things are expensive.
We must develop tools so they're no longer that expensive. And everyone can deploy gigaawatts of energy or make skyscrapers, crowdfund O'Neill cylinders or set up shop at Pluto.
Musk wouldn't be able to do what he does if not for modern technologies and infrastructure. in medieval times he'd be at best a patron of knowledge. So wealth alone isn't the key. It's the compounded exponentials.
All his unhinged pandering to political extremism and irrelevant ideologies (such America's culture wars) show a facet of weakness in present society; most people aren't ready for full technocracy. They still yearn for petty conflicts, identity based rivalry and old styled political mindset.
Technocracy is by far the best option for mankind. And the toughest one since it requires systemic change in how politics is viewed; not anymore as identity or as popularity contest.
AllCommiesRFascists t1_j5dc7j8 wrote
> progressive engineers look like and advocated for. They’re anti-capitalism and pro-scientism.
Engineers are well known for being morons outside of their field. Pretty ironic being “pro-scientism” and being against evidence based economic policy
> Progress, is taking the means of production out of the hands of capitalists.
Why is that progress?
> And placing it in the hands of technicians, engineers, and scientists.
And thereby making them capitalists themselves. What a big brain move. Anyways, pretty much every tech company gives equity as a form of compensation with most of the early employees (mostly all scientists and engineers) became very wealthy if the company is successful.
> Elon has not used his wealth to make this possible. Because he’s a businessman.
And has a masters in Physics, which means he is a scientist owning the means of production
> a left-wing movement known as Technocracy
Singapore is an actual technocracy and is very right-wing
MootFile t1_j5dh2hp wrote
>Engineers are well known for being morons outside of their field. Pretty ironic being “pro-scientism” and being evidence based economic policy
Reality seems to disagree with this point considering our society is built off the wonders of science & engineering.
>Why is that progress?
Because they've created new technology? Which fixes problems, thus progress?
>And thereby making them capitalists themselves. What a big brain move. Pretty much every tech company gives equity as a form of compensation with most of the early employees (mostly all scientists and engineers) became very wealthy if the company is successful.
Being a worker doesn't make you a capitalist. Although Marxists do call scientists "petite bourgeoisie"
>And has a masters in Physics, which means he is a scientist owning the means of production
A dictatorship lacks perspectives of other people. One scientist in charge would obviously fail. The big idea is that everyone whos educated or trained in technical occupations would be making decisions together. Aimed at removing the inefficiencies and waste of capitalism.
>Singapore is an actual technocracy and is very right-wing
Singapore has nothing to do with the movement and is not a technocracy. Neither is China.
AllCommiesRFascists t1_j5e1wfz wrote
> Reality seems to disagree with this point
Really? Being an engineer doesn’t automatically make you an expert in a different field from your own
> Because they’ve created new technology? Which fixes problems, thus progress?
And how is giving them the means of production automatically progress
> Being a worker doesn’t make you a capitalist.
Only the scientists and engineers owning capital would make them the capitalists
> The big idea is that everyone whos educated or trained in technical occupations would be making decisions together.
That’s how every business works, especially tech companies. Teams make decisions together
> Singapore has nothing to do with the movement
All policy in Singapore is crafted by experts in their field. Even in China, all the politburo members (the guys in charge of the country) have STEM degrees. Xi for example is an Industrial Engineer
AncientGreekHistory t1_j5e5kvo wrote
This entire sub-thread is a wonderful illustration of how ideology is cancer. You're just arguing over which of your cancers is worse.
AllCommiesRFascists t1_j5h1kkl wrote
I am a pragmatist and don’t really have an ideology beyond improving my country
Frumpagumpus t1_j5d3kj8 wrote
science was great until they invented peer review and transformed it into a public institution.
science has done almost nothing in decades. computer science on the other hand... why do you think stephen wolfram bailed on physics?
vaccines were big pharma ;_; lol. i dont even like them (i hate intellectual property (chinese have almost made clean energy transformation possible by ignoring the f*** out of intellectual property making solar cells and batteries cheap as dirt) but u gotta hand it to them they did that
(just look at r/science it's a joke)
AllCommiesRFascists t1_j5d8cbv wrote
This is the most ignorant thing I have read in a week
Frumpagumpus t1_j5deh3i wrote
i may have been exaggerating slightly.
still, it used to be a lot more efficient of a system, than it is now.
Frumpagumpus t1_j5d58kj wrote
another thing I would say is science/bayes theorem by itself is really no basis for any kind of moral philosophy. it has problems almost as bad as religious appeal to power/authority. not to mention is/ought problem.
freedom or fairness might be. so i think as bad as NAP principle is libertarians at least make a good faith effort whereas scientism doesn't even start from any kind of grounding.
pursuit of truth is somewhat interesting as well, though i think pursuit of falseness is equally interesting, as well as pursuit of computational complexity i guess XD (but that's a level deeper than just empirical experimentation)
MootFile t1_j5dc8wa wrote
What do you mean by morals.
Frumpagumpus t1_j5de98i wrote
capitalism = capital can be acquired through free trade
you seem to be positing that "pro scientism" will somehow distribute capital via a means other than trade, some form of distribution, which would presumably require making some kind of moral judgement of the form person y deserves amount of capital z.
but i don't see how scientific method has anything to do with making such moral judgements.
MootFile t1_j5df5yl wrote
Utilitarianism tries to frame it into a science based measurement.
Scientism is about solving problems. People starving is a problem. Morals are up to the community.
Frumpagumpus t1_j5eh5e7 wrote
it seems to me the incidence of effective altrusists is higher amongst ultra high net worth individuals than ordinary people.
(and objectively they seem to have achieved quite a lot e.g. bill gates&rotary club vs polio)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments