I'm terrified of human resilience

[obligatoryshackles]

Increasingly, it seems society is headed towards a dangerous direction. In the past, though life was materially miserable, the common people had massive power if they could organize. A peasant revolt of sufficient magnitude could overthrow any government. But the development of technology increasingly makes this prospect seem impossible. It was already had to convince peasants to stand on the frontline against knights and riflemen. Imagine trying to convince people to fight today against modern mechanized militaries and drone warfare with the impending prospect of entirely inhuman war machines. Even if victory were certain, people would balk at having to stand against such a gap in physical strength - and victory for a revolt of common folk seems to grow increasingly impossible.

And it's not just on a military front either. Modern propaganda is so vastly powerful and insidious that basically no one can even comprehend how much it influences them. We know it's happening and in our panic we point fingers to obvious scapegoats, but basically no one actually gets anything right and even if they do few people will listen. Everyone has their own scapegoats and everyone points fingers at each other, it's completely impossible to unify against the common enemy even if someone finds who that is. The truth gets drowned out in a thousand equally plausible lies and no one can agree. A balance of power is manufactured to prevent this divide from going anywhere and the oppressed are ultimately stuck fighting each other instead of unifying and revolting.

There is a time limit. Eventually, those in power will not need any mass support for their regime to continue - such is the power of technology. Once the balance of power shifts far enough, billionaires and autocrats won't even need to bother hiding their agendas. Rule through fear will not be a self destructive poison anymore, but an inescapable reality shackled down by the might of control over technology. Real life isn't like YA dystopian novels. There won't be a revolution, and if there is it will be crushed instantly.

There is an urgent need to solve these problems. But look around you. Angry as we might be at each other, we're mostly content with our lives. A vast majority of humanity does not actively concern itself with this dilemma. Our lives get worse, our standards of living decrease so we complain a little, but at the end of the day, we go on with our lives. We get used to it. We're so good at getting used to it. We would rather go on minding our own lives, the problems we see in front of us, ad infinitum, even as the world at large crumbles beyond the reach of our sight. It's incredible how resilient we are, how easily we adapt to and cope with these new circumstances.

And I fear that very resilience will be our downfall. We'll just let the dystopia come to us one small step at a time, getting used to each new injustice as a fact of life until it's too late to do anything. I fear that one day humanity will be ruled by injustice, fear, and power - and we'll just accept it as a fact of life.

 

[SexyIncél]

People I know build alternative institutions. Working behind the scenes, solving people's problems. Then during crisis points, they're in position

 

[Shrike]

It's why bread and circuses works so well. People don't really want much, and they quickly adapt to whatever they can get. Short-term is all that is seen. This is normal. I'd say it's not good, but changing this is akin to a singularity level event in both difficulty and effect.

Society mostly makes progress off of people who want a bit more than that and somehow managed to scrounge up some power in pockets here and there or make use of chaos generated by various upheavals that result from people not paying attention. They still have to ride the waves, though, and the waves are not good right now.

 

[-Link-]

I believe we are already past the point of no return.

I am glad I have no stake in the future. I cannot imagine being a parent of young children and worrying about what they'll be dealing with as they get older.

One thing to add to this scenario: As if the technology by itself won't be bad enough, it will also be powered by artificial intelligence which of course will be programmed and orchestrated by the very same people in control. They won't even have to put out any effort or get their hands dirty because AI will do it all on their behalf while they stay hidden behind their iron-gated, walled-off territories.

I'm sure a lot of people would scoff at the idea of this scenario............ which is a big part of how and why it will actually come to fruition: It's human nature, "denial as a defence mechanism."

 

[DarkRange55]

"Increasingly, it seems society is headed towards a dangerous direction. In the past, though life was materially miserable, the common people had massive power if they could organize. A peasant revolt of sufficient magnitude could overthrow any government. But the development of technology increasingly makes this prospect seem impossible. It was already had to convince peasants to stand on the frontline against knights and riflemen. Imagine trying to convince people to fight today against modern mechanized militaries and drone warfare with the impending prospect of entirely inhuman war machines. Even if victory were certain, people would balk at having to stand against such a gap in physical strength - and victory for a revolt of common folk seems to grow increasingly impossible.
Yes, but people have cars that can be turned into bombs, and drones that can carry small bombs for precision attacks - look at how much trouble even the Soviets and US militaries had in Afghanistan

And it's not just on a military front either. Modern propaganda is so vastly powerful and insidious that basically no one can even comprehend how much it influences them. We know it's happening and in our panic we point fingers to obvious scapegoats, but basically no one actually gets anything right and even if they do few people will listen. Everyone has their own scapegoats and everyone points fingers at each other, it's completely impossible to unify against the common enemy even if someone finds who that is. The truth gets drowned out in a thousand equally plausible lies and no one can agree. A balance of power is manufactured to prevent this divide from going anywhere and the oppressed are ultimately stuck fighting each other instead of unifying and revolting.
People now have the internet, and cell-phone cameras...

There is a time limit. Eventually, those in power will not need any mass support for their regime to continue - such is the power of technology. Once the balance of power shifts far enough, billionaires and autocrats won't even need to bother hiding their agendas. Rule through fear will not be a self destructive poison anymore, but an inescapable reality shackled down by the might of control over technology. Real life isn't like YA dystopian novels. There won't be a revolution, and if there is it will be crushed instantly.
A very legitimate worry.

There is an urgent need to solve these problems. But look around you. Angry as we might be at each other, we're mostly content with our lives. A vast majority of humanity does not actively concern itself with this dilemma. Our lives get worse, our standards of living decrease so we complain a little, but at the end of the day, we go on with our lives. We get used to it. We're so good at getting used to it. We would rather go on minding our own lives, the problems we see in front of us, ad infinitum, even as the world at large crumbles beyond the reach of our sight. It's incredible how resilient we are, how easily we adapt to and cope with these new circumstances.
For the most part, people's lives have gotten better, not worse.

And I fear that very resilience will be our downfall. We'll just let the dystopia come to us one small step at a time, getting used to each new injustice as a fact of life until it's too late to do anything. I fear that one day humanity will be ruled by injustice, fear, and power - and we'll just accept it as a fact of life."
It will be sold to the masses as safety and convenience, and many will welcome it, not just accept it.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

"Increasingly, it seems society is headed towards a dangerous direction. In the past, though life was materially miserable, the common people had massive power if they could organize. A peasant revolt of sufficient magnitude could overthrow any government. But the development of technology increasingly makes this prospect seem impossible. It was already had to convince peasants to stand on the frontline against knights and riflemen. Imagine trying to convince people to fight today against modern mechanized militaries and drone warfare with the impending prospect of entirely inhuman war machines. Even if victory were certain, people would balk at having to stand against such a gap in physical strength - and victory for a revolt of common folk seems to grow increasingly impossible.
Yes, but people have cars that can be turned into bombs, and drones that can carry small bombs for precision attacks - look at how much trouble even the Soviets and US militaries had in Afghanistan

And it's not just on a military front either. Modern propaganda is so vastly powerful and insidious that basically no one can even comprehend how much it influences them. We know it's happening and in our panic we point fingers to obvious scapegoats, but basically no one actually gets anything right and even if they do few people will listen. Everyone has their own scapegoats and everyone points fingers at each other, it's completely impossible to unify against the common enemy even if someone finds who that is. The truth gets drowned out in a thousand equally plausible lies and no one can agree. A balance of power is manufactured to prevent this divide from going anywhere and the oppressed are ultimately stuck fighting each other instead of unifying and revolting.
People now have the internet, and cell-phone cameras...

There is a time limit. Eventually, those in power will not need any mass support for their regime to continue - such is the power of technology. Once the balance of power shifts far enough, billionaires and autocrats won't even need to bother hiding their agendas. Rule through fear will not be a self destructive poison anymore, but an inescapable reality shackled down by the might of control over technology. Real life isn't like YA dystopian novels. There won't be a revolution, and if there is it will be crushed instantly.
A very legitimate worry.

There is an urgent need to solve these problems. But look around you. Angry as we might be at each other, we're mostly content with our lives. A vast majority of humanity does not actively concern itself with this dilemma. Our lives get worse, our standards of living decrease so we complain a little, but at the end of the day, we go on with our lives. We get used to it. We're so good at getting used to it. We would rather go on minding our own lives, the problems we see in front of us, ad infinitum, even as the world at large crumbles beyond the reach of our sight. It's incredible how resilient we are, how easily we adapt to and cope with these new circumstances.
For the most part, people's lives have gotten better, not worse.

And I fear that very resilience will be our downfall. We'll just let the dystopia come to us one small step at a time, getting used to each new injustice as a fact of life until it's too late to do anything. I fear that one day humanity will be ruled by injustice, fear, and power - and we'll just accept it as a fact of life."
It will be sold to the masses as safety and convenience, and many will welcome it, not just accept it.

1. That's a foreign war fought on foreign soil with non-committal, fairly minimal resources. In contrast, for example, if you try to fight the US military on US soil you'll find it a tad bit harder. Keep in mind how war averse modern Americans are to begin with and how divided the country is compared to a foreign nation who can often unite against their common enemy - the US. Now look at Russia - it is fighting an exceedingly unpopular war in Ukraine and it is basically managing internal resistance perfectly through fear and Stalinist era tactics. The people do not have the power to revolt.

2. The fact that you think that having internet access and phone footage makes you immune to propaganda is already pretty worrying. Consider how often footage of controversial events instead become politicized and divisive instead of rallying support today. Consider that the any government could just shut down the internet in their country if it felt that was necessary for preserving their order. Consider, for example, that that's already being done in Palestine right now - a functional proof of concept. Certainly something like Elon Musk's starlink could preserve that, barring like satellite destruction, but I'm not exactly enthusiastic about that prospect.

3. Agreement appreciated.

4. People's lives have gotten better but not nearly as much as technology and reasonable distribution of the massive wealth of resources today should have made them, not to mention that it's about to start getting worse with all the looming disasters in the next 20-30 years. Or heck, the current inflation situation has made people's lives substantially worse than it was a few years ago.

5. Could be, though current government skepticism says to me at least people will not be too happy about it.

 

[DarkRange55]

1. That's a foreign war fought on foreign soil with non-committal, fairly minimal resources. In contrast, for example, if you try to fight the US military on US soil you'll find it a tad bit harder. Keep in mind how war averse modern Americans are to begin with and how divided the country is compared to a foreign nation who can often unite against their common enemy - the US. Now look at Russia - it is fighting an exceedingly unpopular war in Ukraine and it is basically managing internal resistance perfectly through fear and Stalinist era tactics. The people do not have the power to revolt.

2. The fact that you think that having internet access and phone footage makes you immune to propaganda is already pretty worrying. Consider how often footage of controversial events instead become politicized and divisive instead of rallying support today. Consider that the any government could just shut down the internet in their country if it felt that was necessary for preserving their order. Consider, for example, that that's already being done in Palestine right now - a functional proof of concept. Certainly something like Elon Musk's starlink could preserve that, barring like satellite destruction, but I'm not exactly enthusiastic about that prospect.

3. Agreement appreciated.

4. People's lives have gotten better but not nearly as much as technology and reasonable distribution of the massive wealth of resources today should have made them, not to mention that it's about to start getting worse with all the looming disasters in the next 20-30 years. Or heck, the current inflation situation has made people's lives substantially worse than it was a few years ago.

5. Could be, though current government skepticism says to me at least people will not be too happy about it.

In regards to a "Presidential Internet kill switch," the US government could probably reroute all traffic to some bandwidth sink, but eventually people would reprogram the routers to bypass it. US government could also order the US-based phone companies to stop carrying Internet traffic.
I will have to take some time to respond to everything else when I am less busy hopefully later today or tomorrow

 

[DarkRange55]

1. That's a foreign war fought on foreign soil with non-committal, fairly minimal resources. In contrast, for example, if you try to fight the US military on US soil you'll find it a tad bit harder. Keep in mind how war averse modern Americans are to begin with and how divided the country is compared to a foreign nation who can often unite against their common enemy - the US. Now look at Russia - it is fighting an exceedingly unpopular war in Ukraine and it is basically managing internal resistance perfectly through fear and Stalinist era tactics. The people do not have the power to revolt.

2. The fact that you think that having internet access and phone footage makes you immune to propaganda is already pretty worrying. Consider how often footage of controversial events instead become politicized and divisive instead of rallying support today. Consider that the any government could just shut down the internet in their country if it felt that was necessary for preserving their order. Consider, for example, that that's already being done in Palestine right now - a functional proof of concept. Certainly something like Elon Musk's starlink could preserve that, barring like satellite destruction, but I'm not exactly enthusiastic about that prospect.

3. Agreement appreciated.

4. People's lives have gotten better but not nearly as much as technology and reasonable distribution of the massive wealth of resources today should have made them, not to mention that it's about to start getting worse with all the looming disasters in the next 20-30 years. Or heck, the current inflation situation has made people's lives substantially worse than it was a few years ago.

5. Could be, though current government skepticism says to me at least people will not be too happy about it.

#4

The Fed and economists measure inflation amongst all sectors. I don't dispute that groceries prices are up. But TV sets, computers, laptops prices are going down. Tuition is actually going down after going straight up for 30 years. So you can't just look at a quart of milk. If you're out to buy a quart of milk you might notice that the price went up. But when you look at everything else I mean clothing they're practically giving it away. And that is how they compute CPI. As you know its a basket and its got groceries and clothing, ect. is going down. So psychologically people tend to dwell on the number of prices that they see going up and they ignore the price decreases.
Looking at inflation and prices you want walk through supply demand of each item: mc=mp at price. So price is of milk, oil, bread, steak, shirts is a result if more or less efficient markets that try to set prices. There us always market power and less than perfect information. Inflation measure are just a process of collecting data to tell us how much a basket of goods that are normally consumed by us have changed from period to period. And yes much debate about what should be in that basket.

Wages are set / negotiated in labor markets and with capital. Labor and capital are combined to make goods that we buy like cates. Allocation of L and C is a production decision and feed into measures of productivity growth (1-3 percent per year in US)

Deflation is bad because less $ to payback obligations / debt that jsd higher $, like your mortgage.

Look at inflation in the 1970's/80's. Or even more so, look at Weimar Germany, Hungry, Argentina, Venezuela, ect. Or even the deflation of the 1930's. Nothing comparable to modern America.

#1 Russian history is one of dictatorships, revolts, power vacuums, ect. There certainly is a lot of propaganda but Iraq and Afaganistan and Vietnam were all unpopular wars. Their living conditions in Russia are not bad enough to revolt. People rally behind dictators a lot of times because of ultranationalism and xenophobia, "He's a dick but he's protecting us from this." Saddam used the War with Iran then the struggle against the West.

Look at how the Vietnam War ended. Iraq, Afghanistan, ect. Maybe the US isn't as powerful as it portrays itself and it's more of an illusion of power projection to some degree.

If you look at the United States Army and say you have 10 soldiers, only about 1 or 2 are actually fighters. The vast majority of an army is all kinds of support because you need people to deliver food, work radios, track personnel all sorts of functions.
American troops are all fat and lazy and effeminate, they're shit, they can't shot for shit, can't aim. The very cream of the crop AAA+ special forces (which come from cornfed middle America and believe in the American dream) however is what our intelligence agencies and military rely on for assignations and spearheading operations. They really overly rely on them. And things like the reserves or weekend warriors or the draft or whatever are things our government uses to pad their numbers to basically make the military look bigger as an illusion.

Plus most of the Army and Marines are working class. Do you think they would just go along with everything unquestioningly to kill their own citizens and attack their own neighborhoods? People doubt that missiliers would all agree to launch nukes against authoritarian geopolitical adversaries. Now imagine infantry and mechanized units fighting their own people.

#2. Look at North Korea, even they can't keep all the foreign radio signals, broadcasts, digital and printed media out. They do a good job but a decent amount of their population has some level of access (albeit its black market).

#4 the poorest people in the US today, live better than the richest people did 200 years ago.

I often say that the future will be a combination of 1984 (totalitarian omni surveillance) combined with A Brave New World (people will be in some much ignore because of distractions and feel good drugs that they will just passively accept submission)

I will respond more in depth later… so TBC

 

[DarkRange55]

1. That's a foreign war fought on foreign soil with non-committal, fairly minimal resources. In contrast, for example, if you try to fight the US military on US soil you'll find it a tad bit harder. Keep in mind how war averse modern Americans are to begin with and how divided the country is compared to a foreign nation who can often unite against their common enemy - the US. Now look at Russia - it is fighting an exceedingly unpopular war in Ukraine and it is basically managing internal resistance perfectly through fear and Stalinist era tactics. The people do not have the power to revolt.

2. The fact that you think that having internet access and phone footage makes you immune to propaganda is already pretty worrying. Consider how often footage of controversial events instead become politicized and divisive instead of rallying support today. Consider that the any government could just shut down the internet in their country if it felt that was necessary for preserving their order. Consider, for example, that that's already being done in Palestine right now - a functional proof of concept. Certainly something like Elon Musk's starlink could preserve that, barring like satellite destruction, but I'm not exactly enthusiastic about that prospect.

3. Agreement appreciated.

4. People's lives have gotten better but not nearly as much as technology and reasonable distribution of the massive wealth of resources today should have made them, not to mention that it's about to start getting worse with all the looming disasters in the next 20-30 years. Or heck, the current inflation situation has made people's lives substantially worse than it was a few years ago.

5. Could be, though current government skepticism says to me at least people will not be too happy about it.

1. That's a foreign war fought on foreign soil with non-committal, fairly minimal resources. In contrast, for example, if you try to fight the US military on US soil you'll find it a tad bit harder. Keep in mind how war averse modern Americans are to begin with and how divided the country is compared to a foreign nation who can often unite against their common enemy - the US.
As long as the populace supports the government, a rebellion stands little chance.
But open rebellion is usually not the best way to trigger change. The Canadian truckers' protest was highly successful in forcing the government to change its policies.


Now look at Russia - it is fighting an exceedingly unpopular war in Ukraine and it is basically managing internal resistance perfectly through fear and Stalinist era tactics. The people do not have the power to revolt.
The war is not unpopular enough to drive people to revolt.

2. The fact that you think that having internet access and phone footage makes you immune to propaganda is already pretty worrying.
I do not think that at all, regardless of whether you claim that it is a fact. It lowers the bar to producing and distributing information, so that more points of view can use propaganda

Consider how often footage of controversial events instead become politicized and divisive instead of rallying support today. Consider that the any government could just shut down the internet in their country if it felt that was necessary for preserving their order. Consider, for example, that that's already being done in Palestine right now - a functional proof of concept. Certainly something like Elon Musk's starlink could preserve that, barring like satellite destruction, but I'm not exactly enthusiastic about that prospect.
If the US were to shut down its internet, a lot more people would become anti-establishment. Stifling of information is usually much more subtle (pressure on social media to restrict opposing views).

3. Agreement appreciated.

4. People's lives have gotten better but not nearly as much as technology and reasonable distribution of the massive wealth of resources today should have made them,
Yes, but that is not the same as " Our lives get worse, our standards of living decrease "
not to mention that it's about to start getting worse with all the looming disasters in the next 20-30 years.
If we try to 'green' civilization too fast.
Or heck, the current inflation situation has made people's lives substantially worse than it was a few years ago.
Too much government is one of the big dangers.

5. Could be, though current government skepticism says to me at least people will not be too happy about it.
Current government skepticism is a good sign, but even there people are divided on whether the government is doing too little or doing too much.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

1. That's a foreign war fought on foreign soil with non-committal, fairly minimal resources. In contrast, for example, if you try to fight the US military on US soil you'll find it a tad bit harder. Keep in mind how war averse modern Americans are to begin with and how divided the country is compared to a foreign nation who can often unite against their common enemy - the US.
As long as the populace supports the government, a rebellion stands little chance.
But open rebellion is usually not the best way to trigger change. The Canadian truckers' protest was highly successful in forcing the government to change its policies.


Now look at Russia - it is fighting an exceedingly unpopular war in Ukraine and it is basically managing internal resistance perfectly through fear and Stalinist era tactics. The people do not have the power to revolt.
The war is not unpopular enough to drive people to revolt.

2. The fact that you think that having internet access and phone footage makes you immune to propaganda is already pretty worrying.
I do not think that at all, regardless of whether you claim that it is a fact. It lowers the bar to producing and distributing information, so that more points of view can use propaganda

Consider how often footage of controversial events instead become politicized and divisive instead of rallying support today. Consider that the any government could just shut down the internet in their country if it felt that was necessary for preserving their order. Consider, for example, that that's already being done in Palestine right now - a functional proof of concept. Certainly something like Elon Musk's starlink could preserve that, barring like satellite destruction, but I'm not exactly enthusiastic about that prospect.
If the US were to shut down its internet, a lot more people would become anti-establishment. Stifling of information is usually much more subtle (pressure on social media to restrict opposing views).

3. Agreement appreciated.

4. People's lives have gotten better but not nearly as much as technology and reasonable distribution of the massive wealth of resources today should have made them,
Yes, but that is not the same as " Our lives get worse, our standards of living decrease "
not to mention that it's about to start getting worse with all the looming disasters in the next 20-30 years.
If we try to 'green' civilization too fast.
Or heck, the current inflation situation has made people's lives substantially worse than it was a few years ago.
Too much government is one of the big dangers.

5. Could be, though current government skepticism says to me at least people will not be too happy about it.
Current government skepticism is a good sign, but even there people are divided on whether the government is doing too little or doing too much.

1. Protests are good, don't get me wrong, but last time the government saw a major protest movement with the potential to make more than marginal changes they assassinated the face of the civil rights movement and more or less shut it down. Given that any modern US rebellion will likely have at least half the country against it, it'll be hard enough, though to be fair domestic revolutions tend to not end too well most of the time anyway. The war is not unpopular enough to drive people to revolt in Russia because nothing is going to be, barring total power collapse or the government self destructing.

2. Lowering the bar for information distribution has also created vast amounts of misinformation. The benefits may, admittedly, outweigh the downside there, but that's hard to measure at best. Also, when your only response to that paragraph is "People now have the internet, and cell-phone cameras..." what else am I supposed to glean from that?

3.

4. Wages have stagnated far below keeping up with inflation, the new generation is saddled with debt, housing is unaffordable, the wealth gap continues to grow despite a booming economy, it's pretty clear that the the current generation has a lower standard of living than the generation, say, 30-40 years ago, at least in terms of economic security. Food's probably gotten better, medicine's gotten better, technology has made life more convenient, etc. I can't deny that. Oh, and there's certainly a LOT of entertainment to consume. Love me some opiate for the masses. But you certainly can't afford a house starting on a minimum wage job anymore.

On that note, comparing standards of living today to 200 years ago is a bit much. You'd have to make the prediction that the current slump in standards of living is temporary, which isn't entirely unreasonable, but not very convincing.

If you're in denial about climate change or at least about how bad it'll be, well, I can't change your mind most likely, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there. There are other things there as well, like the impending situation between Taiwan and China, the birth rate decline and demographic shift, the declining health of US democracy, rising authoritarian trends globally, and though I'm not a fan of it, the US global hegemony's decline is sure to bring some chaos as well.

I would at least like the government to at least be big enough to not be entirely subservient to wealth. The only current alternative to "too much government" is to basically hand over the reins of society to the richest corporations and unregulated capitalism, which is an idea I'm not particularly fond of, though I guess a cyberpunk future would at least be more exciting than 1984.

5. Yeah, definitely alarming how badly polarized politics got. Whether this current state of things was intentionally created or not, it's certainly doing a good job keeping the actual sources of the problem out of harms way while the people bicker amongst themselves.

 

[DarkRange55]

1. Protests are good, don't get me wrong, but last time the government saw a major protest movement with the potential to make more than marginal changes they assassinated the face of the civil rights movement and more or less shut it down. Given that any modern US rebellion will likely have at least half the country against it, it'll be hard enough, though to be fair domestic revolutions tend to not end too well most of the time anyway. The war is not unpopular enough to drive people to revolt in Russia because nothing is going to be, barring total power collapse or the government self destructing.

2. Lowering the bar for information distribution has also created vast amounts of misinformation. The benefits may, admittedly, outweigh the downside there, but that's hard to measure at best. Also, when your only response to that paragraph is "People now have the internet, and cell-phone cameras..." what else am I supposed to glean from that?

3.

4. Wages have stagnated far below keeping up with inflation, the new generation is saddled with debt, housing is unaffordable, the wealth gap continues to grow despite a booming economy, it's pretty clear that the the current generation has a lower standard of living than the generation, say, 30-40 years ago, at least in terms of economic security. Food's probably gotten better, medicine's gotten better, technology has made life more convenient, etc. I can't deny that. Oh, and there's certainly a LOT of entertainment to consume. Love me some opiate for the masses. But you certainly can't afford a house starting on a minimum wage job anymore.

On that note, comparing standards of living today to 200 years ago is a bit much. You'd have to make the prediction that the current slump in standards of living is temporary, which isn't entirely unreasonable, but not very convincing.

If you're in denial about climate change or at least about how bad it'll be, well, I can't change your mind most likely, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there. There are other things there as well, like the impending situation between Taiwan and China, the birth rate decline and demographic shift, the declining health of US democracy, rising authoritarian trends globally, and though I'm not a fan of it, the US global hegemony's decline is sure to bring some chaos as well.

I would at least like the government to at least be big enough to not be entirely subservient to wealth. The only current alternative to "too much government" is to basically hand over the reins of society to the richest corporations and unregulated capitalism, which is an idea I'm not particularly fond of, though I guess a cyberpunk future would at least be more exciting than 1984.

5. Yeah, definitely alarming how badly polarized politics got. Whether this current state of things was intentionally created or not, it's certainly doing a good job keeping the actual sources of the problem out of harms way while the people bicker amongst themselves.

Certainly not a climate denier.

Over the last 100 years, housing has only outpaced inflation by 1%. However, the trend over the last 20-30 years has accelerated but in 2007/08 they fell by 40%. But most people are looking at houses (land is limited) in areas that are expensive: LA, NYC, Seattle, ect. A lot of tech companies and very dense population. You can still get a more affordable house in the Midwest or Virginia for example. Plus higher taxes in those bluer areas. Housing is becoming expensive globally. Look at Taiwan. They don't have "starter" homes in the US anymore because of the rising construction and material costs, its more cost effective for developers to build larger, nicer homes or condos now. It is cyclical. Interests rates will come down in the future. They were higher than today under the Carter Administration.

Wages have not kept up with inflation but cost of living is a different metric of measure (NYC vs Madison, Wisconsin),

ford model t was ~800 in 1908, which would be ~$25K in today's $. You can get a much better car for $25K today, so more bang for your buck.

The very definition of a commodity means that it does not have any knowledge component and technology is now at a stage that it quickly acts to increase supply. This may not have been true in the 1970's when we had increases in gold and oil prices because the technonomic medium of the world was not powerful and adaptable enough to respond to higher prices with increases in supply but now we are in that age. And its no longer an age where anything that has anything that has a scarcity-based model can really rise a lot in price.

We've also been seeing shrinkflation and greedflation. You can have gouging, if they're charging you $10 for OJ thats gouging, thats not inflation, per se.

Our ability to purchase fantastic electronics for very little cost is because our ability to produce electronics advances even faster than the ravages of inflation.

There are live streams in Kiev during the war. Information is power. When Christianity was young, people couldn't read and only the priest had the Bible. People will find a way…

China is not going to conveniently invade Taiwan for many reasons. I posted on another thread about this. I've lived in both Taiwan and mainland Island.

As far as the US - geopolitical influence may decline abroad but also posted on another thread about this.

I can elaborate in detail about both of these.

Not a fan of a corporatocracy either. It's just that in any system (North Korea's juche, Soviet Union's marxism, West's capitalism, monarchies, ect) money has power and influence.
The government doesn't control the economy and many people blame the president for it. They can influence it (interest rates, fiscal policy, taxes, ect).

In my opinion it's not about reducing wealth inequality through taxes specifically, it's about using the surplus of money from actually taxing the wealthy to enrich our schools and infrastructure which just gives people a better shot at life in general.

1. Protests are good, don't get me wrong, but last time the government saw a major protest movement with the potential to make more than marginal changes they assassinated the face of the civil rights movement and more or less shut it down. Given that any modern US rebellion will likely have at least half the country against it, it'll be hard enough, though to be fair domestic revolutions tend to not end too well most of the time anyway. The war is not unpopular enough to drive people to revolt in Russia because nothing is going to be, barring total power collapse or the government self destructing.

2. Lowering the bar for information distribution has also created vast amounts of misinformation. The benefits may, admittedly, outweigh the downside there, but that's hard to measure at best. Also, when your only response to that paragraph is "People now have the internet, and cell-phone cameras..." what else am I supposed to glean from that?

3.

4. Wages have stagnated far below keeping up with inflation, the new generation is saddled with debt, housing is unaffordable, the wealth gap continues to grow despite a booming economy, it's pretty clear that the the current generation has a lower standard of living than the generation, say, 30-40 years ago, at least in terms of economic security. Food's probably gotten better, medicine's gotten better, technology has made life more convenient, etc. I can't deny that. Oh, and there's certainly a LOT of entertainment to consume. Love me some opiate for the masses. But you certainly can't afford a house starting on a minimum wage job anymore.

On that note, comparing standards of living today to 200 years ago is a bit much. You'd have to make the prediction that the current slump in standards of living is temporary, which isn't entirely unreasonable, but not very convincing.

If you're in denial about climate change or at least about how bad it'll be, well, I can't change your mind most likely, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there. There are other things there as well, like the impending situation between Taiwan and China, the birth rate decline and demographic shift, the declining health of US democracy, rising authoritarian trends globally, and though I'm not a fan of it, the US global hegemony's decline is sure to bring some chaos as well.

I would at least like the government to at least be big enough to not be entirely subservient to wealth. The only current alternative to "too much government" is to basically hand over the reins of society to the richest corporations and unregulated capitalism, which is an idea I'm not particularly fond of, though I guess a cyberpunk future would at least be more exciting than 1984.

5. Yeah, definitely alarming how badly polarized politics got. Whether this current state of things was intentionally created or not, it's certainly doing a good job keeping the actual sources of the problem out of harms way while the people bicker amongst themselves.

Anthropogenic climate change is real and happening. However, we will continue to develop solutions like vertical indoor farming for example. It will drastically affect less developed nations more. Humanity survived the ice age and super volcanos lowering the global population to 3,00-6,000 people at one point. So humanity will soldier on.

1. Protests are good, don't get me wrong, but last time the government saw a major protest movement with the potential to make more than marginal changes they assassinated the face of the civil rights movement and more or less shut it down. Given that any modern US rebellion will likely have at least half the country against it, it'll be hard enough, though to be fair domestic revolutions tend to not end too well most of the time anyway. The war is not unpopular enough to drive people to revolt in Russia because nothing is going to be, barring total power collapse or the government self destructing.

2. Lowering the bar for information distribution has also created vast amounts of misinformation. The benefits may, admittedly, outweigh the downside there, but that's hard to measure at best. Also, when your only response to that paragraph is "People now have the internet, and cell-phone cameras..." what else am I supposed to glean from that?

3.

4. Wages have stagnated far below keeping up with inflation, the new generation is saddled with debt, housing is unaffordable, the wealth gap continues to grow despite a booming economy, it's pretty clear that the the current generation has a lower standard of living than the generation, say, 30-40 years ago, at least in terms of economic security. Food's probably gotten better, medicine's gotten better, technology has made life more convenient, etc. I can't deny that. Oh, and there's certainly a LOT of entertainment to consume. Love me some opiate for the masses. But you certainly can't afford a house starting on a minimum wage job anymore.

On that note, comparing standards of living today to 200 years ago is a bit much. You'd have to make the prediction that the current slump in standards of living is temporary, which isn't entirely unreasonable, but not very convincing.

If you're in denial about climate change or at least about how bad it'll be, well, I can't change your mind most likely, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there. There are other things there as well, like the impending situation between Taiwan and China, the birth rate decline and demographic shift, the declining health of US democracy, rising authoritarian trends globally, and though I'm not a fan of it, the US global hegemony's decline is sure to bring some chaos as well.

I would at least like the government to at least be big enough to not be entirely subservient to wealth. The only current alternative to "too much government" is to basically hand over the reins of society to the richest corporations and unregulated capitalism, which is an idea I'm not particularly fond of, though I guess a cyberpunk future would at least be more exciting than 1984.

5. Yeah, definitely alarming how badly polarized politics got. Whether this current state of things was intentionally created or not, it's certainly doing a good job keeping the actual sources of the problem out of harms way while the people bicker amongst themselves.

Only at the presuppose of the tipping point do people find the will to change.

1. Protests are good, don't get me wrong, but last time the government saw a major protest movement with the potential to make more than marginal changes they assassinated the face of the civil rights movement and more or less shut it down. Given that any modern US rebellion will likely have at least half the country against it, it'll be hard enough, though to be fair domestic revolutions tend to not end too well most of the time anyway. The war is not unpopular enough to drive people to revolt in Russia because nothing is going to be, barring total power collapse or the government self destructing.

2. Lowering the bar for information distribution has also created vast amounts of misinformation. The benefits may, admittedly, outweigh the downside there, but that's hard to measure at best. Also, when your only response to that paragraph is "People now have the internet, and cell-phone cameras..." what else am I supposed to glean from that?

3.

4. Wages have stagnated far below keeping up with inflation, the new generation is saddled with debt, housing is unaffordable, the wealth gap continues to grow despite a booming economy, it's pretty clear that the the current generation has a lower standard of living than the generation, say, 30-40 years ago, at least in terms of economic security. Food's probably gotten better, medicine's gotten better, technology has made life more convenient, etc. I can't deny that. Oh, and there's certainly a LOT of entertainment to consume. Love me some opiate for the masses. But you certainly can't afford a house starting on a minimum wage job anymore.

On that note, comparing standards of living today to 200 years ago is a bit much. You'd have to make the prediction that the current slump in standards of living is temporary, which isn't entirely unreasonable, but not very convincing.

If you're in denial about climate change or at least about how bad it'll be, well, I can't change your mind most likely, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there. There are other things there as well, like the impending situation between Taiwan and China, the birth rate decline and demographic shift, the declining health of US democracy, rising authoritarian trends globally, and though I'm not a fan of it, the US global hegemony's decline is sure to bring some chaos as well.

I would at least like the government to at least be big enough to not be entirely subservient to wealth. The only current alternative to "too much government" is to basically hand over the reins of society to the richest corporations and unregulated capitalism, which is an idea I'm not particularly fond of, though I guess a cyberpunk future would at least be more exciting than 1984.

5. Yeah, definitely alarming how badly polarized politics got. Whether this current state of things was intentionally created or not, it's certainly doing a good job keeping the actual sources of the problem out of harms way while the people bicker amongst themselves.

As patents expire and supply chains scale products become less expensive.

And yes, the authoritarian shift / decline of democracy is absolutely worrying.

1. Protests are good, don't get me wrong, but last time the government saw a major protest movement with the potential to make more than marginal changes they assassinated the face of the civil rights movement and more or less shut it down. Given that any modern US rebellion will likely have at least half the country against it, it'll be hard enough, though to be fair domestic revolutions tend to not end too well most of the time anyway. The war is not unpopular enough to drive people to revolt in Russia because nothing is going to be, barring total power collapse or the government self destructing.

2. Lowering the bar for information distribution has also created vast amounts of misinformation. The benefits may, admittedly, outweigh the downside there, but that's hard to measure at best. Also, when your only response to that paragraph is "People now have the internet, and cell-phone cameras..." what else am I supposed to glean from that?

3.

4. Wages have stagnated far below keeping up with inflation, the new generation is saddled with debt, housing is unaffordable, the wealth gap continues to grow despite a booming economy, it's pretty clear that the the current generation has a lower standard of living than the generation, say, 30-40 years ago, at least in terms of economic security. Food's probably gotten better, medicine's gotten better, technology has made life more convenient, etc. I can't deny that. Oh, and there's certainly a LOT of entertainment to consume. Love me some opiate for the masses. But you certainly can't afford a house starting on a minimum wage job anymore.

On that note, comparing standards of living today to 200 years ago is a bit much. You'd have to make the prediction that the current slump in standards of living is temporary, which isn't entirely unreasonable, but not very convincing.

If you're in denial about climate change or at least about how bad it'll be, well, I can't change your mind most likely, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there. There are other things there as well, like the impending situation between Taiwan and China, the birth rate decline and demographic shift, the declining health of US democracy, rising authoritarian trends globally, and though I'm not a fan of it, the US global hegemony's decline is sure to bring some chaos as well.

I would at least like the government to at least be big enough to not be entirely subservient to wealth. The only current alternative to "too much government" is to basically hand over the reins of society to the richest corporations and unregulated capitalism, which is an idea I'm not particularly fond of, though I guess a cyberpunk future would at least be more exciting than 1984.

5. Yeah, definitely alarming how badly polarized politics got. Whether this current state of things was intentionally created or not, it's certainly doing a good job keeping the actual sources of the problem out of harms way while the people bicker amongst themselves.

Wages have not kept up with inflation but the US experienced an economic golden age when the rest of the worked was destroyed in WWII. The US decided to outsource a lot of labor.

If you were a real estate developer, you would want to maximize your income per square foot as much as possible. It's also price elasticity. Additionally you have money from overseas that use US real estate for holding money which also drives up the price.

 

[DarkRange55]

1. Protests are good, don't get me wrong, but last time the government saw a major protest movement with the potential to make more than marginal changes they assassinated the face of the civil rights movement and more or less shut it down. Given that any modern US rebellion will likely have at least half the country against it, it'll be hard enough, though to be fair domestic revolutions tend to not end too well most of the time anyway. The war is not unpopular enough to drive people to revolt in Russia because nothing is going to be, barring total power collapse or the government self destructing.

2. Lowering the bar for information distribution has also created vast amounts of misinformation. The benefits may, admittedly, outweigh the downside there, but that's hard to measure at best. Also, when your only response to that paragraph is "People now have the internet, and cell-phone cameras..." what else am I supposed to glean from that?

3.

4. Wages have stagnated far below keeping up with inflation, the new generation is saddled with debt, housing is unaffordable, the wealth gap continues to grow despite a booming economy, it's pretty clear that the the current generation has a lower standard of living than the generation, say, 30-40 years ago, at least in terms of economic security. Food's probably gotten better, medicine's gotten better, technology has made life more convenient, etc. I can't deny that. Oh, and there's certainly a LOT of entertainment to consume. Love me some opiate for the masses. But you certainly can't afford a house starting on a minimum wage job anymore.

On that note, comparing standards of living today to 200 years ago is a bit much. You'd have to make the prediction that the current slump in standards of living is temporary, which isn't entirely unreasonable, but not very convincing.

If you're in denial about climate change or at least about how bad it'll be, well, I can't change your mind most likely, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there. There are other things there as well, like the impending situation between Taiwan and China, the birth rate decline and demographic shift, the declining health of US democracy, rising authoritarian trends globally, and though I'm not a fan of it, the US global hegemony's decline is sure to bring some chaos as well.

I would at least like the government to at least be big enough to not be entirely subservient to wealth. The only current alternative to "too much government" is to basically hand over the reins of society to the richest corporations and unregulated capitalism, which is an idea I'm not particularly fond of, though I guess a cyberpunk future would at least be more exciting than 1984.

5. Yeah, definitely alarming how badly polarized politics got. Whether this current state of things was intentionally created or not, it's certainly doing a good job keeping the actual sources of the problem out of harms way while the people bicker amongst themselves.

to make more than marginal changes they assassinated the face of the civil rights movement and more or less shut it down.

And then started implementing those changes...

Given that any modern US rebellion will likely have at least half the country against it, it'll be hard enough, though to be fair domestic revolutions tend to not end too well most of the time anyway.

Agreed.

The war is not unpopular enough to drive people to revolt in Russia because nothing is going to be, barring total power collapse or the government self destructing.

Agreed.

2. Lowering the bar for information distribution has also created vast amounts of misinformation. The benefits may, admittedly, outweigh the downside there,

Definitely outweigh.

but that's hard to measure at best. Also, when your only response to that paragraph is "People now have the internet, and cell-phone cameras..." what else am I supposed to glean from that?

Pointing out that the people now have their own means of documenting and publishing is pretty far from saying that they are immune to propaganda. Having a gun does not make you bullet-proof...

3.

4. Wages have stagnated far below keeping up with inflation, the new generation is saddled with debt, housing is unaffordable, the wealth gap continues to grow despite a booming economy, it's pretty clear that the the current generation has a lower standard of living than the generation, say, 30-40 years ago, at least in terms of economic security. Food's probably gotten better, medicine's gotten better, technology has made life more convenient, etc. I can't deny that. Oh, and there's certainly a LOT of entertainment to consume. Love me some opiate for the masses. But you certainly can't afford a house starting on a minimum wage job anymore.

Show Quoted Content

3.

4. Wages have stagnated far below keeping up with inflation, the new generation is saddled with debt, housing is unaffordable, the wealth gap continues to grow despite a booming economy, it's pretty clear that the the current generation has a lower standard of living than the generation, say, 30-40 years ago, at least in terms of economic security. Food's probably gotten better, medicine's gotten better, technology has made life more convenient, etc. I can't deny that. Oh, and there's certainly a LOT of entertainment to consume. Love me some opiate for the masses. But you certainly can't afford a house starting on a minimum wage job anymore.

I don't recall people on a minimum wage-job being able to afford a house. Yes, 40 to 80 years ago it was easier to afford a house, but we were not paying almost any of the cost of extracting oil, minerals, degrading land, polluting the air and water, in the negative health consequences of our horrible food had not yet caught up, so I think that the advances in food, medicine and technology more than make up for the negatives (although I agree that the last few years have been negative).

On that note, comparing standards of living today to 200 years ago is a bit much.

The same is true for 100 years ago. If you include the rest of the world, then it is true 50 years ago or even 25 years ago, or even 10 years ago.

You'd have to make the prediction that the current slump in standards of living is temporary, which isn't entirely unreasonable, but not very convincing.

The current slump in standards of living is not very old, and much of it is mostly from Third World countries getting more of the benefits of their work than they used to.
And with the rate that technology is advancing, it certainly doesn't have to be permanent the danger that we try to green civilization too fast, and get a backlash that won't help either the economy or the environment (starving people eat wildlife reserves for breakfast, so to speak).

If you're in denial about climate change or at least about how bad it'll be, well, I can't change your mind most likely, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Solar and wind energy have gone from being the most expensive forms of that generation to the cheapest in just a few decades, and energy storage is finally making good progress. The next 20 to 30 years will be rough (habitat loss from stupid things like biofuels as well as another billion hungry mouths, and alarming things like groundwater depletion), but after that technological progress will overwhelm the slight increases in population, and humanity will become much less destructive. This has already happened in the first world, and the rest of the world will follow suit.

There are other things there as well, like the impending situation between Taiwan and China, the birth rate decline and demographic shift, the declining health of US democracy, rising authoritarian trends globally, and though I'm not a fan of it, the US global hegemony's decline is sure to bring some chaos as well.

Yes, there are certainly things that could go wrong, but that just doesn't justify a belief that there is an endless sea of swirling monsters and that there is no hope for humanity.

I would at least like the government to at least be big enough to not be entirely subservient to wealth. The only current alternative to "too much government" is to basically hand over the reins of society to the richest corporations and unregulated capitalism, which is an idea I'm not particularly fond of, though I guess a cyberpunk future would at least be more exciting than 1984.

Show Quoted Content

I would at least like the government to at least be big enough to not be entirely subservient to wealth. The only current alternative to "too much government" is to basically hand over the reins of society to the richest corporations and unregulated capitalism, which is an idea I'm not particularly fond of, though I guess a cyberpunk future would at least be more exciting than 1984.

The government could be smaller than it currently is and still have the teeth to enforce the justice system. The problem is more a political system that brings to power people who can be bought.

5. Yeah, definitely alarming how badly polarized politics got. Whether this current state of things was intentionally created or not, it's certainly doing a good job keeping the actual sources of the problem out of harms way while the people bicker amongst themselves.

Agreed!

 

[obligatoryshackles]

And then started implementing those changes...


Agreed.


Agreed.

Definitely outweigh.


Pointing out that the people now have their own means of documenting and publishing is pretty far from saying that they are immune to propaganda. Having a gun does not make you bullet-proof...

Show Quoted Content


I don't recall people on a minimum wage-job being able to afford a house. Yes, 40 to 80 years ago it was easier to afford a house, but we were not paying almost any of the cost of extracting oil, minerals, degrading land, polluting the air and water, in the negative health consequences of our horrible food had not yet caught up, so I think that the advances in food, medicine and technology more than make up for the negatives (although I agree that the last few years have been negative).

The same is true for 100 years ago. If you include the rest of the world, then it is true 50 years ago or even 25 years ago, or even 10 years ago.


The current slump in standards of living is not very old, and much of it is mostly from Third World countries getting more of the benefits of their work than they used to.
And with the rate that technology is advancing, it certainly doesn't have to be permanent the danger that we try to green civilization too fast, and get a backlash that won't help either the economy or the environment (starving people eat wildlife reserves for breakfast, so to speak).

Solar and wind energy have gone from being the most expensive forms of that generation to the cheapest in just a few decades, and energy storage is finally making good progress. The next 20 to 30 years will be rough (habitat loss from stupid things like biofuels as well as another billion hungry mouths, and alarming things like groundwater depletion), but after that technological progress will overwhelm the slight increases in population, and humanity will become much less destructive. This has already happened in the first world, and the rest of the world will follow suit.


Yes, there are certainly things that could go wrong, but that just doesn't justify a belief that there is an endless sea of swirling monsters and that there is no hope for humanity.

Show Quoted Content


The government could be smaller than it currently is and still have the teeth to enforce the justice system. The problem is more a political system that brings to power people who can be bought.

Agreed!

Well, I may have become distracted for a bit. I guess it didn't help that it became a bit of a sprawling discussion and I was too lazy to do research/pull up sources for argument and I didn't want to do it the disservice of just saying stuff that I may have made up in my mind.

I'll concede that I'm relatively hopeful for humanity myself. I think that even if it takes the trauma of literal nuclear annihilation for us to come to an understanding, we'll make it through eventually. Barring a straight up gamma ray burst or another cosmic event of similar scale annihilating the planet's surface, I don't think humanity's going extinct any time soon.

But as far as possible dark futures, I can still very much see the development of some kind of corporate technocracy that is far too materially powerful to ever wrest power back from through both information control and military might without the human element. I'll admit that the original post is a little exaggerated for dramatic effect and that the outcome is ultimately unlikely. But I do want to stand firm that it is a possible development and may be very difficult to escape from if it comes to be, compared to, say, an unstable autocracy.


To be a little petty here, I'll address some points anyway just for the fun of it, but take it with a grain of salt since I'm mostly just saying stuff and not sourcing it:

MLK Jr's assassination stopped the civil rights movement from continuing beyond a certain point. Yes, it legally sanctioned equal rights between races - but that's just about as much as the government was willing to grant, nowhere near its end goal. MLK Jr intended for the movement to continue far beyond that into socialist ideals - no man is free until all men are free, as applied to the working class as a whole. That's why he was killed. The government was willing to cede on racial equality, but not on worker's rights. At least that's what I've concluded from the limited information I have on the topic.


As for standards of living, I'm very much of the belief that we easily have the resources needed for everyone, if not globally, at least in developed countries to have all of their basic needs met. Yet because of what essentially amounts to greed and a false idea of "fairness" we deny these resources to many people. Yes, standards of living are increasing with technological development - but the increase is severely crippled by the burden of bureaucracy and the systems we've imposed on ourselves when they were necessary in the past. Those very same systems may well go too far in the wrong direction. If we can't shake the notion that one must work to deserve to live, more and more power will flow into those who control labor rather than those who provide it, and with the development of automation in both manual and mental labor, the worker may eventually lose all leverage.

Our current response is to invent new industries and to create new jobs in service, but at a certain point it will become clear that a vast majority of that work has little real power or purpose. When the people who own all the machines control the entire agricultural industry and the entire power industry, for example, they will essentially have power over everything else as well by simply controlling all the essential goods. Definitely an unlikely hypothetical scenario but still very much fits the fear of the frog being slowly boiled analogy, and a real, if slim, possibility.

Opiate for the masses in the form of entertainment and affordable cars so we can still drag ourselves to minimum wage jobs where we get exploited with no recourse, hooray!


Regarding climate change, I guess I can't be 100% certain - maybe you have a good source for it - but I just don't think green technology will develop fast enough to mitigate the coming climate disaster. Yes, sustainable power is becoming cheaper and growing in scale alongside the necessary power storage, but that won't really help if we still use fossil fuels at the same scale at the same time. We're just generating more power while polluting at the same rate. Rather than reducing fossil fuels, it seems we're just continuing to use them for surplus power. It's true that we could easily stop climate change, but are we willing to? Are governments willing to give up the free advantage of surplus power just to meet some stupid treaty they signed 50 years ago in Paris? It seems to me the answer is learning towards no. Even with the development of green energy, if we're not actually willing to abandon fossil fuels at the same time, it's not really stopping climate change.

Arguably, sustainable power should eventually hit the point where it prices out fossil fuels entirely out of the market. But that assumes that the market is, at all, actually free and fair. The fossil fuel industry is far too entrenched and has enormous political leverage, especially in the west where the government is largely beholden to corporate interest. A lot of it likely hinges on the upcoming US presidential election, which could easily set us back decades.

It's very much a numbers game at this point rather than an absolute and as far as I can tell, climate change mitigation is losing the race and things aren't getting much better. We're very much already on the path to climate disaster without drastic action, even without accounting for population growth, even with the current rate of fossil fuel reduction. Yes, technology will eventually develop to stop and even reverse climate change. Yes, fossil fuels will eventually shrink in the market and stop adding carbon to the atmosphere at dangerous levels. Will all that arrive in time to prevent the mass collapse of global agriculture? To prevent mass ecological upheaval? Unclear, leaning towards no in my opinion.

How many millions will die with the global food shortage, the flooding of coastal regions, and the unlivable temperatures near the equator before we turn back the tide? Who comes out with all the power and leverage afterwards in the likely ensuing conflicts? I tend to be on the pessimistic side on the answers to these questions. Although I fully believe that humanity as a whole will easily survive this disaster, I'm not too optimistic regarding in what shape we do.


And man, why is it that when the Roman republic collapsed into autocracy, they had cool people like Caesar and Augustus, while we're stuck with some decrepit old men and greedy corporations during the decline of our republic? It's just not fair!

 

[DarkRange55]

Well, I may have become distracted for a bit. I guess it didn't help that it became a bit of a sprawling discussion and I was too lazy to do research/pull up sources for argument and I didn't want to do it the disservice of just saying stuff that I may have made up in my mind.

I'll concede that I'm relatively hopeful for humanity myself. I think that even if it takes the trauma of literal nuclear annihilation for us to come to an understanding, we'll make it through eventually. Barring a straight up gamma ray burst or another cosmic event of similar scale annihilating the planet's surface, I don't think humanity's going extinct any time soon.

But as far as possible dark futures, I can still very much see the development of some kind of corporate technocracy that is far too materially powerful to ever wrest power back from through both information control and military might without the human element. I'll admit that the original post is a little exaggerated for dramatic effect and that the outcome is ultimately unlikely. But I do want to stand firm that it is a possible development and may be very difficult to escape from if it comes to be, compared to, say, an unstable autocracy.


To be a little petty here, I'll address some points anyway just for the fun of it, but take it with a grain of salt since I'm mostly just saying stuff and not sourcing it:

MLK Jr's assassination stopped the civil rights movement from continuing beyond a certain point. Yes, it legally sanctioned equal rights between races - but that's just about as much as the government was willing to grant, nowhere near its end goal. MLK Jr intended for the movement to continue far beyond that into socialist ideals - no man is free until all men are free, as applied to the working class as a whole. That's why he was killed. The government was willing to cede on racial equality, but not on worker's rights. At least that's what I've concluded from the limited information I have on the topic.


As for standards of living, I'm very much of the belief that we easily have the resources needed for everyone, if not globally, at least in developed countries to have all of their basic needs met. Yet because of what essentially amounts to greed and a false idea of "fairness" we deny these resources to many people. Yes, standards of living are increasing with technological development - but the increase is severely crippled by the burden of bureaucracy and the systems we've imposed on ourselves when they were necessary in the past. Those very same systems may well go too far in the wrong direction. If we can't shake the notion that one must work to deserve to live, more and more power will flow into those who control labor rather than those who provide it, and with the development of automation in both manual and mental labor, the worker may eventually lose all leverage.

Our current response is to invent new industries and to create new jobs in service, but at a certain point it will become clear that a vast majority of that work has little real power or purpose. When the people who own all the machines control the entire agricultural industry and the entire power industry, for example, they will essentially have power over everything else as well by simply controlling all the essential goods. Definitely an unlikely hypothetical scenario but still very much fits the fear of the frog being slowly boiled analogy, and a real, if slim, possibility.

Opiate for the masses in the form of entertainment and affordable cars so we can still drag ourselves to minimum wage jobs where we get exploited with no recourse, hooray!


Regarding climate change, I guess I can't be 100% certain - maybe you have a good source for it - but I just don't think green technology will develop fast enough to mitigate the coming climate disaster. Yes, sustainable power is becoming cheaper and growing in scale alongside the necessary power storage, but that won't really help if we still use fossil fuels at the same scale at the same time. We're just generating more power while polluting at the same rate. Rather than reducing fossil fuels, it seems we're just continuing to use them for surplus power. It's true that we could easily stop climate change, but are we willing to? Are governments willing to give up the free advantage of surplus power just to meet some stupid treaty they signed 50 years ago in Paris? It seems to me the answer is learning towards no. Even with the development of green energy, if we're not actually willing to abandon fossil fuels at the same time, it's not really stopping climate change.

Arguably, sustainable power should eventually hit the point where it prices out fossil fuels entirely out of the market. But that assumes that the market is, at all, actually free and fair. The fossil fuel industry is far too entrenched and has enormous political leverage, especially in the west where the government is largely beholden to corporate interest. A lot of it likely hinges on the upcoming US presidential election, which could easily set us back decades.

It's very much a numbers game at this point rather than an absolute and as far as I can tell, climate change mitigation is losing the race and things aren't getting much better. We're very much already on the path to climate disaster without drastic action, even without accounting for population growth, even with the current rate of fossil fuel reduction. Yes, technology will eventually develop to stop and even reverse climate change. Yes, fossil fuels will eventually shrink in the market and stop adding carbon to the atmosphere at dangerous levels. Will all that arrive in time to prevent the mass collapse of global agriculture? To prevent mass ecological upheaval? Unclear, leaning towards no in my opinion.

How many millions will die with the global food shortage, the flooding of coastal regions, and the unlivable temperatures near the equator before we turn back the tide? Who comes out with all the power and leverage afterwards in the likely ensuing conflicts? I tend to be on the pessimistic side on the answers to these questions. Although I fully believe that humanity as a whole will easily survive this disaster, I'm not too optimistic regarding in what shape we do.


And man, why is it that when the Roman republic collapsed into autocracy, they had cool people like Caesar and Augustus, while we're stuck with some decrepit old men and greedy corporations during the decline of our republic? It's just not fair!

Standards of living - read A short well researched book showing the challenges of growth, inequality and class over 300 years. Lots of challenges ahead

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674273559

Could we feed, clothe and educate every human being on earth? Yes. However many cheap goods currently rely on cheap labor. Is that right or wrong? Probably wrong but thats a moral question rather than a pragmatic question.

Will corporations continue to grow in power? Sure. Will governments? Unfortunately.

How would sea level change if all glaciers melted? | U.S. Geological Survey

approximately 230 feet

What is fair? I can't answer that. I do believe that. Everyone deserves a livable wage and access to education and medical care. However, I do also believe you get paid in proportion to the problem you solve. If you scrub toilets versus being a brain surgeon versus landing rockets on Mars.

Well, I may have become distracted for a bit. I guess it didn't help that it became a bit of a sprawling discussion and I was too lazy to do research/pull up sources for argument and I didn't want to do it the disservice of just saying stuff that I may have made up in my mind.

I'll concede that I'm relatively hopeful for humanity myself. I think that even if it takes the trauma of literal nuclear annihilation for us to come to an understanding, we'll make it through eventually. Barring a straight up gamma ray burst or another cosmic event of similar scale annihilating the planet's surface, I don't think humanity's going extinct any time soon.

But as far as possible dark futures, I can still very much see the development of some kind of corporate technocracy that is far too materially powerful to ever wrest power back from through both information control and military might without the human element. I'll admit that the original post is a little exaggerated for dramatic effect and that the outcome is ultimately unlikely. But I do want to stand firm that it is a possible development and may be very difficult to escape from if it comes to be, compared to, say, an unstable autocracy.


To be a little petty here, I'll address some points anyway just for the fun of it, but take it with a grain of salt since I'm mostly just saying stuff and not sourcing it:

MLK Jr's assassination stopped the civil rights movement from continuing beyond a certain point. Yes, it legally sanctioned equal rights between races - but that's just about as much as the government was willing to grant, nowhere near its end goal. MLK Jr intended for the movement to continue far beyond that into socialist ideals - no man is free until all men are free, as applied to the working class as a whole. That's why he was killed. The government was willing to cede on racial equality, but not on worker's rights. At least that's what I've concluded from the limited information I have on the topic.


As for standards of living, I'm very much of the belief that we easily have the resources needed for everyone, if not globally, at least in developed countries to have all of their basic needs met. Yet because of what essentially amounts to greed and a false idea of "fairness" we deny these resources to many people. Yes, standards of living are increasing with technological development - but the increase is severely crippled by the burden of bureaucracy and the systems we've imposed on ourselves when they were necessary in the past. Those very same systems may well go too far in the wrong direction. If we can't shake the notion that one must work to deserve to live, more and more power will flow into those who control labor rather than those who provide it, and with the development of automation in both manual and mental labor, the worker may eventually lose all leverage.

Our current response is to invent new industries and to create new jobs in service, but at a certain point it will become clear that a vast majority of that work has little real power or purpose. When the people who own all the machines control the entire agricultural industry and the entire power industry, for example, they will essentially have power over everything else as well by simply controlling all the essential goods. Definitely an unlikely hypothetical scenario but still very much fits the fear of the frog being slowly boiled analogy, and a real, if slim, possibility.

Opiate for the masses in the form of entertainment and affordable cars so we can still drag ourselves to minimum wage jobs where we get exploited with no recourse, hooray!


Regarding climate change, I guess I can't be 100% certain - maybe you have a good source for it - but I just don't think green technology will develop fast enough to mitigate the coming climate disaster. Yes, sustainable power is becoming cheaper and growing in scale alongside the necessary power storage, but that won't really help if we still use fossil fuels at the same scale at the same time. We're just generating more power while polluting at the same rate. Rather than reducing fossil fuels, it seems we're just continuing to use them for surplus power. It's true that we could easily stop climate change, but are we willing to? Are governments willing to give up the free advantage of surplus power just to meet some stupid treaty they signed 50 years ago in Paris? It seems to me the answer is learning towards no. Even with the development of green energy, if we're not actually willing to abandon fossil fuels at the same time, it's not really stopping climate change.

Arguably, sustainable power should eventually hit the point where it prices out fossil fuels entirely out of the market. But that assumes that the market is, at all, actually free and fair. The fossil fuel industry is far too entrenched and has enormous political leverage, especially in the west where the government is largely beholden to corporate interest. A lot of it likely hinges on the upcoming US presidential election, which could easily set us back decades.

It's very much a numbers game at this point rather than an absolute and as far as I can tell, climate change mitigation is losing the race and things aren't getting much better. We're very much already on the path to climate disaster without drastic action, even without accounting for population growth, even with the current rate of fossil fuel reduction. Yes, technology will eventually develop to stop and even reverse climate change. Yes, fossil fuels will eventually shrink in the market and stop adding carbon to the atmosphere at dangerous levels. Will all that arrive in time to prevent the mass collapse of global agriculture? To prevent mass ecological upheaval? Unclear, leaning towards no in my opinion.

How many millions will die with the global food shortage, the flooding of coastal regions, and the unlivable temperatures near the equator before we turn back the tide? Who comes out with all the power and leverage afterwards in the likely ensuing conflicts? I tend to be on the pessimistic side on the answers to these questions. Although I fully believe that humanity as a whole will easily survive this disaster, I'm not too optimistic regarding in what shape we do.


And man, why is it that when the Roman republic collapsed into autocracy, they had cool people like Caesar and Augustus, while we're stuck with some decrepit old men and greedy corporations during the decline of our republic? It's just not fair!

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Standards of living - read A short well researched book showing the challenges of growth, inequality and class over 300 years. Lots of challenges ahead

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674273559

Could we feed, clothe and educate every human being on earth? Yes. However many cheap goods currently rely on cheap labor. Is that right or wrong? Probably wrong but thats a moral question rather than a pragmatic question.

Will corporations continue to grow in power? Sure. Will governments? Unfortunately.

How would sea level change if all glaciers melted? | U.S. Geological Survey

approximately 230 feet

What is fair? I can't answer that. I do believe that. Everyone deserves a livable wage and access to education and medical care. However, I do also believe you get paid in proportion to the problem you solve. If you scrub toilets versus being a brain surgeon versus landing rockets on Mars.

Maybe just... pay people better for that labor then? It's not that hard to just give them a bit more of the market share, in theory. It doesn't diminish the overall productivity, just means people who do other jobs get paid a bit less. We still feed everyone, everyone still does just as much work? I don't see how it has to rely on cheap labor other than current power structures getting in the way, which of course IS a big problem, but theoretically easily solvable with unilateral action (admittedly impossible in practice). Heck, if you think it'd be "unfair" that only some people have to do backbreaking agricultural work, for example, then make it a mandatory service that everyone has to do for some time like how some governments have a mandatory military service period.

Fairness, according to what many people clearly believe, is that you must work ("like everyone else does", in particular "like I do") to be allowed to afford the same base of living standards as "everyone else" and "me". There is no ultimate definition of "fair", sure, but we can engage with the relatively well defined cultural sense of "fairness" that is at the root of this problem.

If there are no problems left to solve beyond the superficial, only the people who own the machines that take care of the actual problems should be paid well? That can't be right. Also, brain surgeons and Mars astronauts get paid peanuts compared to the people who skim off the top and run companies into the dirt for profit, so clearly that's not really the way things work. Notably, the guy who cleans toilets has a much more marked impact on people's lives as well. Beyond obvious preference that toilets I use not be disgusting, general hygiene practices also just save far more lives than brain surgeons do. Now don't get me wrong, brain surgery is a hell of a lot harder, that's why we "actually" pay them more, but c'mon, don't undervalue the janitor. Meritocracy is a pipedream at best and a tool of propaganda the rest of the time, so we may as well give everyone a comfortable life whether they "deserve" it or not.

 

[DarkRange55]

Maybe just... pay people better for that labor then? It's not that hard to just give them a bit more of the market share, in theory. It doesn't diminish the overall productivity, just means people who do other jobs get paid a bit less. We still feed everyone, everyone still does just as much work? I don't see how it has to rely on cheap labor other than current power structures getting in the way, which of course IS a big problem, but theoretically easily solvable with unilateral action (admittedly impossible in practice). Heck, if you think it'd be "unfair" that only some people have to do backbreaking agricultural work, for example, then make it a mandatory service that everyone has to do for some time like how some governments have a mandatory military service period.

Fairness, according to what many people clearly believe, is that you must work ("like everyone else does", in particular "like I do") to be allowed to afford the same base of living standards as "everyone else" and "me". There is no ultimate definition of "fair", sure, but we can engage with the relatively well defined cultural sense of "fairness" that is at the root of this problem.

If there are no problems left to solve beyond the superficial, only the people who own the machines that take care of the actual problems should be paid well? That can't be right. Also, brain surgeons and Mars astronauts get paid peanuts compared to the people who skim off the top and run companies into the dirt for profit, so clearly that's not really the way things work. Notably, the guy who cleans toilets has a much more marked impact on people's lives as well. Beyond obvious preference that toilets I use not be disgusting, general hygiene practices also just save far more lives than brain surgeons do. Now don't get me wrong, brain surgery is a hell of a lot harder, that's why we "actually" pay them more, but c'mon, don't undervalue the janitor. Meritocracy is a pipedream at best and a tool of propaganda the rest of the time, so we may as well give everyone a comfortable life whether they "deserve" it or not.

I think it's unfortunate and unfair that people lower don't get payed more. I do agree with that. But I'm speaking of the inventors (who do often get screwed), aerospace engineers, entrepreneurs that take the risk, ect.

Currency manipulation is a problem but currency is only part of the equation. As I said above, I do believe everyone has a right to a livable wage (which they don't now).

Unfortunately the golden rule is, he who has the gold makes the rules.

The world is unfair and we need to actively work to make it a better place. Nobody has all the answers.

Maybe just... pay people better for that labor then? It's not that hard to just give them a bit more of the market share, in theory. It doesn't diminish the overall productivity, just means people who do other jobs get paid a bit less. We still feed everyone, everyone still does just as much work? I don't see how it has to rely on cheap labor other than current power structures getting in the way, which of course IS a big problem, but theoretically easily solvable with unilateral action (admittedly impossible in practice). Heck, if you think it'd be "unfair" that only some people have to do backbreaking agricultural work, for example, then make it a mandatory service that everyone has to do for some time like how some governments have a mandatory military service period.

Fairness, according to what many people clearly believe, is that you must work ("like everyone else does", in particular "like I do") to be allowed to afford the same base of living standards as "everyone else" and "me". There is no ultimate definition of "fair", sure, but we can engage with the relatively well defined cultural sense of "fairness" that is at the root of this problem.

If there are no problems left to solve beyond the superficial, only the people who own the machines that take care of the actual problems should be paid well? That can't be right. Also, brain surgeons and Mars astronauts get paid peanuts compared to the people who skim off the top and run companies into the dirt for profit, so clearly that's not really the way things work. Notably, the guy who cleans toilets has a much more marked impact on people's lives as well. Beyond obvious preference that toilets I use not be disgusting, general hygiene practices also just save far more lives than brain surgeons do. Now don't get me wrong, brain surgery is a hell of a lot harder, that's why we "actually" pay them more, but c'mon, don't undervalue the janitor. Meritocracy is a pipedream at best and a tool of propaganda the rest of the time, so we may as well give everyone a comfortable life whether they "deserve" it or not.

The people that develop vaccines have contributed more and the people that develop and invent phones have contributed more but the CEO does reap most benefits but I don't have a real-world solution to that. Presumably money will leave the system because it will become obsolete. But in the short-term, how do ensure better wages? Unions, protests, ect. I don't have a clearcut answer especially since our world is increasingly complex. "Just pay people more." Sure, but how does that change get implemented? How does it come about? How do you convince people to give up their money? I don't think anyone knows short of a revolution. Again, life isn't fair but it's our current system so how do we change the system? It needs change but how do you initiate that change system-wide? Pragmatically speaking. Not just in principle.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I think it's unfortunate and unfair that people lower don't get payed more. I do agree with that. But I'm speaking of the inventors (who do often get screwed), aerospace engineers, entrepreneurs that take the risk, ect.

Currency manipulation is a problem but currency is only part of the equation. As I said above, I do believe everyone has a right to a livable wage (which they don't now).

Unfortunately the golden rule is, he who has the gold makes the rules.

The world is unfair and we need to actively work to make it a better place. Nobody has all the answers.

The people that develop vaccines have contributed more and the people that develop and invent phones have contributed more but the CEO does reap most benefits but I don't have a real-world solution to that. Presumably money will leave the system because it will become obsolete. But in the short-term, how do ensure better wages? Unions, protests, ect. I don't have a clearcut answer especially since our world is increasingly complex. "Just pay people more." Sure, but how does that change get implemented? How does it come about? How do you convince people to give up their money? I don't think anyone knows short of a revolution. Again, life isn't fair but it's our current system so how do we change the system? It needs change but how do you initiate that change system-wide? Pragmatically speaking. Not just in principle.

Well, that's the issue right? I think it's pretty natural to conclude that these problems are insoluble in the real world. It seems so tantalizingly easy to fix all them, but reality is just so mired in layers upon layers of complexity. These complex problems born out of systems we created out of necessity in the past have become so sprawling that we can't really seem to fix it anymore. But every day those problems are getting worse and worse, as people in the position to do so are naturally inclined to take advantage of them for their own gain. And why wouldn't they? There's basically no negative consequences after all. I don't necessarily even blame them for it.

The weight of these problems spiraling out of control and creating a real and lasting dystopia because we can't let go of these notions, these memes, the DNA of the soul, is very much part of the inspiration for fear in the original post. People who have power want to hold on to that power no matter what. And soon, what that might mean is that this power which was once enforced by the strength of other people whom they at least needed to convince to side with them, will instead be enforced by unwaveringly obedient machines. Robot enforcers making any semblance of violent revolution impossible, AI propaganda machines sedating the masses, with little, if any, human element to stop and think along the way.

 

[DarkRange55]

Well, that's the issue right? It seems so tantalizingly easy to fix all these problems, but reality is just so mired in layers upon layers of complexity. These complex problems born out of systems we created out of necessity in the past have become so sprawling that we can't really seem to fix it anymore. But every day those problems are getting worse and worse, as people in the position to do so are naturally inclined to take advantage of them for their own gain. And why wouldn't they? There's basically no negative consequences after all. I don't necessarily even blame them for it.

The weight of these problems spiraling out of control and creating a real and lasting dystopia because we can't let go of these notions, these memes, the DNA of the soul, is very much part of the inspiration for fear in the original post. People who have power want to hold on to that power no matter what. And soon, what that might mean is that this power which was once enforced by the strength of other people whom they at least needed to convince to side with them, will instead be enforced by unwaveringly obedient machines. Robot enforcers making any semblance of violent revolution impossible, AI propaganda machines sedating the masses, with little, if any, human element to stop and think along the way.

Quite the quandary.
Absolute power has its benefits in very specific situations like national emergencies, stuff like that but in general absolute power probably isn't the best thing. I think our world is a combination of 1984 and Brave New World. My friend always uses the analogy that if Illuminati is real then they don't do anything anymore. The wheel just turns by itself now. We have icebergs the size of states breaking off the ice caps but people are concerned about the comments of someone like Jordan Peterson criticizing a fat girl for being on the cover of a magazine. It's truly incredible. But I suppose a lot of that is playing on human nature. And a lot of that is also manipulation at the highest levels of power. I wish I had a clearcut solution. I think humanity will survive but what form will it take and how will standards be for most people? Only time will tell, I suppose.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Quite the quandary.
Absolute power has its benefits in very specific situations like national emergencies, stuff like that but in general absolute power probably isn't the best thing. I think our world is a combination of 1984 and Brave New World. My friend always uses the analogy that if Illuminati is real then they don't do anything anymore. The wheel just turns by itself now. We have icebergs the size of states breaking off the ice caps but people are concerned about the comments of someone like Jordan Peterson criticizing a fat girl for being on the cover of a magazine. It's truly incredible. But I suppose a lot of that is playing on human nature. And a lot of that is also manipulation at the highest levels of power. I wish I had a clearcut solution. I think humanity will survive but what form will it take and how will standards be for most people? Only time will tell, I suppose.

Seems we've arrived at a good midpoint in terms of agreement, haha.

 

[DarkRange55]

Seems we've arrived at a good midpoint in terms of agreement, haha.

I think discussion is good because you never loose knowledge. Probably just my bad in the beginning for not properly understanding/seeing your point of view. I hope you post more on here, you're very intelligent and well spoken, my friend.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I think discussion is good because you never loose knowledge. Probably just my bad in the beginning for not properly understanding/seeing your point of view. I hope you post more on here, you're very intelligent and well spoken, my friend.

For sure. If only it were possible to get people to speak to each other properly on a large scale. I do think we really would all understand one another so easily if there was just a real chance for dialogue.