Discussion Using pro-lifers' tactics AGAINST them

[waived]

Here is a start.

So who do you think has had the biggest impact on history? Alexander the Great? Gandhi? Muhammad?

When you are a nerd like I am and you plot all the data is because clear no one has effected the graph at all. Only on thing has ever majorly improved quality of life, standard of living, life expectancy and so on. That is improvements in technology. Let's take slavery. Slavery did not end because people suddenly became more moral, with the last country outlawing slavery in 1961 In Africa. Slavery ended because of the effects of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution rapidly raised wages, standard of living and quality of life of the average person. Now a machine could do something it took three hundred people to do before. This reduced the needs for slave greatly and brought about the end of slavery.

I am by no means perfect or claiming to be an Expert but I think there's likely some more data left to plot in order to 'effect' that graph. Although tbh there's probably a lot of data that cannot be plotted which is thus ignored by nerds. Like the death rattle of a planet's biosphere being an externality to some silly species' economic mode and the progress of technology. The impact of the technology itself and its mystic seers suggesting that technology will fix these problems that it created without being able to even measure the damage that has been done. This was the capitalist technate, thinking it wise to ignore such things (and get real a ton of people called it out well in advance). I won't even get into the dysfunction of the sciences that @Smilla correctly brought up, and their origins or reason for existing within the economic mode.

What kind of society exists then that was incapable of abolishing slavery for any other reason than an advancement within its economic mode? The wage relation made it easier to control a population and maintain civil and civic stability at that time, it allowed for a relationship between capital and its subjects which offered a far more coherent reason to continue producing, for the bourgeoisie. Technology didn't measure the continued ruination of people across this change, and it did continue. The progress wasn't human, it was progress for a coercive construct. Slavery still exists in the carceral apparatuses, that is, the entire process of wage relation from the poverty of the street to the prison and back again. Segregation still exists along class lines. These aren't external to the mentioned science they are integral facets of it, it requires poverty in order to function, mathematically. The fact that without capital you have no agency in the world, there are no commons, the current artifice of society violently prohibits it. We cannot even suggest that technology can fix all of this or will because that is a magical or mystic position. It begs that billions wait a little longer and ignore the material reality they experience. By science's own logic, a scientific process, such arbitrary predictions of progress or imminent change cannot exist, especially not given the evidence. A perspective of linear progression cannot exist either, imo.

If there is one thing that has changed the quality of life it is the self directed activity of those within the poor conditions overthrowing the dominant logic and then the physical apparatuses of control. This is by no means indicating the winning of wars, or a singular war, but perhaps the winning of battles if we truly interrogate the subject matter. If you'd like we could spitball some examples.

 

[Logic]

I am by no means perfect or claiming to be an Expert but I think there's likely some more data left to plot in order to 'effect' that graph. Although tbh there's probably a lot of data that cannot be plotted which is thus ignored by nerds. Like the death rattle of a planet's biosphere being an externality to some silly species' economic mode and the progress of technology. The impact of the technology itself and its mystic seers suggesting that technology will fix these problems that it created without being able to even measure the damage that has been done. This was the capitalist technate, thinking it wise to ignore such things (and get real a ton of people called it out well in advance). I won't even get into the dysfunction of the sciences that @Smilla correctly brought up, and their origins or reason for existing within the economic mode.

What kind of society exists then that was incapable of abolishing slavery for any other reason than an advancement within its economic mode? The wage relation made it easier to control a population and maintain civil and civic stability at that time, it allowed for a relationship between capital and its subjects which offered a far more coherent reason to continue producing, for the bourgeoisie. Technology didn't measure the continued ruination of people across this change, and it did continue. The progress wasn't human, it was progress for a coercive construct. Slavery still exists in the carceral apparatuses, that is, the entire process of wage relation from the poverty of the street to the prison and back again. Segregation still exists along class lines. These aren't external to the mentioned science they are integral facets of it, it requires poverty in order to function, mathematically. The fact that without capital you have no agency in the world, there are no commons, the current artifice of society violently prohibits it. We cannot even suggest that technology can fix all of this or will because that is a magical or mystic position. It begs that billions wait a little longer and ignore the material reality they experience. By science's own logic, a scientific process, such arbitrary predictions of progress or imminent change cannot exist, especially not given the evidence. A perspective of linear progression cannot exist either, imo.

If there is one thing that has changed the quality of life it is the self directed activity of those within the poor conditions overthrowing the dominant logic and then the physical apparatuses of control. This is by no means indicating the winning of wars but perhaps the winning of battles if we truly interrogate the subject matter. If you'd like we could spitball some examples.

Nothing besides increases in technology has ever significantly effected the graph-which graphs standard of living, quality of life, life expentacy and a few other metrics. Destruction of the planet bad not been bad enough to effect the graph atleast yet. Technology has always been a double edge sword. We almost had a nuclear war multiple times. Now we are playing with things like black holes, AI etc. is it the nature of sentient life to destroy itself? I wouldn't be surprised but it has not effected the graph yet. All the movements you refer to are the result of increases in technology. After technology improves it makes the standard of living better for everyone including those living in poverty. People living today have a much higher standard of living than a hundred years ago in almost every place on earth. Technology in many areas is doubling every two years which will fix many problems like it always has. Ie the maximum human population on earth use to be one billion. Than technology enabled more people, this has always happened since the industrial revolution. Exponential is one billion times as good at 30 years. So saying this can solve those issues is not mystic it's just assuming the trends hold, which have held for the last 50 years.

 

[waived]

Nothing besides increases in technology has ever significantly effected the graph-which graphs standard of living, quality of life, life expentacy and a few other metrics.

I'm fairly certain I've touched on some specific points in my post that you are replying to here which provide evidence as to how what you are saying is incorrect and I'd really like it if you replied to them specifically and more directly and without simply repeating that you think technology is great. It's also unclear as to what 'Graph' is being referred to. Since so much of what you are proposing relies on it, could you provide it. I have checked the thread twice with no luck in finding it. To be clearer in good faith, I am not taking a position against technology, I am questioning how it is implemented and why from a historical perspective as well as present. By doing so I am questioning the concept of human progress.

Destruction of the planet bad not been bad enough to effect the graph atleast yet.

Then it doesn't sound like a graph which has the correct data plotted. I will address this when the Graph is provided. I think a logical argument against what you've said here though as a place holder would be that if destruction of our land bases, atmosphere, and water sources continue to the point of being 'bad enough', while we are still uncertain of its full impact, it is in fact a mystic belief and religious faith that technology will be able to solve these problems.

Technology has always been a double edge sword. We almost had a nuclear war multiple times. Now we are playing with things like black holes, AI etc.

Technology has been a double edged sword, that is wielded by the capitalist ruling class for the continuity of it's society at the expense of the other class camp.

Those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did experience nuclear warfare. There has also been several nuclear disasters. What is sacrosanct about "playing with things like blackholes and AI" while people starve and global suicide rates skyrocket? How is 'almost had nuclear war multiple times heh' aside from the actual times it happened a valid examples to bring up in relation to its successful use? These things aside, In your opinion, what does what you're saying here have to do with the points in my reply to you?

is it the nature of sentient life to destroy itself?

No.

I wouldn't be surprised but it has not effected the graph yet.

bookmarked

All the movements you refer to are the result of increases in technology. After technology improves it makes the standard of living better for everyone including those living in poverty. People living today have a much higher standard of living than a hundred years ago in almost every place on earth.

I don't believe this is a claim that can be made and it isn't a reply to anything that I have posted. Perhaps there is a communication issue, but I believe I thoroughly replied to the point(s) you made above in my original post which I've requoted below for your convenience:

What kind of society exists then that was incapable of abolishing slavery for any other reason than an advancement within its economic mode? The wage relation made it easier to control a population and maintain civil and civic stability at that time, it allowed for a relationship between capital and its subjects which offered a far more coherent reason to continue producing, for the bourgeoisie. Technology didn't measure the continued ruination of people across this change, and it did continue. The progress wasn't human, it was progress for a coercive construct. Slavery still exists in the carceral apparatuses, that is, the entire process of wage relation from the poverty of the street to the prison and back again. Segregation still exists along class lines. These aren't external to the mentioned science they are integral facets of it, it requires poverty in order to function, mathematically. The fact that without capital you have no agency in the world, there are no commons, the current artifice of society violently prohibits it. We cannot even suggest that technology can fix all of this or will because that is a magical or mystic position. It begs that billions wait a little longer and ignore the material reality they experience. By science's own logic, a scientific process, such arbitrary predictions of progress or imminent change cannot exist, especially not given the evidence. A perspective of linear progression cannot exist either, imo.

If there is one thing that has changed the quality of life it is the self directed activity of those within the poor conditions overthrowing the dominant logic and then the physical apparatuses of control. This is by no means indicating the winning of wars, or a singular war, but perhaps the winning of battles if we truly interrogate the subject matter. If you'd like we could spitball some examples.

Technology in many areas is doubling every two years which will fix many problems like it always has. Ie the maximum human population on earth use to be one billion. Than technology enabled more people, this has always happened since the industrial revolution. Exponential is one billion times as good at 30 years. So saying this can solve those issues is not mystic it's just assuming the trends hold, which have held for the last 50 years.

These are not facts that you are utilizing here. Perhaps we can start the conversation when you reply to the challenging points I've brought up in my original post.