[dead_battery]

well you can sit there and be cynical but some of us are hacking drones and sending them to kill copyright lawyers

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

all money is virtual these days and we have the same shitty power structures of before, if not worse.

back in the day before all-digital money there was a hefty cash economy that occurred outside of state surveillance.

now square is asking to send me their new card reader so i can take trackable, taxable payments, of which they get a free every time.

bitcoin maybe offers some alternatives right now, but as soon as it becomes a real threat the lawyers will find a way to preserve the power of their bosses and then some.

and the mafiosos are always also politicians.

just like the free internet that was going to save us all is about to become the next cable tv full of "sponsored content" and everything else throttled to death.

 

you're also confirming my suspicion that post modern cynicism is not world weary wisdom based on any kind of realism at all, but conservatism that wants to preserve magical thinking and shut down any possibility of change whatsoever by always positing that it's not worth knowing about.

i'd rather face the inevitable movement of progress and make whatever moves are available, the fact that i can't magically defeat possibilities of misuse and like, reality, makes me more realistic than anyone who can't think/keep up with change because they're secretly preserving a ridiculous optimism through disavowing it in cynicism.

i mean, of COURSE lawyers and power structures will seek to capitalise on this stuff as much as they possibly can.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

well you can sit there and be cynical but some of us are hacking drones and sending them to kill copyright lawyers

i'm not cynical in the least-- you're the one setting yourself up for cynicism.

cynics are disappointed romantics. when the techno/digital/energy utopia-ushering revolution doesn't come you're going to be left heartbroken and thinking that everything is shit. you're asking for absolutes.

life is a bitch, there is no end to suffering, nor to the tasks we must perform, and we won't ever live in an earthly paradise, but that doesn't mean we throw the towel.

[dead_battery]

no im not, that's what you've projected onto what i've said for reasons i've already given. if you look again you'll see that i actually don't, but you just want me to.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

a
just like the free internet that was going to save us all is about to become the next cable tv full of "sponsored content" and everything else throttled to death.

I miss the real internet, you know, really the real internet was like our eras Summer of Love or Woodstock, that high water mark. The thing about high water marks is they're unstable by nature and definition, hence why all the more you have to enjoy your moment surfing the crest, and savor the memory of having been there. Today? The internet sucks, as you've said, throttled to death. Its actually almost WORSE than cable.

[dead_battery]

the movement to stop net neutrality can win.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

you're also confirming my suspicion that post modern cynicism is not world weary wisdom based on any kind of realism at all, but conservatism that wants to preserve magical thinking and shut down any possibility of change whatsoever by always positing that it's not worth knowing about.

i'd rather face the inevitable movement of progress and make whatever moves are available, the fact that i can't magically defeat possibilities of misuse and like, reality, makes me more realistic than anyone who can't think/keep up with change because they're secretly preserving a ridiculous optimism through disavowing it in cynicism.

i mean, of COURSE lawyers and power structures will seek to capitalise on this stuff as much as they possibly can.

being that post-modernism isn't an era but an attitude, i'm not really a post-modern-- i'm a late modern. i support progress, science, knowledge, the project of the enlightement, etc. however, seeing the history of progress and modernity i am not naive enough to think that progress is a cure-all-- that is just pig ignorance at this point.

progress always brings its own new set of problems. people who actually work in science see and know this. the union of concerned scientists wasn't born in a vacuum. scientists also know that their work gets pimped by politicians and corporatocrats-- all the fucking time. many scientists today in fact embrace that and have no problem collecting the big paychecks.

go forward, but remain vigilant.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

I miss the real internet, you know, really the real internet was like our eras Summer of Love or Woodstock, that high water mark. The thing about high water marks is they're unstable by nature and definition, hence why all the more you have to enjoy your moment surfing the crest, and savor the memory of having been there. Today? The internet sucks, as you've said, throttled to death. Its actually almost WORSE than cable.

well, no. i went somewhere this morning and they had cable and no, it's not worse. especially during the daytime.

but yes, now that everything is trackable to everybody with a real identity, the internet is not a separate space but just an extension of the same old shit. instead of allowing the creation of new identities and new communities as people theorized in the early eras, the internet just came to reflect/transmit/perpetuate the existing social order. and here comes another linkedin contact request. just like hippies became yuppies.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

 

is that the unabomber?

[dead_battery]

you cant say that it just perpetuated the existing order. its one of the biggest changes in human history and its only begun.

anyway.

non utopian scenarios -

when fusion energy is cracked, within this century, its not utopian or out of the realms of human ability for us to organize and aggressively demand that fusion is implemented and gives practically free energy to everyone. and it would be practically free since the cost of one plant (which is all you'd need) wouldn't be much.

people are definitely capable of organizing that.

i think we're definitely capable of putting out the idea that free energy is a right, that the rich deserve to pay for it for the rest of us through the tax system, based on my ignorant estimates it would hardly be that expensive.

likewise we're capable of solving the malnutrition problems

the key is to start in the 1st world FIRST and reject all the tricks of universalism which say "cos the africans are starving u just be a good slave and dont dare expect anything other than subsistence".

we're capable of upholding a social expectation that copyright law only applies to certain things. you should be able to 3d print out anything you want if it doesn't harm anyone.

we can pressurize and organize and keep the internet as free as possible.

there are things we can do, and basic scientific literacy and technical skills are the most important way to be able to achieve them.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

is that the unabomber?

The simple answer? no

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

you cant say that it just perpetuated the existing order. its one of the biggest changes in human history and its only begun.

anyway.

non utopian scenarios -

when fusion energy is cracked, within this century, its not utopian or out of the realms of human ability for us to organize and aggressively demand that fusion is implemented and gives practically free energy to everyone. and it would be practically free since the cost of one plant (which is all you'd need) wouldn't be much.

people are definitely capable of organizing that.

i think we're definitely capable of putting out the idea that free energy is a right, that the rich deserve to pay for it for the rest of us through the tax system, based on my ignorant estimates it would hardly be that expensive.

likewise we're capable of solving the malnutrition problems

the key is to start in the 1st world FIRST and reject all the tricks of universalism which say "cos the africans are starving u just be a good slave and dont dare expect anything other than subsistence".

we're capable of upholding a social expectation that copyright law only applies to certain things. you should be able to 3d print out anything you want if it doesn't harm anyone.

we can pressurize and organize and keep the internet as free as possible.

there are things we can do, and basic scientific literacy and technical skills are the most important way to be able to achieve them.

i get what you're saying, but the blind spot there is that the cure to the problem of human misery isn't really technical-- it's mostly political. and we haven't really figured out that one.

the problem of freedom vs. power is also a political one. free from what? free for what? and who gets to the power, and to what ends? this is a massive question that science can't solve.

and social inequality seems not so much about scarcity of resources or mere survival needs, but with how our brains are hardwired-- as hierarchical, tribal, status/power seeking apes. maybe neuroscience will address that in the future, but if neuroscience can be used to program for social harmony it will be first used to produce compliant workers a la thx 1138 or brave new world.

not being cynical here, just trying to map out the shape of future struggles-- future because they are constant.

the powerful want to accrue greater power because they are engaged in their own arms race at the top. and that is what consumes the resources and freedom who would otherwise feed and free those at the bottom-- guns vs. butter. not that those at the bottom don't have their own arms/status races as well-- it's just that they are less noticeable/make less impact.

i really have no idea of how this could be solved. tomorrow's gangsters will replace today's gangsters but they will still be gangsters.

that's the real problem, right there-- that one. and to reiterate--i don't know if we have a solution for that yet because human brains seem to love being part of a gang with a big boss on top, even if the weak have to pay for it.

 

 

but i'm a fucking mutant experimenting with something else.

[dead_battery]

im not interested in human misery.

existence is itself misery. the cure is non existence. thats it.

you have to separate technical and scientific progress from some bs ideal of happiness which usually doesn't mean anything but "lets keep things the way they are and conform totally".

its definitely possible for us to have practically unlimited energy for almost everyone. definitely possible to solve the malnutrition problem. definitely possible to protect ourselves from the neurohacking that drug dealers, be they street thugs or mcdonalds, are already performing. this is why there's a need for the p2p distribution of knowledge and technics and a new experimental culture involving drugs, the brain and communication technology.
we should be working towards individual self sufficiency in energy, food etc.

the rest of what you are saying has been worked through by scott bakker with his blind brain theory.

i think what ive said in this thread takes all your points into account. the only thing i dont agree with is making statements like "we have a pre-wired tendency for servitude/dominance hierarchies". i don't think this is quite right, because it wants to explain the existing state of affairs based on a shared cognitive bias. it wants things to be inherently stable and explain away power through animalistic biases. i dont disagree with this completely, i just think that the base level is absolute chaos/death/blindness and not fairness. i also think our ideals of what WOULD be fair and just are also cognitive biases. even our pretensions for what is good are when it comes down to it just a load of babble that's totally blind to the neuromechanics that really run the show.

even our conceptions of freedom/power are so folk psychological as to be almost useless.

nevertheless, we can still manage to keep some basic civility going. property rights, some sort of legal protection, some sort of slapped together band aid that just about works. social expectations still have real effects. you CAN generate the demand for say, running tap water for everyone, and then use this social expectation to threaten power into not fucking with you. there's always a possibility space for politics of some sort.

[!@#$%!]

i have to go help with the housework so i can't give you a thorough response now but just quickly to say kant was right and the behaviorists were wrong--- about 90% of behavior is genetically hardwired and maybe 10% can be programmed. we're not a tabula rasa. i know it's disheartening at first but at least it's a start to comprehend what we can actually do.

[dead_battery]

you dont have to respond to every post you know.

read bakkers bbt theory.

[!@#$%!]

read this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-h...b_1463429.html

[dead_battery]

yeah. you have to give me a break sometimes, especially if you're not even reading what i'm saying.

[!@#$%!]

yes yes-- i found scott bakker site. just a quickie post between chores

read this

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/conte...20/scan.nsu057

[dead_battery]

this is really getting good now.

trolling with neuroscience.

feel like we're taking it to the next level here.

i love you, brother.