TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread
- Thread starter Araysar
- Start date
- Status
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Before I go to bed, I want to point out one more thing.
This whole presumption that humans will evolve at a particular rate, in a particular fashion, culturally, socially, biologically, is a cop out. You can't say for certain where society will evolve to. A virulent disease could pop up tomorrow and reduce humanity to a former shadow of itself. Global climate change could make life untenable for most of the planet as well in time.
The truth is that the argument "Well you won't put up with it NOW, but SOMETIME way off in the distant future" is a cop out. Its Lumie claiming that the world didn't end, but it STARTED to end, in 2012. Its Christians claiming well ONE DAY Jesus will come back and you'll pay for your sins, SOMEDAY.
Its a cop out argument which is unfalsifiable, and again, not science.
Kurzweil offers us something that is falsifiable. If we don't invent single atom transistors and don't find a way to reverse engineer the human brain and don't make a computer AI smarter than humans, then he's wrong. But if Dumar and I get in a time machine and travel to 100000 years in the future, and humans are still dividing up land and buying and selling property and exchanging goods and services for representations of their values which we call money today but may be called FLITHPITHNIPS in the year 102013, then Dumar can just say "Well, obviously they haven't evolved their consciousnesses enough yet" again, and never be wrong.
That's what he seeks with his disingenuous arguments. Unfalsifiability. Because what he wants is certainty. Certainty which cannot be erased. Much like every religious person is seeking certainty that cannot be disproven through observable facts of evidence.
Its really just a cop out argument all around.
This whole presumption that humans will evolve at a particular rate, in a particular fashion, culturally, socially, biologically, is a cop out. You can't say for certain where society will evolve to. A virulent disease could pop up tomorrow and reduce humanity to a former shadow of itself. Global climate change could make life untenable for most of the planet as well in time.
The truth is that the argument "Well you won't put up with it NOW, but SOMETIME way off in the distant future" is a cop out. Its Lumie claiming that the world didn't end, but it STARTED to end, in 2012. Its Christians claiming well ONE DAY Jesus will come back and you'll pay for your sins, SOMEDAY.
Its a cop out argument which is unfalsifiable, and again, not science.
Kurzweil offers us something that is falsifiable. If we don't invent single atom transistors and don't find a way to reverse engineer the human brain and don't make a computer AI smarter than humans, then he's wrong. But if Dumar and I get in a time machine and travel to 100000 years in the future, and humans are still dividing up land and buying and selling property and exchanging goods and services for representations of their values which we call money today but may be called FLITHPITHNIPS in the year 102013, then Dumar can just say "Well, obviously they haven't evolved their consciousnesses enough yet" again, and never be wrong.
That's what he seeks with his disingenuous arguments. Unfalsifiability. Because what he wants is certainty. Certainty which cannot be erased. Much like every religious person is seeking certainty that cannot be disproven through observable facts of evidence.
Its really just a cop out argument all around.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Ah no. Not even close. Eurocentrism is a well understood phenomena of viewing the world entirely through European viewpoints and mindsets, claiming that Europeans and their ideas are the end point for cultural evolution, thus making them superior to others cultures and races around the globe. And when someone says that a European political and social theory is the end point of cultural evolution, they're stating that the Eurocentric model of cultural development is the defining model for cultural advancement in society.
Its racist, its demonstrably untrue through the ethnographic and archaeological record, and its just plain old outdated theory from the 1700 and 1800s used to justify European conquest around the globe.
The claim isn't a cop out whatsoever. It's one of the biggest insights of Marx, the dialectical materialism of history in his fancy language:
So we'll get there, but we gotta go through this crap with slavery, divine right, capital, and ownership first.
I don't know...
Has Obama ever made trade unions illegal and rolled over people in tanks who were demanding socialism? Cause if not, he doesn't sound like much of a communist to me.
Wait what? You can have a farm. You can't employ wage labor to work it and if you have more farm than you can work yourself you can't just let it lie fallow (if you don't/can't use it someone else can come along and use it and so long as they do it belongs to them and they don't have to pay you rent) but you can definitely have a farm.
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,090
- 172,300
If teabaggers really want to take America back, now is the time
Army chief: Just 2 brigades combat-ready | Fox News
Army chief: Just 2 brigades combat-ready | Fox News
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,090
- 172,300
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Humans won't need cars in the future because we'll all evolve wheels.
This claim isn't a cop out whatsoever, its one of the primary tenants of the beliefs of the Carists.
Derp.
Eurocentric: definition of Eurocentric in Oxford dictionary (British World English)
Thank you. Your presumption that European models of economics are the end point of human evolution implicitly regards European culture as pre eminent.
Now, if you don't mind. I need to neg Tanoomba.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Sorry, didn't mean to distract you. By all means, go back to repeating your baseless rhetoric and ignoring any points that you don't know how to respond to. Keep telling yourself how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is. If you repeat it enough (andloudlyenough, of course), it has to be true.
TheBeagle
JunkiesNetwork Donor
- 9,138
- 32,063
Thank you. We asked Dumar that question at least half a dozen times and never got a straight answer. I don't necessarily agree with it, but at least its a straight answer, put simply without a 3 page academic lecture on the background of production or whatever.
My problem with that is, what if the people that come in to farm the land that you yourself can't handle and they don't know wtf they are doing? It sounds inefficient as hell. An experienced farmer with a lifetime on that land employing wage laborers would get a hell of a lot more out of that land than 5 different hippy families that moved in from Portlandia. My middle ground would be the farmer gets to keep all his land, but stricter labor laws must be enacted to protect those laborers. But since those laborers are dirty mexicans, that's not gonna happen in my lifetime.
- Status