How the world works

[Pekka]

Total chaos. Or perhaps perfect harmony. Who knows. Who cares.

However, it seems to me that most is man made, thoughts, feelings and their associations, conceptualizations that inherently are the parameters of perception of individual reality. But it really doesn't mean much when it comes to truth and the reality, at best, it is still subjective. However, would it be more precise if there were no concepts, that are necessarily man made, to blow fog when you're interpreting it? The more you know, the more perspective you might have, however, the more you know, the more you should know how little you know. You really notice it when you talk to some people and go jeesh, these are some pretty stupid mofos. They don't know anything. Nothing. Really stupid. Opening a world of thought is impossible, explaining new concepts is impossible because it usually uses the old ones to some extent, or as many would agree about discourse and reality, that you have to have something in order to be against it in the first place.

So we really can't defy it or fight it if it doesn't exist in our minds. So that's the creation of reality for an individual, and that will limit stupid mofos and people who do not follow things enough or understand them to actually get anywhere further in their realization of the world around them. COncepts that are accepted as truth are hindering most people, because they are not recognized as concepts.

SO how the world works, who knows. But I sometimes think how these stupid people, let's call them John and Jane, affect the others? A whole lot of dumbing down is done, sometimes I think someone is doing it on purpose, but who would benefit from people being stupid? And yes I mean stupid. It's as if you're supposed to do this and that, come on turn on the VCR or send an e-mail, and not only are you a functional member, you're kind of bright. This is what I mean by dumbing down. A monkey can do those things. Well maybe not, but a well trained monkey MIGHT be able to do it, so congrats, you're as good as a talented monkey, or the Einstein of monkeys.

So what's the worth, so what? THe problem is, we do share the same future, that's what we all have in common. But John and Jane keep on making the same circles, so we depend on the ones who really do contribute to the society. Everything depends on it. We got this climate change happening, we're trying to cut some losses and make it all better as far as our own actions go. But in reality, Jane and John and the stupid mofos who trust the few will contribute and come up with a solution. OK? That's how you know the difference between the consumer and the contributor.

And I don't mean consumer in the market place. So for every contributor there's tons of consumers. When the consumers outnumber the contributors too much, we're all done. You see, an idiot doesn't even realize he will never solve anything except how to work his zipper. Things never occur to them. I find it weird how this fact has somehow become almost like a taboo. You can't say people are idiots, but people ARE idiots, so if the truth hurts... you know, don't cry to me about it. It's not what their opinions are, it's how they are formed, it is how they are argued and it is how they are adopted that does it. The dangerous part is that they do not realize it. That is ... because they're stupid.

So I'm just waiting for the contributors to either give up or the consumers to have a massive and collective affect on an issue that will take us all down. But it's OK. I'm not that sad about it, it's life, it's what happens, it's inevitable at some point. This might be a bit dark view, but then again, the stupidity of the masses never stops amazing me.

[BlackCat]

You clearly isn't a beliver of the true faith

[Pekka]

This has got absolutely NOTHING to do with religions, even though that's not what you truly meant.

I didn't make any single points, I just have an observation, I think somehow we are dumbing down everyone and doing it on purpose. This is not a conspiracy theory, but it just seems to me if it was almost mechanical, systematic.

I think we're missing a lot, because we could have lots more contributors. I think lots of potential future contributors are being depressed by how they see the world working when they're young, they might fail to think that this is how the world is and there's nothing you can do about it. They'll tell you that you have a bad attitude just because you happen to know the subject better than the person in authority, for example a teacher. Institutional power and the flow has a tendency to place everyone in the same line, as if it was a question of human rights. As if someone being a genius or very close to genius or at least very highly intelligent is a bad thing, because it makes other kids, future consumers, feel bad about themselves or less valued.

Often symptoms of trouble making might be interpreted wrong, the true nature of it not revealed, frustration because most of the people that person has ever encountered has been as interesting as a dead corpse. Maybe that person never had any difficulties what so ever to ace the institution's tests or perhaps the subject was just easy. But it shouldn't be too easy, because that makes a person superior in that field, and we can't have that. So let's bang his head to the wall. Let's not cater to that mind at all. So that mind will be either lost in troubel making or whatever, or we might hope that mind will take a course of learning on its own, since no stimulus is provided, in fact it is forbidden.

So when these are the policies of institutions that are supposed to bring up contributors, and of course by a popular "my kid isn't stupid!" vote supported heavily, we will eat ourselves and we should deserve it as well.

[Blaupanzer]

Jeez, Pekka, you need to get some meds. I'm constantly surprised by what people do know. An accountant who turns out to be an expert gardener, a biker who is very informed about Shaker philosophy, others of many esoteric thoughts. Civ folks probably fall in that last category.

[Pekka]

expert gardener, WOW, that's ABOVE expert monkey. I'm sure you're surprised by what people know.

[Blake]

Pekka is right.
I'm not sure how much of it is on purpose - I mean deliberately with ill intent, versus just a society which has evolved "naturally" into a state which is severely suboptimal for harnessing the potential of human minds. I mean we could DESIGN a society which is much better for the individual, and much better for humanity and much better for the planet. That we aren't doing that... it's negligent, but how much of it is deliberate suppression of better ideas and deliberate propagation of a system which is known to be inferior, versus just a system coasting along as it always has, barely directed, not really serving any purpose, the people who understand it exploiting it for personal gain but not necessarily seeing the big picture.

Well, I figure that either there's going to be some bad catastrophe which causes a global wakeup, and then things get better...
or there's going to be a gradual decline towards some REALLY bad catastrophe which pretty much ends civilization and maybe humanity...
It's the idea that Peak Oil being wrong is a very bad thing, because it allows for "Business as Usual" for carry on for many more decades, people who cheerfully believe that new oil sources will come online and we can just keep burning fossil fuels and cooking the world for a great many years to come, blissfully making a hell on earth.
Civilization BADLY needs some tough love, something which exposes, undeniably, the old system as being unable to cope - because people are, if not stupid, then at least not particularly perceptive, easily blinded to a vast majority of real reality, stuck in narrow world views - they need to have something happen, which they can see, OUTSIDE that world view, so it needs to be big and totally undeniable.

[Sirotnikov]

I think it has been said many times, that humanity will evolve into two distinct groups - a group of smart and talented people, ideally also pretty and healthy (being smart makes them rich and being rich allows them to better choose partners).

And a second huge group of idiot mofos, that'll remain on the ape / street hoodlum level.

[Cort Haus]

Re: How the world works

Originally posted by Pekka
the stupidity of the masses never stops amazing me.

Would you rather the masses were all competing for your job? It is in your interest that there is someone to do the work of picking up a heavy thing and carrying it to another place. Simple folks doing simple jobs contribute to the infrastructure that makes top dogs like you possible.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I think it has been said many times, that humanity will evolve into two distinct groups - a group of smart and talented people, ideally also pretty and healthy (being smart makes them rich and being rich allows them to better choose partners).

And a second huge group of idiot mofos, that'll remain on the ape / street hoodlum level.

So you see a group of a worthy rich, succesfull elite with everything and a vast pool of scum?

Never heard of a struggling artist, or a rich criminal?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Blake
I mean we could DESIGN a society which is much better for the individual, and much better for humanity and much better for the planet.

This was the conclusion that Karl Marx came to, except perhaps for the planet bit. Whilst his vision of socialism is firmly off the agenda for now, the notion that there may be an alternative to the sometimes-efficient, but sometimes-chaotic nature of market-driven social and economic structures may prove to be an enduring one.

[Sirotnikov]

I mean we could DESIGN a society which is much better for the individual, and much better for humanity and much better for the planet. That we aren't doing that... it's negligent, but how much of it is deliberate suppression of better ideas and deliberate propagation of a system which is known to be inferior, versus just a system coasting along as it always has, barely directed, not really serving any purpose, the people who understand it exploiting it for personal gain but not necessarily seeing the big picture.

that's exactly the problem with communist theory.

sure, we could try to organize and design a better, more efficient society.

However, chances are, that any such effort will be plagued by opportunists trying to abuse the world effort for their personal gain.

There are inherent conflicts in trying to designing a better world for everyone.

first, there eventually will always be conflicting choises. A better world has to be cleaner and more efficient. On the other hand no one wants to do tough and dirty work. Also, if you build giant robots to do the tough work, you'd be left with masses of people who are jobless, because they only know how to do plain work.

second, since "everyone" can not be in charge, you have to choose leadership to navigate humanity. That leadership will always have a risk of becoming corrupt and self-serving. As such, it will also try to cling to power, to continue abusing the system. So you're back to democracy and changing the leadership every few years which is inefficient, unproductive to long term goals, and very populist.

third, we don't really know what the optimum grand-design is. We have lots of theories, each incomplete and has holes. Many of them conflicting. Whose ideas should we work in light of? What do we do if we discover it was wrong?

The free market of ideas, and the free rights of people to be dumb (or smart) is probably the best way.

Yes, the current system allows many people to take advantage of the way the world works. But, the absence of an "over-sight committee" also prevents the possibility that such an opportunist aggressor will ever assume ultimate power, because there is no position of ultimate power.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Also, if you build giant robots to do the tough work, you'd be left with masses of people who are jobless, because they only know how to do plain work.

Replacing labour with capital is more of a problem for capitalism than communism. In marxist terms the same value is being created by less workers, but the wealth created is the same. There remains the matter of distribution, which the planned economy should be able to manage more easily than the market.

A planned, progressive society would have ladders for the low-skilled to climb, wheras a capitalist society may or may not open up opportunities. Even under capitalism, upward-mobility has proven possible, so the notion of an amorphous blob of proletariate or lumpen proletariate (unemployed), unable to adapt, develop and improve is not only but pessimistic but incorrect.

[Pekka]

Originally posted by Blake
Pekka is right.
I'm not sure how much of it is on purpose - I mean deliberately with ill intent, versus just a society which has evolved "naturally" into a state which is severely suboptimal for harnessing the potential of human minds. I mean we could DESIGN a society which is much better for the individual, and much better for humanity and much better for the planet. That we aren't doing that... it's negligent, but how much of it is deliberate suppression of better ideas and deliberate propagation of a system which is known to be inferior, versus just a system coasting along as it always has, barely directed, not really serving any purpose, the people who understand it exploiting it for personal gain but not necessarily seeing the big picture.

Yeah. You put it better than I did, but this is what I partially mean, this is one of the ways the dumbing down would manifest itself and a form in which we can recognize it.

[Pekka]

Re: Re: How the world works

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Would you rather the masses were all competing for your job? It is in your interest that there is someone to do the work of picking up a heavy thing and carrying it to another place. Simple folks doing simple jobs contribute to the infrastructure that makes top dogs like you possible.

I think this is what most people would gather I meant, but it isn't. I mean it kind of is, but not quite. First of all, I've had competition for all the positions I've had from people who are all qualified, in fact in my case, I've usually been the least qualified on paper, so it's been an uphill battle for myself. So there is competition, but by natural selection of interest, qualifications etc, there won't be 'masses' of people applying for any given position. It's more targeted and selected, selected by qualifications and personal interest.

But if in some theoretical event the positions I was after had a "massive competition", why would this be a problem? There are tons of jobs I can't have, because of the level of competition right now. I work in my own level and try to get to the next level. There is no one big segment where everyone is fighting for the crumbles. I do believe that most people do have the opportunity, they just don't see it or take it. It usually has to do with poor realization of the situation or failure in the critical phase, such as in school where you'd think "so what the hell do I do with math". So if you keep thinking this way, well, it does limit the options you'll have in the future. Doesn't mean you're stupid at all, doesn't mean anything else, except that the realization of the situation is going south.

There are few ways to be a contributor, and not all people want to do that, only a minority, but you can do it in the academia or in the corporate world. You can do it by yourself as well, but very few do.

We aren't going for the best possible solutions in general, I think that should be the goal, but it isn't even realized most of the times. What is the best possible solution ,well that's always a debate, however, I do not think that's our motto.

It'll never be as long as consumers do not understand how it works, how you can weigh in the pros and cons and not get hijacked by the hype around things, a hype that is always generated by people and entities who have their own interest in the outcome, but that interest is usually never the best possible solution. But masses do decide the winner usually by voting, public opinion, purchasing habits or what ever, so basically the one with the biggest influence wins, so it isn't a question of the best possible solution. It has got nothing to do with it. I don't even mean like products, leaders or whatever, I simply mean best possible solution in general.

Best possible solution examples, the Internet and the computer revolution. The hacker ethic is based on the best solution and everything else should be despised and doomed. It kept the field developing incredibly fast and got us where we are today. Basically the core people in it had no other interest than the best possible solution and the advancement of this new technology and all the possibilities it could give us. Not to mention they were all contributors, pretty intelligent. So that's one example of a time and event when the principle was followed, worked pretty well then.

[Sirotnikov]

Replacing labour with capital is more of a problem for capitalism than communism. In marxist terms the same value is being created by less workers, but the wealth created is the same. There remains the matter of distribution, which the planned economy should be able to manage more easily than the market.

Replacing labor with capital is not at all a problem of capitalism or communism. Nor is it a problem at all.

As technology advances, technological solutions are
a) more efficient
b) give better quality products
c) create far more jobs (creating and supporting the technology).

How is value dependant on the amount of workers is beyond me.

Value is a subjective thing, that is dependent on the possible consumers. This has almost no relation to the workers. Wealth is a matter of monetizing the value at a certain point and time.

Distribution of wealth is a silly concept, because there is no objective measure to decide on the distribution.

Obviously you want everyone to be able to provide, and live a normal life. However, as the standards of living keep improving, you'll always have a (logarithmic?) scale, because not everyone are improving in the same rate.

A planned, progressive society would have ladders for the low-skilled to climb, wheras a capitalist society may or may not open up opportunities. Even under capitalism, upward-mobility has proven possible, so the notion of an amorphous blob of proletariate or lumpen proletariate (unemployed), unable to adapt, develop and improve is not only but pessimistic but incorrect.

You always have room for lots of jobs for the proletoriate.

However, someone will always be faced with the dirtier work. Someone will always end up on the low-paying job.

Of course you have ladders, but they are only meaningful if you have someone on the bottom. You can't make the entire ploretariat disappear into the high-paying jobs. Because then the high-paying jobs will have much less meaning and value, and they will effectively become the new "minimum" standard.