One of the great mistakes of our time is the idea, anything in existence or thinkable can be made a good with a price.

@voidnill 6,66? Okay. Given, we take this as the average value of my toots and given the average quantity of my toots, how creditworthy would you rate this operation?

@Kuechenmonk the quantization of all information in terms of value. It's something I dislike as well.

@0x3F It is a shame, since it encourages or rather forces everyone to market him-/herself, to optimize, to streamline...

What I am especially worried about is the idea, all the collected data would give an accurate picture of reality.

@Kuechenmonk turning humanity into individual economic engines isn't a good idea. Ugh, the belief that with enough tech we can solve all problems really rubs me the wrong way.

@0x3F "Progress & Empire" still appear to be a valid motivation.

I wonder, how to organise society around other core principles besides debt-driven greed. What could lead out of that misery?

@Kuechenmonk i have wondered this question for long time, and i have no solution. I truly believe technology cannot give us a solution there. Humans will have to come up with some system of distribution on that scale. I hope people much smarter than me are working on i, because so far I don't even know how to approach that problem.

@0x3F Alas, I have no magic cure either. But there's a documentary, I recently watched, that gave me some insight into the ideas of selflessness, friendlyness and charity. Do you speak German or French?

@0x3F Okay, said docu about altruism, called "Revolution der Selbstlosen", meaning "revolution of the selfless", isn't available for free anymore. Ironically, you can buy it.

@Kuechenmonk no I dont speak either of those languages, but subtitles maybe? I'll be sure to check it out.

@0x3F Unfortunately I haven't found a free version, and especially non with subtitles.

Howver, the basic message of that film goes somewhat like people are naturally altruistic and just. But they value other people depending on if they are part of the in or out group. We automatically favour those, we can identify ourselves with.

Take for instance mafia clans, bankers or nazis. They can be altruistic as fuck, as long as they are amongst themselves. ->

@0x3F The idea now is to teach people to enlarge that in-group over the entire planet. If we recognise ourselves in that poor fellow on the street or the plantation in Brazil or in the factory in China, we start to act good. You cannot exploit easily those who are like you.

@Kuechenmonk I can agree with that. Just getting it to scale is the difficult part. How do we make it so people who can't speak the same language, or have the same ideas, communicate and identify with each other, recognize the other as part of our group? A fellow sufferer, a person, a friend.

@0x3F Language isn't the problem. One of the benefits of capitalism is the spread of the Enlish language. Without globalisation I doubt very much I would have been forced to learn it in school. And both of us wouldn't be having this pleasent conversation (nor the need of it, altogether). We've got a bunch of shared problems. But we can communicate. And I strongly suggest, the solution, if altruism is it, has to be implemented in a down to top manner.

@Kuechenmonk while English is the closest we've ever come to a global language, there's many people that don't speak it. These people often have entirely different perspectives and that makes them likely to be people most of the WEIRD (western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic) world would have issues with or vice versa. Communication is key and language is the strongest tool we have for that right now. What would a bottom up approach look like?

@0x3F Just to point that out, I'm a strong supporter of language diversity. And I am very much interested in foreign cultures. Nevertheless it is favourable to have a lingua franca, so that if people want to, they can gather around a table and talk to each other.

By bottom up I refer to the individual. Anybody has neighbours, needs and talents. If I walk through the streets, I can give the needy, if my neighbour rings at the door, I can lend him a hand ->

@Kuechenmonk I agree. Some form of communication is necessary, and since our best tool right now is language it might as well be a common language. AI still remains really bad at language processing unfortunately, so while it may be a potential solution in some cases, it's still a while off

@0x3F I think, it should remain up to humans to learn languages and communicate through them. Ais are a nice thing but I very much doubt they offer worthwhile benefits for humankind as a species, but for turning the wheel even faster, gaining more profit.
In short, I am quite pessimistic when it comes to AIs and transhumanism. I think, we lack the moral means to use it properly.

@Kuechenmonk while learning and utilizing languages will always be a human endeavor, i think there are use cases for on the fly translation that is accurate and trustworthy. But that is no easy bar to meet and verify.
You're right, we do currently lack the moral perspective on handling, living with and even just understanding our technology, but it doesn't apply only to AI. Science has made us demi gods, but we're still apes in regards to our understanding of being and virtue.

@0x3F I picture a mischievous toddler with a kalashnikov. He can destroy the world, but does he really understand what power he commands?

About languages and culture. Yes, on-spot translators would be marvelous. Going somewhere like Captain Picard and having the tools to understand other cultures. A pleasing thought. But I don't think it is that easy. ->

@0x3F Without work and serious effort put into it, how well could one understand something new? What's the value of an iPhone for somebody, who's got no idea what deep understanding of nature was necessary for its creation?

@Kuechenmonk I like that analogy. We really don't have an understanding of the power we wield in our hands.
One day we may get there, but who knows how well it will work. There are things in languages that aren't translatable because of the culture that surrounds these languages
It will take serious effort and ability to communicate what we're doing to get there.

@0x3F But I agree, weare in dire need of a cultural shift. A de-dehumanisation of economy. There's no such thing as a homo oeconomicus. There's only people. And those tend to be pretty diverse and pretty human if you let them be.

@Kuechenmonk precisely. People around the world have been looking for some change for quite some time now. The lack of trust of authority is growing whether that be for mega corporations or govts alike.

@Kuechenmonk I really like that approach, and am happy to admit that often my life does involve me doing those things. I Think strong community support is a necessary thing, especially on the scale it would need to be implemented at.

@0x3F if I am in the super market, I can decide if I want to purchase socially or ecologically problematic poroducts. I can teach other people, I can be nice, I can vote, I can demonstrate, I can support local farmers, I can support farmers abroad. I can deny (to a huge extent) consumption. I can cook for myself or others, I can go by foot or bike instead by car. And so on. It is all these little things in our direct vicinity that can be done.

@Kuechenmonk I think while all of these things are great, they're much harder to execute. Getting people to think critically about their choices and what impact it has on a large scale would require a severe shift in culture. I don't think we're incapable of it, but it won't be easy.

@0x3F Of course "doing the right thing", whatever that means, is hard. I live in Fort Europe. Nothing of the misery that was created on our behalf shall pass the borders of our little paradise. And I understand, it is very tempting to ignore the consequenses of our deeds. Who cares for people at the end of the world, as long as my shoes and my food stays cheap?

@0x3F Theory is, if I am benelovent to somebody he/she has got reason to be nice to somebody else, and that somebody to the next one. A chainreaction of pleasentness.

@Kuechenmonk we see this work all the time on much smaller scales and it is something that should be trialed for a larger, less congruent social communities. But I also believe that it is a simplification of the real world. People do not always act in predictable ways, and the level of attention people require to gain the support they need isn't easily encompassed by group altruism. Not saying that it can't be, but it's something to consider as well.

@0x3F@cybre. To be honest, I have no idea what the great plan for utopia could be. That's a bit to much for my brains. However, by the idea of altruism – I don't consider it to be a dogmatic solution. I suppose, it is a good foundation to base one's perception of the world and one's deeds onto.
But, to get a bit religious, I believe, it is the right thing and we'd all be better of, if we considered all humans part of our in-group.

@0x3F If I may ask, what is your native tongue? Mine is German.

@0x3F A fascinating language. Although I don't speak a word of it, I am very fond of Indian writing systems. And from time to time it astonishes me, that despite thousands of years and kilometres between them, my and your native tongue share a common ancestor.

@Kuechenmonk it's truly marvelous when looking back through time, and following the web of language evolution. We are all so similar and yet very different at the same time.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct! Thank you. is maintained by Sujitech, LLC.