Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ursula K. Le Guin at the National Book Awards

parkerhiggins.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: Ursula K. Le Guin at the National Book Awards

#51

Post by logicchains »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #49
logicchains wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely. Moving to a system "outside of capitalism" involves preventing this, and necessarily involves large scale violence both to take the accumulated capital of savers and to persecute anyone who still seeks to engage in the free exchange of goods. See for example the merchants in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia who were hung or…

Not really. Those are reasonable examples of what it takes to try to "force" an entire country out of capitalism "for their own good". Socialism as a part of a general economic or ethical philosophy - embedded within the liberal democratic system - is not quite as bad on its own. The fundamental ideas behind the movement led to things like universal public education, national investment in the sciences and arts, as w…

>Well, I can't see it happening in a scarcity society, but I can imagine it happening in a post-scarcity one.

The thing is, scarcity in the economic sense is defined in terms of peoples' wants, which seem to be able to expand indefinitely. Short of discovering an infinite energy source, there will never be enough energy to completely satisfy everybody's wants. So a method will be needed of deciding whose wants get satisfied. This method can be exchange based: you do x for Joe, because Joe either did something for you or did something for someone else and has a scarce token (money) to prove it. Or, it can not be exchange based: somebody makes you do x for Joe, because Joe himself doesn't have anything to offer you to make you want to do x for him.

>Suppose we get to the point where robots farm food for us, robots gather natural resources for us and robots keep basic infrastructure working for us.

I think it's an open question whether we can get robots that are capable of doing almost everything for us without requiring those robots approach human intelligence levels. If the robots that do all our work for us need to be as smart as us to do so, then they probably wouldn't be willing to work for free.

Re: Ursula K. Le Guin at the National Book Awards

#52

Post by lazaroclapp »

logicchains wrote: post #51
lazaroclapp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Those are reasonable examples of what it takes to try to "force" an entire country out of capitalism "for their own good". Socialism as a part of a general economic or ethical philosophy - embedded within the liberal democratic system - is not quite as bad on its own. The fundamental ideas behind the movement led to things like universal public education, national investment in the sciences and arts, as w…

>Well, I can't see it happening in a scarcity society, but I can imagine it happening in a post-scarcity one. The thing is, scarcity in the economic sense is defined in terms of peoples' wants, which seem to be able to expand indefinitely. Short of discovering an infinite energy source, there will never be enough energy to completely satisfy everybody's wants. So a method will be needed of deciding whose wants get sa…

> The thing is, scarcity in the economic sense is defined in terms of peoples' wants, which seem to be able to expand indefinitely.

It's unclear to me whether this is true. For most of history, "infinitely expanding people wants" was not a thing, at least in terms of material wants. Maybe because it was not believed to be possible? But there are plenty of examples of autocratic rulers in pre-industrial times who extracted less resources from their subjects than it's believed they could. So, did they balance that against some risk or the effort required? Or were they simply uninterested in maximizing their personal wealth beyond a point? I feel even in modern capitalist society, above a certain threshold (which varies from person to person and according to circumstances) people are more motivated by status and recognition than material wants...

> If the robots that do all our work for us need to be as smart as us to do so, then they probably wouldn't be willing to work for free.

Does being as smart as us require being as self-aware as us? Does it require free will? Does it beget human needs and values? If 000, my scenario holds. If 100, we might be faced with a serious moral dilemma. If 110, who knows what our relationship with such beings would be. If 111, I've re-invented slavery and it should be abolished again at once, but I sort of doubt the answer to all three questions will be true. All other configurations are hard to imagine.

Re: Ursula K. Le Guin at the National Book Awards

#53

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

WalterBright wrote: post #40
Uhhrrr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - I avoided it for a long time because of its reputation as a paperweight, but it's a great, multilayered, witty book. And it's unencumbered by copyright, so there's little reason not to give it a go.

One thing I like about Amazon is their large selection of classics like this, formatted for the Kindle, at $0.00.

Thank Project Gutenberg instead.

Re: Ursula K. Le Guin at the National Book Awards

#54

Post by safod »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #49
logicchains wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely. Moving to a system "outside of capitalism" involves preventing this, and necessarily involves large scale violence both to take the accumulated capital of savers and to persecute anyone who still seeks to engage in the free exchange of goods. See for example the merchants in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia who were hung or…

Not really. Those are reasonable examples of what it takes to try to "force" an entire country out of capitalism "for their own good". Socialism as a part of a general economic or ethical philosophy - embedded within the liberal democratic system - is not quite as bad on its own. The fundamental ideas behind the movement led to things like universal public education, national investment in the sciences and arts, as w…

I like that you acknowledge that the innate human drive to create is at least as strong a drive as the profit motive, yet are only willing to accept that it is a sufficient motive in a "post-scarcity" society (whatever that is supposed to be anyway - there will always be scarce goods, that's the nature of the universe). You also commit a common fallacy when you imply in your first paragraph that communism preventing people from accumulating capital is an act of unjust violence and oppression - it is not, and that is so for the same reason that preventing people from stealing from others is not an act of oppression either. I suggest to actually read one of LeGuin's books, mostly notably The Dispossessed.

Re: Ursula K. Le Guin at the National Book Awards

#55

Post by jdub »

logicchains wrote: post #43
davedx wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She is talking about moving to a new system outside of capitalism, not causing a dip in profits for one particular company.

"Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely. Moving to a system "outside of capitalism" involves preventing this, and necessarily involves large scale violence both to take the accumulated capital of savers and to persecute anyone who still seeks to engage in the free exchange of goods. See for example the merchants in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia who were hung or…

"Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely.

That's what the word means. But our capitalism? The one we have? It's not that. It's not optimal. It's not efficient. It's not even fair.

But then, the then-accepted concept of "Divine Right of Kings" was never what it purported to be either, was it?

Re: Ursula K. Le Guin at the National Book Awards

#56

Post by jasonisalive »

rquantz wrote: post #21
sxcurry wrote: post #17

Sorry, I admire her writing, but I call complete and utter bullshit on this speech. Books are commodities, not some magical elixer from the gods. Some are good, some are terrible. I buy mine from Amazon and Audible. New technologies, and they are helping more people to read more books than ever before.

This is a typical view around here. Obviously to Le Guin they are more than that. But what would one of the great writers of our time, approaching the end of her life, know about that?

She's very good, but great? I don't know about that. I've really enjoyed many of her books, but at heart they seem to me to be the books of an author who isn't particularly conscious of her privilege level in the world. Furthermore she never really seemed to move beyond a very American-centric strain of 60s radical politics in her thinking and aesthetics.

If you're a certain type of American, I'm sure you could be convinced that she's a truly rich and resounding thinker. People on the other side of that fence would probably wish she was interested in speaking to the whole human audience.

Re: Ursula K. Le Guin at the National Book Awards

#57

Post by happyscrappy »

jdub wrote: post #55
logicchains wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely. Moving to a system "outside of capitalism" involves preventing this, and necessarily involves large scale violence both to take the accumulated capital of savers and to persecute anyone who still seeks to engage in the free exchange of goods. See for example the merchants in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia who were hung or…

"Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely. That's what the word means. But our capitalism? The one we have? It's not that. It's not optimal. It's not efficient. It's not even fair. But then, the then-accepted concept of "Divine Right of Kings" was never what it purported to be either, was it?

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Re: Ursula K. Le Guin at the National Book Awards

#58

Post by jasonisalive »

pjmorris wrote: post #42
sxcurry wrote: post #17

Sorry, I admire her writing, but I call complete and utter bullshit on this speech. Books are commodities, not some magical elixer from the gods. Some are good, some are terrible. I buy mine from Amazon and Audible. New technologies, and they are helping more people to read more books than ever before.

Would you then say that 'The C Programming Language' are 'Structure and Interpretation of Programming Languages' are commodities, no better or worse than the dozens of alternatives?

I think he answered your question already: "Some are good, some are terrible."

Try reading the parent a little more thoroughly.

Re: Ursula K. Le Guin at the National Book Awards

#59

Post by jasonisalive »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #49
logicchains wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely. Moving to a system "outside of capitalism" involves preventing this, and necessarily involves large scale violence both to take the accumulated capital of savers and to persecute anyone who still seeks to engage in the free exchange of goods. See for example the merchants in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia who were hung or…

Not really. Those are reasonable examples of what it takes to try to "force" an entire country out of capitalism "for their own good". Socialism as a part of a general economic or ethical philosophy - embedded within the liberal democratic system - is not quite as bad on its own. The fundamental ideas behind the movement led to things like universal public education, national investment in the sciences and arts, as w…

The fundamental ideas behind the movement led to things like universal public education, national investment in the sciences and arts, as well as universal public healthcare. These are all things which almost every modern nation recognizes as good ideas.

There are many people who disagree 100% on that point.

Re: Ursula K. Le Guin at the National Book Awards

#60

Post by jasonisalive »

vixen99 wrote: post #26
clebio wrote: post #16

> We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.

What a bizarre connection! Disputing the divine right of kings had to be a private act or you faced the consequences; you and I, the consumers, ultimately decide the fate of the millions of businesses that constitute the system we call capitalism within a free market.

Sorry, but you're forgetting:

- shadowy allegations of conspiracies

- caricatures of corporations as all-powerful Machiavellian forces wielding the very levers of global history

- castigation of "overly" aggressive and "too" competitive behaviour

- refusal to consider the role of competition and consumer choice

- refusal to acknowledge the participation of all people as both buyers and sellers of goods on the free marketplace

- refusal to ignore the massive and widespread concessions and responses to populist demands evident in modern politics

- sole focus on the influence of abnormally wealthy entities on the political system (and refusal to admit that without a massive cultural change a human-run politic is impossible to insulate from monetary corruption).

It's important to keep the facts in mind before you go wild insinuating something absurd like the average consumer being anything more than a ragged brainwashed puppet of the corporocrat Illuminati.

Post reply on HN