It's 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: It's 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better (2016)

#241

Post by xapata » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:17 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #240

xapata wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that my dog is less "free" than myself, but only because he is less self-aware. I like the philosophy that one is "free" to the extent one understands the various causes that constrain and motivate one's choices, because it sidesteps the need to answer the question of how much free will is possible given all the influences we face. Going back to the story's protagonist, using this definition of "free" it's no…

I don't actually like that definition and believe it is rather naive. Referring back to the cult example (extremes are easier to denote boundaries) we agree that a cult member is not free. Yet if you ask them they will say that they believe that they are free (many will insist that it is in fact you who is not free). This dictates that our usage requisites the ability to make this determination from outside one's own…

It may be a naive philosophy, but my choice of it is studied. If you're curious about the literature, check out discussion of Liebniz' view of free will.

I didn't agree that the cult member was not free in a binary sense, because I don't believe freedom is binary. The cult members are free to the extent they understand the causes of their choices, which presumably is very little. If you're looking for nuance, then let's avoid binary definitions. One isn't either free or not free. Even 2-state transistors are actually only 2-state by approximation.

Re: It's 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better (2016)

#242

Post by godelski » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 7:05 AM UTC

xapata wrote: post #241

godelski wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't actually like that definition and believe it is rather naive. Referring back to the cult example (extremes are easier to denote boundaries) we agree that a cult member is not free. Yet if you ask them they will say that they believe that they are free (many will insist that it is in fact you who is not free). This dictates that our usage requisites the ability to make this determination from outside one's own…

It may be a naive philosophy, but my choice of it is studied. If you're curious about the literature, check out discussion of Liebniz' view of free will. I didn't agree that the cult member was not free in a binary sense, because I don't believe freedom is binary. The cult members are free to the extent they understand the causes of their choices, which presumably is very little. If you're looking for nuance, then le…

Sorry, I may have misinterpreted. I thought you were making the case for a binary distinction. I thought it was clear that I believe it is a spectrum when I started calling it fuzzy (introduced in my second comment and reinforced thereafter). I certainly think this continuum is essential to the nuance of the discussion.

As for Liebniz, I don't think anything I've said is inconsistent with his beliefs. According to Liebniz, if an actor only has one or a small limited set of available options then they are not free (spontaneity). In the case of your dog, it depends highly upon you for its own basic needs: food, water, shelter. It also depends on you for its higher needs: companionship and a sense of purpose (or role). Because of this I do not think Liebniz would consider your dog free. It does not have much of a choice. But if we are talking about the spectrum, well your dog does have a choice to run away and attempt to survive on its own. We know it wouldn't make it far, but it might not know that (about things like the pound, leash laws, or human civilization norms). But the dog does have some freedom because you do give it some reign. Probably moreso than the member of the cult.

Similarly I'd say that you are more free than your dog. You can go on vacations and travel. You can eat different food and you can choose what food. It may be influenced by others, but that is different than dictated. But still you are beholden to having a job and living in society which does limit some sense of freedom. Similarly this story is about questioning who is more free by presenting the Huxleyesk lifestyle. In A Brave New World people are able to have all their desires, so why do we not consider them free?

Re: It's 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better (2016)

#243

Post by xapata » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 7:49 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #242

xapata wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be a naive philosophy, but my choice of it is studied. If you're curious about the literature, check out discussion of Liebniz' view of free will. I didn't agree that the cult member was not free in a binary sense, because I don't believe freedom is binary. The cult members are free to the extent they understand the causes of their choices, which presumably is very little. If you're looking for nuance, then le…

Sorry, I may have misinterpreted. I thought you were making the case for a binary distinction. I thought it was clear that I believe it is a spectrum when I started calling it fuzzy (introduced in my second comment and reinforced thereafter). I certainly think this continuum is essential to the nuance of the discussion. As for Liebniz, I don't think anything I've said is inconsistent with his beliefs. According to Li…

Ever watch an ad that's so good, you can feel yourself being manipulated? I equate freedom in the Huxleyworld to be like that. So long as you're aware that your choices are, through overwhelming convenience, limited to whatever the machine allows, you're free. The implication is that you can, with enough effort, choose something outside that range. Perhaps as a hobby, the way some people today brew their own beer or make their own furniture.

Re: It's 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better (2016)

#244

Post by collyw » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 8:42 AM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #127

collyw wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that "post scarcity" requires some definition. In the west very few people go hungry and the vast majority of people have a mobile phone - something that was an expensive status item just a couple of decades ago. It feels like if we made everything "post scarcity" by today's standard, we would have a load more things that people would be striving to acquire. On the other hand maybe post scarcity is what some b…

it seems possible that food, water, shelter, and even healthcare could be provided to everyone in the near future, but positional goods will always exist. it will never be possible for everyone to live in a manhattan penthouse, be treated by the best doctors, etc., and people will still compete for access to these things.

In Europe, particularly in the richer countries such as Scandanavia those are generally not a problem. A few years ago a friend from Denmark said that the whole country had 16 homeless people. Obviously there are people who have problems but I think those run deeper than just not being able to afford the basics.

Re: It's 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better (2016)

#245

Post by ihadtosayit » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 9:56 AM UTC

Gnarl wrote: post #147

_28jh wrote: post #132

I've seen this article reach the front page many times and I laugh every single time. There's too many golden lines. > First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. > Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys w…

Unfortunately, it is a real person. A Danish politician: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Auken

Funny thing about that is that she is a politician because her father was, no other reason than nepotism really. They are also a very rich family, I'd really like to see this hag live by her words.

Re: It's 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better (2016)

#246

Post by pluto9 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 9:57 AM UTC

raspyberr wrote: post #59

This is only ridiculous because we're in a society that values making money more than anything else. I wouldn't want to everything to be rent/subscription based because the other party will always be looking for how to get more money out of me. If everything were really truly free and I could order waffles that arrived in 3 minutes what incentive would anyone have to change that service in anyway?

And when you're done eating those waffles, you can have a free toothbrush delivered so you can freshen up before sending it on its way to the next lucky recipient.

Owning things has advantages beyond accumulating wealth.

Re: It's 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better (2016)

#247

Post by ihadtosayit » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 9:59 AM UTC

syshum wrote: post #233

hahaiscjaaka wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Written by a Scandinavian politician. People from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland (idk about Iceland) are surprisingly ok with trusting institutions won’t harm you, and conformism is the norm.

Conformism is requirement in Authoritarian regimes. Now I am sure I will get massive amount of push back calling Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland authoritarian but it seems in many ways human culture is loosing what desire for freedom, replacing it with conformism, safety, and security which they falsely equate with freedom

I am a dane and I agree with you completely. Just go to the danish subreddit and see how the average dane has been subverted into being a conformist who redicules anyone who dares ask questions that oppose the official talking points. (Argue against the handling of the mink scandal, the mask enforcement etc and you get ousted and rediculed even though there really is no counter arguements to whatever you say. Its just easier to redicule than address arguements).

Re: It's 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better (2016)

#248

Post by koheripbal » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 12:59 PM UTC

bccdee wrote: post #165

TeMPOraL wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the counterargument is that if everyone suddenly has $1000/month more, the market will very quickly eat it all, as prices readjust to consume the extra disposable income. I want UBI to work. But I haven't heard of a good strategy to mitigate what I just described.

You can't use cash. Guaranteed housing, a universal food stamp program that doesn't suck — there are ways we can give everyone a fixed amount of additional value without injecting extra money into the economy and seeing inflation happen. After all, a grocery store can raise its prices on customers, but when it has to hand its food stamp receipts to the state for reimbursement, the state can ensure that prices don't r…

What sucks about the current food stamp program?

Re: It's 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better (2016)

#249

Post by cryptica » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 1:32 PM UTC

test1_1234 wrote: post #217

cryptica wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe that people are downvoting this without making any arguments to refute it; they're thinking emotionally, looking at things through rose-colored lenses. Sometimes it seems like everyone is on drugs. People's brains are turning into swiss cheese. Trying to censor information is just not going to work. Controlling the media is not going to help beyond a certain point. People know what's going on and they…

>The current elites don't have the ability to suppress billions of people who were raised on freedom as the central principle of their existence. I hope I'm not too cynical, but I think "freedom" is more of a meme than something that most people value. Whenever there are news stories about governments spying on their own citizens or restricting free speech, most people seem to just shrug and move on with their lives.

I don't know about others but I certainly value my own freedom so I'm not going to live in any country which doesn't have it. I'm glad I visited the US last year because I have a feeling I'm never going back there. Same reason why I wouldn't go visit North Korea.

BTW why am I hearing this 'freedom is not important' stuff from so many people on HN? Is that what your leaders are preaching? I'd be suspicious of your leaders if that were me.

Re: It's 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better (2016)

#250

Post by jpttsn » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 2:18 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #127

collyw wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that "post scarcity" requires some definition. In the west very few people go hungry and the vast majority of people have a mobile phone - something that was an expensive status item just a couple of decades ago. It feels like if we made everything "post scarcity" by today's standard, we would have a load more things that people would be striving to acquire. On the other hand maybe post scarcity is what some b…

it seems possible that food, water, shelter, and even healthcare could be provided to everyone in the near future, but positional goods will always exist. it will never be possible for everyone to live in a manhattan penthouse, be treated by the best doctors, etc., and people will still compete for access to these things.

Additionally, as food, water, shelter become readily available, people raise the bar even on those goods.

The social safety net here in Sweden won't let me starve. But to impress my friends, I have to buy much more than calories. The food I serve must be climate compensated, organic, small batch, good for animals and people. Buying food becomes an exercise in personal branding.