361–370 of 496 posts
I've spent most of my career working to simplify systems and processes, and the thing that's surprised me the most is how cool the reception usually is.
I think this is because professionally speaking it acts as a moat. By making something as complex as you are able you raise the participation costs of others.
The example I like to use is: it would never be in a lawyer's interest that the law be simple.
I think this feeling of everything being too complex is a natural consequence of work that is done for long-term abstract ends, rather than immediate and local ones. At least I think it is for me. Working remotely for an international software company is great for its lifestyle flexibility, but sometimes I just want to be a baker, chef, bike repairman, etc. that solves an immediate problem for a real person standing…
"And here you find civilized man. Civilized man refused to adapt himself to his environment. Instead he adapted his environment to suit him. So he built cities, roads, vehicles, machinery. And he put up power lines to run his labour-saving devices. But he some how didn't know when to stop. The more he improved his surroundings to make life easier the more complicated he made it. So now his children are sentenced to 1…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think *half of children* are going to have life-ending diseases that will "make the child's and the families life hell until they run out of resources"???
I think we are on that trajectory, yes. And a huge contributor is the perception that it is OK, because we have advanced medical procedures for them...for who can afford them. So capitalism/consumerism makes them sick (indiscriminately) and then sells them cure (when they can). Progress!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be more precise, the late stage capitalism phase we are in has designed itself around destroying anything that contributes to society. Nothing can exist without making a profit. If there is something that is useful, our system makes sure it will be exploited for maximum profit which will in turn destroy that very things.
That's not true. Capitalism is merely indifferent to things without economic value. If something is monetizable it will be monetized, which can be very harmful in itself, but capitalism does not seek destruction for it's own sake.
> On January 17, 1961, in this farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the establishment of a "military-industrial complex."
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwigh...
The latest examples are the current war-profiteers in office who drive conflict to fuel a war economy, capitalizing on the rising stock shares of 'defense' contractors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Described by Marx (in too many words, unfortunately) as “alienation”
The reason Marx developed the more advanced category of commodity fetishism was, in a way, to expose the real alienation in the fantasy that one could opt out of "alienation" by becoming a baker, bike repairman, etc. The heart of a heartless world, indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rather by Graeber (with way too many words still) as "bullshit jobs".
I get the appeal of his arguments but after reading the book, it just doesn't sit right with me. A lot if it reminds me too much of fascist arguments about how all of those city liberals don't do actual labor and the only "real jobs" are farm jobs or something.
It helps to ask: how many of the modern fascist leaders are retreating to the farm? I see them developing and deploying tech to inceease their grip on power. I see the "farmsy-folk" as a contingent the facists have persuaded to nip at those in the middle. And the means of the persuasion is, ironically, using the Marxist argunent of alienation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are plenty of “unreasonable men” adapting the world to themselves. You say that like it's a counterexample, but is that not literally what the quote is saying? I mean what's the difference between that and: > the unreasonable [man] persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
I think Wikipedia does a good job of defining what most people understand by “progress”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress > Progress is movement towards a perceived refined, improved, or otherwise desired state. I.e. progress is understood as positive advancement. Otherwise we use other words like “regression”. The quote as it is typically used is advocating for the unreasonable man because they precipitate pro…
As I see it, the quote neither advocates nor critiques unreasonableness, but rather observes that unreasonable people are most often the ones responsible for change. Whether you take that as a lesson on the merits of unreasonableness, the dangers of it, or something in between, is up to interpretation, and depends on how much one values reasonableness vs progress (for the record, I've heard the quote more often in a negative sense by people who put reasonableness above "progress"). It also depends on one's definition of "reasonableness" of course, and whether something can be unreasonable yet still a positive.
So I guess my point is that the quote can mean just about whatever you want it to mean. It's an interesting litmus test. I do agree that people using it as carte blanche for unreasonableness in the name of some sort of nebulous "progress" is, well, unreasonable, though with context I'm certain GP was using it as more of a critique.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we are on that trajectory, yes. And a huge contributor is the perception that it is OK, because we have advanced medical procedures for them...for who can afford them. So capitalism/consumerism makes them sick (indiscriminately) and then sells them cure (when they can). Progress!
Then I'm just going to reiterate the "Talk to your therapist" and end this conversation.