Here’s an idea go sign up as a volunteer in Ukraine and fight yourself instead of cheering on for other people to die for you, you disgusting sack of shit.
There is implicit isolation when resources should remain the same for American workers. When you have global communism, resources would be shared which means there is significantly less available.
No, there’s no implicit isolation here. What’s being said is that local industry should be preferred. You don’t seem to understand even the very basic concept of what communism is or how it works. Communism is when people living on the land share their labour and resources for common benefit. Global communism simply means that majority of the world follows the same model.
The reason production should be local is because people doing the work are working in their own interest and for their own benefit by virtue of owning the means of production.
But when capitalism collapses, will there be communism or will there be wars redistributing resources? That’s what I meant with the expectation that the world will not just watch.
As, I’ve repeatedly explained above, communism isn’t a necessary outcome of capitalism collapsing. The other obvious alternative is fascism as it happened when there was a capitalist collapse in Germany in 1930s.
China receives most of the outsourcing and thus received most of the wealth. Other countries just increased their population which keeps the number of people in powerty the same.
China increased its wealth by focusing on productive activity in China. This has little to do with outsourcing. If outsourcing was the main reason standard of living in China is improving then we’d see that happening in every other country the west outsources to, yet the opposite is happening.
From my point of view you are stuck in a desire to keep capitalism as bad as possible so that the communist revolution happens as soon as possible. But capitalism isn’t the single source of evil and actually has positive outcomes.
I’ve repeatedly explained to you above that the very mechanics of capitalist relations are what leads to poor conditions under capitalism. You can read this book from Ray Dalio, who is a very successful capitalist discussing this if you don’t trust the communist perspective.
The mechanic is not complex, and it’s well illustrated by the game of monopoly. Everybody starts with equal opportunity, and as the game progresses through capitalist competition a single player ends up with all the resources. This is precisely what we see happening in the real world. Successful capitalist enterprises grow by outcompeting the rest, and this results in capital concentration.
On top of that, capitalism produces crashes roughly once a decade as we saw with Y2K crash, then 2008 crash, and now the current crash. During each of these crashes there’s a rapid wealth transfer to the top as well. People lose savings, homes, and property because they can’t make ends meet, and those people who own significant capital end up buying up the assets people are forced to forfeit. So, when a crash happens majority becomes more poor and in a worse position to weather the next crash. Eventually things get to the point where people simply don’t have much to lose and violence starts.
Take that outsourcing text. It tells you that capitalists don’t want to invest into capital intensive businesses, which is funny by itself. We started with cooperatives that should issue bonds. Don’t you see the opportunity that capitalist could support cooperatives to run those businesses?
I don’t think you understood what the article was actually saying which is that financial capitalists want to minimize their risk and maximize their profits. Investing in real productive industry is both risky and expensive. You have to build factories, buy machinery, hire workers to operate it, and so on. This is a big initial investment, and if it doesn’t work out you’re stuck with a big loss. On the other hand, investing in ephemeral industries like software development is a very low initial cost, you just hire a few guys with laptops. You can invest in a whole bunch of these startups, and if one of them makes it big then you get a huge return. This is the silicon valley model. Not only that, but the company doesn’t even have to have a viable business model. It’s a pyramid scheme in practice because you just need the company to have a high valuation when the IPO happens and cash out. This is how we end up with companies like Uber that aren’t actually profitable and have no path towards being profitable, but are valuated at billions of dollars.
I know, I should do it myself. But I am more the capital relations kind of person which makes it very difficult for me to run a cooperative. All I can do is tell you that there is an opportunity.
So that you’re saying is that you don’t actually believe in what you’re saying enough to put your money where your mouth is.
A communist revolution would fundamentally restructure the way society operates which is a far more valuable goal than establishing a network of cooperatives which simply allows people lucky enough to work in these cooperatives to cope better with capitalist repression. These two things aren’t even remotely comparable, and abandoning freedom for all workers because it’s just too darn difficult is a cowardly position to take.
The reality is that it’s much more difficult to get the initial funding for a coop than a traditional company, and it’s not that lots of people haven’t been trying different approaches including the hare brained schemes you floated many times. The fact that you just keep repeating something that’s demonstrably false means that there’s no point continuing this discussion. Have a good day.
What happened in countries like Hungary and Poland is a direct result of the transition to capitalism however. What’s more this transition happened under the best possible conditions. The transition happened largely democratically without any violent revolutions, and these countries got support from the west to soften economic impact of the transition. Yet, despite all that we see that majority of post Soviet countries end up going in a similar direction under capitalism. Again, Hungary isn’t an outlier here.
I would imagine that the biological phase for intelligent life is rather short, and I expect that in the long run intelligence will transition to post biological substrates.
I’d argue that inventions of language and writing are the landmark moments in human development. Before language was invented the only way information could be passed down from ancestors to offspring was via mutations in our DNA. If an individual learned some new idea it would be lost with them when they died. Language allowed humans to communicate ideas to future generations and start accumulating knowledge beyond what a single individual could hold in their head. Writing made this process even more efficient.
When language was invented humans started creating technology, and in a blink of an eye on cosmological scale we went from living in caves to visiting space in our rocket ships. It’s worth taking a moment to really appreciate just how fast our technology evolved once we were able to start accumulating knowledge using language and writing.
Our society today is utterly and completely unrecognizable to somebody from even a 100 years ago. If we don’t go extinct, I imagine that in another thousand years future humans or whatever succeeds us will be completely alien to us as well. It’s pretty hard to predict what that would look like given where we are now.
With that caveat, I think we can make some assumptions such as that future intelligent life will likely exist in virtual environments running on computing substrates because such environments could operate at much faster speeds than our meat brains, and what we consider real time would be seem like geological scale from that perspective. Given that, I can’t see why intelligences living in such environments would pay much attention to the physical world.
I also think that we’re likely to develop human style AIs within a century. It’s hard to predict such things, but I don’t think there’s anything magic regarding what our brains are doing. There are a few different paths towards producing a human style artificial intelligence.
The simplest approach could be to simply evolve one. Given a rich virtual environment, we could run an evolutionary simulation that would select for intelligent behaviors. This approach doesn’t require us to understand how intelligence works. We just have to create a set of conditions that select for the types of intelligent behaviors we’re looking for. This is a brute force approach for creating AGI.
Another approach could be to map out the human brain down to neuron level and create a physics simulation that would emulate a brain. We aren’t close to being able to do that technologically yet, but who knows what will happen in the coming decades and centuries.
Finally, we might be able to figure out the algorithms that mimic what our brains do, and build AIs based on that. This could be the most efficient way to build an AI since we’d understand how and why it works which would facilitate rapid optimization and improvement.
My view is that if we made an AI that had human style consciousness then it should be treated as a person and have the same rights as a biological human. While we could never prove that an AI has internal experience and qualia, I think that morally we have to err on the side of trusting the AI that claims to have consciousness and self awareness.
I expect that post biologicals will be the ones to go out and explore the universe. Meat did not evolve to live in space because we’re adapted to gravity wells. An artificial life form could be engineered to thrive in space without ever needing to visit planets. This is the kind of life that’s most likely to be prolific in space.
One of the best sci fi novels I’ve read on the subject would be Diaspora by Greg Egan. It seems like a plausible scenario for the future of humanity.
Gdevelop is very nifty, but yeah it’s complex enough to be intimidating for somebody with no development experience. I think the beauty of Flash was just how accessible the tooling for it was. Anybody could get started with it in minutes.