My only caveat/question is "are machines really trying to replace us" or is that not part of a "plan" when the only part of the plan is "don't be left holding the bag"...meaning, I hope even if greed continues to win, the goal isn't to "replace us" but to shove us aside and throw bread and circus our way along with UBI....I don't "want" that...but I think it's more likely than "replacement."
Note the context of the comment: "flawed incentives of capital to try to replace humans with machines"
It is not MACHINES that are trying to replace us, it is that specific worldviews include ideologies that suggest that replacing a human workforce with a machine workforce is a valid thing to try to do.
I've been part of what some call the "Appropriate Technology" movement for decades. My critique of technology isn't about any specific body of science (even if they are often quite subjective and biased), but how this science is applied. Technology is the application of conceptual knowledge to achieve specific goals, and I am questioning the goals that arise within the context of specific cultures/worldviews.
In a culture that did not have Anthropocentrism, Androcentrism, Individualism and simplistic "competition" notions as motivations for participation (Some call what I'm describing "Capitalism") as the basis, I may not be questioning the technology as the goals that technology were created to meet would be entirely different.
I did note the context but then errantly failed to say "incentives of capital" meaning "someone" is behind that, and I don't think it's black-and-white/binary that it would be goal-oriented, specifically, with "replacing" people so much as not considering them in the pursuit of capital. I also was trying to ask it, not "tell it" so I'm in FULL agreement with your reply (and nearly all of the post) but I am still wondering if you think "replacement" is really a goal, or happenstance...?
I appreciated your post and the reply in case that wasn't/isn't clear
(This is hopefully a conversation, not a "debate". I love to learn and share what I've learned, but all too often my "Autistic dialect" is misinterpreted as being competative or condescending. Sorry for any misunderstanding this different dialect might cause).
------------
Capitalism is a system.
I regularly find myself in conversations that are effectively about systems vs individuals. It really is the key way in which I see the world via a different lens than most of the other people I meet within this culture.
I must sound like a boring broken record to many people, where I seem to only be saying the same thing over and over again (only talking about different systems).
Those who subscribe to Individualism are always looking for living people making deliberate decisions. I focus on Systems Analysis (Systems Theory) recognizing that most people blindly "follow the rules" in order to "fit in" (socially, legally, etc) without ever giving the rules they are following any thought. Most of the time they aren’t even aware that there were decisions to have been made, and are merely being “successful”.
In most cases in this society, there is no still-living "someone" or “someones” that can truly be said to be "behind that". Most of the rules people are blindly following were articulated by centuries-dead people from other continents.
The specific strain of Capitalism practiced within British North America discounts nearly all the intrinsic value of life (Anthropocentrism, Androcentrism, etc, etc), and thus is allowed to (or specifically legislated as mandatory in many cases) externalize costs as an alleged mechanism to reduce costs. “Reducing costs” is alleged to be a “public good”, even where there has never been a full costs accounting (and thus the system disallows anyone from knowing the true costs or if they are ever actually reducing costs).
If Canada and the USA were using an alternative economic and political system from Capitalism, then there would be entirely different outcomes and uses of the "technology".
I am a strong supporter of UBI (and the various related names - Guaranteed Livable Income, etc), but that is based on my support for alternative economic and political systems.
I believe an economy should be serving the needs of life and account for the intrinsic value of all living things (And I include water/etc in this). I do not believe that "competition" is appropriate to be thought of as the primary (or only) motivator for participation in an economy.
When Canada’s GST (Goods and Services Tax) was introduced, I was opposed as I don’t believe we should be taxing services (including digital services – I disagree with the Canadian government on the Digital Services Tax) or labour. I believe we should be massively taxing resource extraction, but given this is “Canada” (Created to be a resource-extraction corporate branch of the British Empire https://r.flora.ca/p/alberta ), that is not a popular policy under this set of governments (and their multi-generational propaganda campaigns).
Many people over the decades have wanted to call me "anti-Capitalist" as if that were a derogatory terms, but I don't focus on specific system that as my problems with Androcentrism, Athropocentrism, Individualism, etc are why I don't subscribe to Capitalism. Another Androcentris/Anthropocentric/Individualistic alternative (Like European Marxism, Socialism, etc) aren't any more interesting to me.
I think the reason I don't understand this is that I'm a philosopher, I was a philosophy major, and all I've ever cared about is asking "why" about every rule, every system, every piece of advice...so it's appalling to step back and agree with your take. It crushes me, as I age, to KNOW that you're mostly right...the larger percentage of us don't want to, can't, or refuse to think about what's going on, their role, and how to deal with that.
I think where we *might* part ways is that I think we're collective consciousness having an individual awareness experience, intentionally, so it's always on us to break that mold, it's not going to happen the other way, so I watch now what's happening, and I try to behave and act honorably within a system within a system, and...this is the hardest part, I try not to judge any of that, and especially the results.
I'd say i'm batting .250 right now, which is abysmal, but when I was graduating highschool I was probably batting .008, so with perspective, I give myself some breathing space as I enter the next 60 years of my life (or so). I plan to live past 100, hopefully with no cyborg/medical aid beyond the norms of sututers and stitches if I fall...so far so good (I'm 44 and haven't taken any meds in my life and all my body parts technically work (the knees are starting to fail)...
The systems affect a part of me I don't respect or value. They can't mess with the part of me that's really me...that's my ultimate "gut" feeling.
Glad the conversation is continuing. I know things are busy at your end. There is even a chance someone else will see this chat and get some value out of it.
----
When I was growing up I regularly asked "why", including "why" I seemed to be one of the few young people asking "why". I'm currently 57, and don't expect to live more than 25 more years. I've been sad to realize in this older age that so few people ask "why".
That said, I'm not going to give up. I'm going to do anything I can (which I know is limited) to encourage people to move past Individualism and other ideologies embedded within this culture in order to better see the world around them and begin to ask questions.
-----
You said, "The systems affect a part of me I don't respect or value. They can't mess with the part of me that's really me"
The difference between where each of our thinking is are at the moment may relate to the line between what is part of an individual, and what is external. I personally consider culture and other systems as external to individuals, even if some people include these systems in their personal identity.
I don't know how to think in terms of a "part of me" that is affected by systems, and a part that is not. There is just me, and all of me can be impacted by systems. The only thing I can do is become as aware of these systems as I can, and to help dismantle harmful systems. I am aware of the privileges I have, including the fact that my neurotype (specific Autism profile) apparently makes systems more easily visible to me.
Individualism (moral stance, political philosophy, ideology - not merely the existence of individuals) pretends that self-reliance is a real thing rather than a myth that hides from view the systems around all of us.
For change to happen, first people (as individuals) need to be able to see the systems, then to stop identifying with the systems, and only then are able to work with others who can "see" to dismantle harmful systems. Only after the first few steps can any conscious choice as a society be made.
(We can't use the word "woke" any more, as sleeping self-identified "progressives" have mangled that term).
Those who are only able to think in terms of individuals (and I don't feel you are one of these people) feel that any idea that they think must be their own, and can't contemplate questioning the actual origins of these ideas.
I don't judge people, but I do judge systems. I have seen you write a few times that you are uncomfortable with this judgement. I guess I feel that some of the worst systems are so obviously harmful to life that I have a hard time understanding how anyone could agree to them once they are made visible.
BTW: Capitalism may be an easier system to discuss as people don't self-identify with it as much as when discussing Racism. They may incorrectly believe Capitalism is based on "human nature" or is "inevitable", but still not take it into their personal identity.
The two of us can discuss and even critique Capitalism without there being confusion that it is merely two Capitalists talking about other Capitalists. Capitalism isn't generally seen as a demographic trait or a personal "identity" of an individual like "race" is alleged to be.
You should turn this into a post. I loved it. I have three responses, that I’ll digest and articulate later…but suffice it to say I LOVED how you explained where you’re at, why you’re doing what you do, and how I do and do not fit into what you’re hoping to see and I definitely see even yet another caveat/advance to make in how I try to articulate “acceptance” to EVERYONE I meet, regardless of who they think they are and what they think about me, systems, individuality, etc. You’re “freaking wise” and I really liked all of this!!! Again, more to come…I have to finish a few other projects first. If you can wait, don’t advance the convo again without my next response! :) If you can’t wait, go right ahead, I’ll reply to both hahah
My only caveat/question is "are machines really trying to replace us" or is that not part of a "plan" when the only part of the plan is "don't be left holding the bag"...meaning, I hope even if greed continues to win, the goal isn't to "replace us" but to shove us aside and throw bread and circus our way along with UBI....I don't "want" that...but I think it's more likely than "replacement."
Note the context of the comment: "flawed incentives of capital to try to replace humans with machines"
It is not MACHINES that are trying to replace us, it is that specific worldviews include ideologies that suggest that replacing a human workforce with a machine workforce is a valid thing to try to do.
I've been part of what some call the "Appropriate Technology" movement for decades. My critique of technology isn't about any specific body of science (even if they are often quite subjective and biased), but how this science is applied. Technology is the application of conceptual knowledge to achieve specific goals, and I am questioning the goals that arise within the context of specific cultures/worldviews.
In a culture that did not have Anthropocentrism, Androcentrism, Individualism and simplistic "competition" notions as motivations for participation (Some call what I'm describing "Capitalism") as the basis, I may not be questioning the technology as the goals that technology were created to meet would be entirely different.
I did note the context but then errantly failed to say "incentives of capital" meaning "someone" is behind that, and I don't think it's black-and-white/binary that it would be goal-oriented, specifically, with "replacing" people so much as not considering them in the pursuit of capital. I also was trying to ask it, not "tell it" so I'm in FULL agreement with your reply (and nearly all of the post) but I am still wondering if you think "replacement" is really a goal, or happenstance...?
I appreciated your post and the reply in case that wasn't/isn't clear
(This is hopefully a conversation, not a "debate". I love to learn and share what I've learned, but all too often my "Autistic dialect" is misinterpreted as being competative or condescending. Sorry for any misunderstanding this different dialect might cause).
------------
Capitalism is a system.
I regularly find myself in conversations that are effectively about systems vs individuals. It really is the key way in which I see the world via a different lens than most of the other people I meet within this culture.
I must sound like a boring broken record to many people, where I seem to only be saying the same thing over and over again (only talking about different systems).
Those who subscribe to Individualism are always looking for living people making deliberate decisions. I focus on Systems Analysis (Systems Theory) recognizing that most people blindly "follow the rules" in order to "fit in" (socially, legally, etc) without ever giving the rules they are following any thought. Most of the time they aren’t even aware that there were decisions to have been made, and are merely being “successful”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
In most cases in this society, there is no still-living "someone" or “someones” that can truly be said to be "behind that". Most of the rules people are blindly following were articulated by centuries-dead people from other continents.
The specific strain of Capitalism practiced within British North America discounts nearly all the intrinsic value of life (Anthropocentrism, Androcentrism, etc, etc), and thus is allowed to (or specifically legislated as mandatory in many cases) externalize costs as an alleged mechanism to reduce costs. “Reducing costs” is alleged to be a “public good”, even where there has never been a full costs accounting (and thus the system disallows anyone from knowing the true costs or if they are ever actually reducing costs).
If Canada and the USA were using an alternative economic and political system from Capitalism, then there would be entirely different outcomes and uses of the "technology".
I am a strong supporter of UBI (and the various related names - Guaranteed Livable Income, etc), but that is based on my support for alternative economic and political systems.
I believe an economy should be serving the needs of life and account for the intrinsic value of all living things (And I include water/etc in this). I do not believe that "competition" is appropriate to be thought of as the primary (or only) motivator for participation in an economy.
When Canada’s GST (Goods and Services Tax) was introduced, I was opposed as I don’t believe we should be taxing services (including digital services – I disagree with the Canadian government on the Digital Services Tax) or labour. I believe we should be massively taxing resource extraction, but given this is “Canada” (Created to be a resource-extraction corporate branch of the British Empire https://r.flora.ca/p/alberta ), that is not a popular policy under this set of governments (and their multi-generational propaganda campaigns).
Many people over the decades have wanted to call me "anti-Capitalist" as if that were a derogatory terms, but I don't focus on specific system that as my problems with Androcentrism, Athropocentrism, Individualism, etc are why I don't subscribe to Capitalism. Another Androcentris/Anthropocentric/Individualistic alternative (Like European Marxism, Socialism, etc) aren't any more interesting to me.
I think the reason I don't understand this is that I'm a philosopher, I was a philosophy major, and all I've ever cared about is asking "why" about every rule, every system, every piece of advice...so it's appalling to step back and agree with your take. It crushes me, as I age, to KNOW that you're mostly right...the larger percentage of us don't want to, can't, or refuse to think about what's going on, their role, and how to deal with that.
I think where we *might* part ways is that I think we're collective consciousness having an individual awareness experience, intentionally, so it's always on us to break that mold, it's not going to happen the other way, so I watch now what's happening, and I try to behave and act honorably within a system within a system, and...this is the hardest part, I try not to judge any of that, and especially the results.
I'd say i'm batting .250 right now, which is abysmal, but when I was graduating highschool I was probably batting .008, so with perspective, I give myself some breathing space as I enter the next 60 years of my life (or so). I plan to live past 100, hopefully with no cyborg/medical aid beyond the norms of sututers and stitches if I fall...so far so good (I'm 44 and haven't taken any meds in my life and all my body parts technically work (the knees are starting to fail)...
The systems affect a part of me I don't respect or value. They can't mess with the part of me that's really me...that's my ultimate "gut" feeling.
Glad the conversation is continuing. I know things are busy at your end. There is even a chance someone else will see this chat and get some value out of it.
----
When I was growing up I regularly asked "why", including "why" I seemed to be one of the few young people asking "why". I'm currently 57, and don't expect to live more than 25 more years. I've been sad to realize in this older age that so few people ask "why".
That said, I'm not going to give up. I'm going to do anything I can (which I know is limited) to encourage people to move past Individualism and other ideologies embedded within this culture in order to better see the world around them and begin to ask questions.
-----
You said, "The systems affect a part of me I don't respect or value. They can't mess with the part of me that's really me"
The difference between where each of our thinking is are at the moment may relate to the line between what is part of an individual, and what is external. I personally consider culture and other systems as external to individuals, even if some people include these systems in their personal identity.
I don't know how to think in terms of a "part of me" that is affected by systems, and a part that is not. There is just me, and all of me can be impacted by systems. The only thing I can do is become as aware of these systems as I can, and to help dismantle harmful systems. I am aware of the privileges I have, including the fact that my neurotype (specific Autism profile) apparently makes systems more easily visible to me.
Individualism (moral stance, political philosophy, ideology - not merely the existence of individuals) pretends that self-reliance is a real thing rather than a myth that hides from view the systems around all of us.
For change to happen, first people (as individuals) need to be able to see the systems, then to stop identifying with the systems, and only then are able to work with others who can "see" to dismantle harmful systems. Only after the first few steps can any conscious choice as a society be made.
(We can't use the word "woke" any more, as sleeping self-identified "progressives" have mangled that term).
Those who are only able to think in terms of individuals (and I don't feel you are one of these people) feel that any idea that they think must be their own, and can't contemplate questioning the actual origins of these ideas.
I don't judge people, but I do judge systems. I have seen you write a few times that you are uncomfortable with this judgement. I guess I feel that some of the worst systems are so obviously harmful to life that I have a hard time understanding how anyone could agree to them once they are made visible.
BTW: Capitalism may be an easier system to discuss as people don't self-identify with it as much as when discussing Racism. They may incorrectly believe Capitalism is based on "human nature" or is "inevitable", but still not take it into their personal identity.
The two of us can discuss and even critique Capitalism without there being confusion that it is merely two Capitalists talking about other Capitalists. Capitalism isn't generally seen as a demographic trait or a personal "identity" of an individual like "race" is alleged to be.
You should turn this into a post. I loved it. I have three responses, that I’ll digest and articulate later…but suffice it to say I LOVED how you explained where you’re at, why you’re doing what you do, and how I do and do not fit into what you’re hoping to see and I definitely see even yet another caveat/advance to make in how I try to articulate “acceptance” to EVERYONE I meet, regardless of who they think they are and what they think about me, systems, individuality, etc. You’re “freaking wise” and I really liked all of this!!! Again, more to come…I have to finish a few other projects first. If you can wait, don’t advance the convo again without my next response! :) If you can’t wait, go right ahead, I’ll reply to both hahah