1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Welfare State in a post-Scarcity EconomyFollow

#27 Feb 26 2015 at 8:44 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I'd say this is the geekiest conversation I've ever witnessed, but I'd have to first close the tab arguing which Spider-Girlfriend is the best.

The right answer, obviously, is Sophia Sanduval.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#28 Feb 26 2015 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'd say this is the geekiest conversation I've ever witnessed, but I'd have to first close the tab arguing which Spider-Girlfriend is the best.

The right answer, obviously, is Sophia Sanduval.
Unless she's ever been dressed as Black Cat, your answer is very likely wrong. And if she has, links please.
#29 Feb 26 2015 at 9:21 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
That may be it. He just seems to treat the latest science/tech buzzconcept like it's the most amazing thing that has ever been thought of, and elevates it to a level of near reverence. To me, it's like "yeah, that's interesting, but not *that* interesting". Of course, I'm a cynic. Literally the first thought that goes through my head when someone presents a new idea, especially tech related is "where's the cost/catch?". I look for flaws in ideas, so when writers gush over something, it strikes me more as naive than compelling.


I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about his religious belief that AI is inherently inferior to human consciousness which, given that it's not one I share, makes his vision of the future pretty unbelievable to me.

You seem to be talking about something that isn't that. I can't speak for his other stuff 'cause I've never read it, but the Diamond Age's setting is written as a shithole.

Quote:
The right answer, obviously, is Sophia Sanduval.


I had to google that. Sounds like a healthier relationship than any of the ones he had in that cartoon series. God, that got weird.

Edited, Feb 26th 2015 10:25am by Kavekkk
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#30 Feb 26 2015 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's just *exceptionally clear to everyone* that you haven't read the Culture books.


No. Just in your own imagination. I guess what I find interesting is your choice of response. It's not the rational and logical: "That's incorrect because <A, B, C...>", but the illogical and useless: "you obviously have never read the books". You could use that response in any situation and it would have equal weight. So basically a useless response. I just don't get it. Does this sort of thing actually work in your daily or professional life?

Quote:
Keep pretending, I guess? I've given up caring.


For me, it's about studying human behavior. I have a theory that people tend to use the same argument methodology on others that worked on them when they formed their own opinions/positions. So if "Because god says so" worked to form some position in your mind, you're going to tend to think it'll work to form the same position in someone else. If "because facts A, B, and C, combined with logic methods 1, and 2, derive conclusion alpha" is how you learned something, you'll tend to use that instead.

In your case (and you're not unique in this), I suspect you spent a lot of time in classrooms being taught by teachers/professors who used the "anyone who disagrees with me didn't read or understand the study material" method of instruction. Your dogmatic need for an authority to tell you what is true or false, coupled with your own methodology of dismissing rather than addressing anyone who disagrees with you, strongly suggests this. I don't think I've *ever* seen you actually engage in an argument style discussion of anything. It's always "you're wrong", followed by "because you're an idiot, uneducated, etc".

Dunno. I find that interesting. Or I'm just bored whilst in the midst of a mind numbing computer image development process that basically requires me to make a change and then wait 10+ minutes to see if it has the desired effect. Repeat a few hundred times...

Quote:

Of course, I'm a cynic. Literally the first thought that goes through my head when someone presents a new idea, especially tech related is "where's the cost/catch?". I look for flaws in ideas, so when writers gush over something, it strikes me more as naive than compelling


Nah, you just aren't bright enough to understand the subtext.


And once again, you go for the attack on the other person's intelligence rather than address the issue itself. And in this case (as per usual), you've gotten it backwards. You've mistaken "so intelligent that concepts that take most people repeated explanations to grasp are predicted before the author gets halfway through building up the story for it" for "aren't bright enough to understand the subtext". What part of "he takes way too long to get to the point" in my post did you not get? For me, I tend to get impatient with stories where it's obvious the author has latched onto some scientific concept or technology and wants to highlight it in his plot, because the very fact that he's starting with that methodology makes the plot (and twists) pretty obvious.

For the record, I have the same problem with Crichton's books. The saving grace there is that they tend to be shorter. The negative is that his books all have the same plot, so there's that too. Not sure which author is "worse", actually.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Feb 26 2015 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
No. Just in your own imagination. I guess what I find interesting is your choice of response. It's not the rational and logical: "That's incorrect because <A, B, C...>", but the illogical and useless

This must be a fascinating argument you're having with Imaginary Guy who tried to undermine your opinion by claiming you didn't read a book you read. In the reality everyone but you shares, there's just me not caring at all about your opinion, noting with amusement that you are failing miserably at pretending to have read something. Listen, let me pull back the curtain a bit for you. We all know you're a laughable fraud.

I understand that using a search engine and then layering on the worldview you've been sold to whatever you find normally works for you with your peer group of slack jawed suckers, but we just tolerate it for sport. Everyone knows that you read a topic, toddle on over to wikipedia, and then say **** like "well, in the banana plantation world, we refer to less than 4 as fingers and more than 9 as a bunch" or whatever the subject of the day is.

In your case (and you're not unique in this), I suspect you spent a lot of time in classrooms being taught by teachers/professors who used the "anyone who disagrees with me didn't read or understand the study material" method of instruction.

Not really. I'm profoundly gifted, remember. Manifestly. We aren't the same, you and I. While I'm sure *you* spent a good deal of time in Bob and Jim's subpar Catholic School sitting in a room with 40 other average kids having people telling you "just shut the fuck up about 'but what if 2 + 2 equals five?' and learn how to add". My classroom instruction was almost wholly Socratic questioning and answering around a Harkness Table (here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harkness Now you're an expert about that!).

University was much the same. I was waived through pretty much every cattle call lecture. Because I'm so staggeringly intelligent. I realize you can't understand how that works, but c'est la vie (that means "that's life" in French. I speak French. Spanish too. Also Latin, German, Swahili, Pashtoon, Arabic, Farsi, Russian, some Yiddish, Bengal, Hindi, Mandarin. Not much Japanese though.) My education was basically the polar opposite of what you seemingly so desperately want to pretend it was. I'm not sure why.

I'm kidding, of course. I know why, but you don't really have the capacity to understand the explanation, so let's just pretend I don't know. That's so much easier, isn't it? :)

For the record, I have the same problem with Crichton's books. The saving grace there is that they tend to be shorter. The negative is that his books all have the same plot, so there's that too. Not sure which author is "worse", actually.

Crichton's worse. Comparing the two is idiotic, the quality of writing is wildly disparate.

Edited, Feb 26th 2015 11:20pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#32 Feb 27 2015 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not the rational and logical: "That's incorrect because <A, B, C...>", but the illogical and useless: "you obviously have never read the books".
If you ignore context, sure. You are the guy that regularly makes arguments about things you didn't even have the foresight to read a google search summary about, it becomes pretty logical. Pattern recognition, safe bets, and all that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#33 Feb 27 2015 at 8:51 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Fool me 32,199 times, shame on you. Fool me 32,200 times... I can't be... I can't be fooled again.

The socratic method sucks ****, just read a book or whatever and then have a real argument afterwards if inclined. I have never been subjected to it without thinking 'jesus, what a smug cunt this guy is'.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#34 Feb 27 2015 at 9:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I've never read the Culture books you all are talking about. Are they worth picking up?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#35 Feb 27 2015 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Yeah, they're pretty good if you like that kind of thing. Probably the best space opera sci-fi written in the past 20 years.

Strictly speaking, the first novel is probably the best introduction, but people often recommend new readers start with Players of Games or Use of Weapons because they're more interesting. I doubt you'd have many problems picking stuff up if you went that route.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#36 Feb 27 2015 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
On a side note, the phrase "space opera" triggers my inner nerd. "There's no sound...."
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#37 Feb 27 2015 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Lots of intercom transmissions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 Feb 27 2015 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
The socratic method sucks ****
I don't know about that. I've found that holding a kid's head underwater is an excellent way to motivate him to learn.
#39 Feb 27 2015 at 10:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
I read all of the culture books in the last 3 years. Start to finish in chronological order. They're really not that good. They're not bad. Just kind of boring for long stretches.

They do however illustrate a post scarcity society pretty well I think. We have a difficult time rationalizing how post scarcity life would be because we're so used to having limitations. Everything we do and think is based on those limitations. The culture novels illustrate a society where there are no real laws and yet no real "crime" because everything a person would want is either available or easily simulated in some way. Heck, they have drug glands that are controlled by thought to release various recreational drug combinations at will. Going for a walk and decide it'd be fun to jump off a 1000 ft cliff? Go for it, the AI will catch you and float you to the top so you can do it again. It's an absurd level of freedom and we couldn't possibly begin to understand how people raised with that kind of freedom would live.

All of this is made possible because the whole society is a sort of AI managed day care. I'm ok with AI overlords if I get to spend my 8000 year life doing, quite literally, ANYTHING I want at any given time. They gloss over where all of that stuff and energy comes from because, well, it's irrelevant. It's all being done by AIs and robots and doesn't effect any of the citizens so who the hell cares? If you think about it how many of us truly understand how a nuclear reactor works? I think I do, but I certainly would fail, and probably die, if I tried to build one and I'm ok with not knowing that because I'd rather play Destiny with that electricity than study nuclear physics so I can make it.

Like Republicans they've outsourced all of the jobs and kept all of the goodies.
#40 Feb 27 2015 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
I've never read the Culture books you all are talking about. Are they worth picking up?

I bet that they were until I read this thread. Now all they would hold are bad memories.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Feb 27 2015 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I've never read the Culture books you all are talking about. Are they worth picking up?

Yes. I'd say read Player of Games. If you like it you'll probably like the rest of them well enough. If you aren't a fan, it's at least a well executed plot.

I read all of the culture books in the last 3 years. Start to finish in chronological order. They're really not that good. They're not bad. Just kind of boring for long stretches.

That's true for many of them. There certainly isn't a lack of character development. Banks takes some narrative chances in some of the books that didn't pay off for me. I liked Use of Weapons, but I think some of the chronology fragmentation didn't work very well. (This from me, with Gravity's Rainbow as one of my favorite books, so it's not a conceptual issue.) I think they're worth reading. None of them are books I would tell someone they must read, but if people are looking for something and like science fiction, I recommend them.

The aforementioned Player of Games is my personal favorite. It's probably not the best book, but it's about a smart cynical game theory expert who is bored life. Ok, you got me. I'm not made of stone.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#42 Feb 27 2015 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The socratic method sucks ****, just read a book or whatever and then have a real argument afterwards if inclined. I have never been subjected to it without thinking 'jesus, what a smug **** this guy is'.

Who, Socrates? Hard to argue that one.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#43 Feb 27 2015 at 3:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
The socratic method sucks ****, just read a book or whatever and then have a real argument afterwards if inclined. I have never been subjected to it without thinking 'jesus, what a smug cunt this guy is'.

It takes a mention of the Socratic method to make you think that Smash is a smug cunt after reading his posts? Smiley: dubious

Edited, Feb 27th 2015 3:06pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Feb 27 2015 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It takes a mention of the Socratic method to make you think that Smash is a smug **** after reading his posts?

Boy, I hope not, if so I've been doing it wrong. Nexa is the stealth smug one.

http://xkcd.com/1027/

That's basically Nexa. Genial and glib until she thinks you're being mean, then hold on to your ******* hat.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Feb 27 2015 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
I don't think anyone here is under impression that Smasharoo is modest. I'd make some kind of jab here, 'except maybe..' but I can't think of any appropriate recipient. This is what downsizing does to a forum.

Quote:
The aforementioned Player of Games is my personal favorite. It's probably not the best book, but it's about a smart cynical game theory expert who is bored life. Ok, you got me. I'm not made of stone.


I don't know, I'd say Use of Weapons is perhaps better, but if you didn't like the inverted chapter thing you probably wouldn't agree. Player of Games is up there, anyway. It's definitely one of the more unique books in the series, kind of a sci-fi take on Magister Ludi. The later books are a bit more bloated and a bit less polished.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#46 Feb 27 2015 at 4:17 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It's definitely one of the more unique books in the series, kind of a sci-fi take on Magister Ludi.

It's totally that. Hadn't occurred to me before, but there's no way Banks didn't read Hesse. **** work. Now why do you think he wrote it that way?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#47 Feb 27 2015 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Oh man, I haven't read Hesse since middle school. I should revisit.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#48 Feb 27 2015 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's definitely one of the more unique books in the series, kind of a sci-fi take on Magister Ludi.

It's totally that. Hadn't occurred to me before, but there's no way Banks didn't read Hesse. **** work. Now why do you think he wrote it that way?


I came by Hesse because I was looking for something similar to PoG; I'd had a similar idea before reading it, which I still wanted to use. I figured there was no way Banks was the first one to come up with the idea, so I googled around looking for something to point at (see, he lifted it from someplace too!) 'till I found Magister Ludi. Also, it was on my mum's bookshelf the whole time.

So, I'd say it's partly because at its root it's an interesting idea from an author's point of view. For Banks in particular it lets him address a lot of the criticism about the impractically of the Culture as a society in a relatively elegant way. It's not a unique idea, but it is uncommon enough you're naturally writing with an acute awareness of stuff written in a similar vein. The themes from Magister Ludi translate pretty well onto the dilemmas of liberal interventionism that are pretty central to the Culture (which in itself is kind of funny if you ask me), which is of course why PoG works well as a book in the first place. If I had to guess at what'd make him make the mental jump from one to the other, maybe the gaminess of the kind of strategic planning the Culture ships are always getting up to?

It's something I'd have quite liked to have asked him about, but of course he's dead now.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#49 Feb 27 2015 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You know who links to Xkcd comics? Smug cunts.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Feb 27 2015 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts


Fixed that for ya.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#51 Feb 27 2015 at 6:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The aforementioned Player of Games is my personal favorite. It's probably not the best book, but it's about a smart cynical game theory expert who is bored life. Ok, you got me. I'm not made of stone.


That's my favorite as well, and one of just three that I actually own in paper form. Oh. Except I've never read any of them, so never mind. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 337 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (337)