First Turning "purge"

[Bill the Piper]

(10-25-2018, 01:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The millennials don't favor right-wing "populism" (which is not populism). They favor the opposite. So that prediction is based on an incorrect assumption. The millennials oppose Brexit and other right wing alt-right nationalism favored by older generations in Europe and America today.

In Britain, they favour Corbyn. But in many places on the Continent, they favour the nationalists. Younger American millennials (born in the late 90s) also preferred Trump over Hill.

Quote:There is no "authoritarian progressivism." Progressivism and social justice are liberal and create genuine freedom. Only neo-liberals think that pro-business policies are policies of "freedom," and that opposing oligarchy is "authoritarian."

PC is authoritarian. Full stop.

Quote:If indignation of tyrannical governments rises in the third world against western imperialism, then perhaps neo-cons could rise in The West among those who want to maintain it. But since neo-cons are out of date, so is western imperialism, which is what it is.

Imagine a scale of authoritarianism, from 0 to 100. Western imperialism could be 30, maybe 40, but many of your beloved national liberation movements are close to 100. A combination of Western-educated intelligentsia's left-wing authoritarianism and traditional tribalism seems to be the worst. Neo-cons were right to fight this devilry.

Teejay Wrote:I am predicting that the 2020's will an emergence of an "alt-left" which will be social democratic or socialist, advocating green politics and alter-globalization. The second global economic crisis will bring an economic downturn so bad that the right-wing populists are going to lose a lot of their appeal.

I think I agree, this can be the political persona of millennials in middle age. I imagine something slightly different: a fusion of nationalism (it has to be assimilated to end the polarisation!), environmentalism and PC. Anyway, how do you imagine a rebellion against the millennial establishment in the 2050s?

[pbrower2a]

(10-25-2018, 05:22 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 01:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The millennials don't favor right-wing "populism" (which is not populism). They favor the opposite. So that prediction is based on an incorrect assumption. The millennials oppose Brexit and other right wing alt-right nationalism favored by older generations in Europe and America today.

In Britain, they favour Corbyn. But in many places on the Continent, they favour the nationalists. Younger American millennials (born in the late 90s) also preferred Trump over Hill.

But they do not favor Trump now.

Quote:

Quote:There is no "authoritarian progressivism." Progressivism and social justice are liberal and create genuine freedom. Only neo-liberals think that pro-business policies are policies of "freedom," and that opposing oligarchy is "authoritarian."

PC is authoritarian. Full stop.

Authoritarian progressivism is 'pinko' authoritarianism usually associated with fellow travelers of Commie regimes. They believe that collectivism would solve all problems, and they fail to recognize that even in 'socialist' societies, bureaucratic elites can take on aristocratic methods of self-selection ("my kid gets a chance to get ahead in the nomenklatura, and the bright child of yours, you farm laborer or factory laborer, will have no chance", says the member of a 'socialist nomenklatura in the old Soviet Union or its bureaucratic equivalent today in Corporate America) in both 'socialist' states and in a plutocracy like ours.

Quote:

Quote:If indignation of tyrannical governments rises in the third world against western imperialism, then perhaps neo-cons could rise in The West among those who want to maintain it. But since neo-cons are out of date, so is western imperialism, which is what it is.

Imagine a scale of authoritarianism, from 0 to 100. Western imperialism could be 30, maybe 40, but many of your beloved national liberation movements are close to 100. A combination of Western-educated intelligentsia's left-wing authoritarianism and traditional tribalism seems to be the worst. Neo-cons were right to fight this devilry.

Which is like defending someone like the late Erich Honecker or Nicolae Ceausescu because  he isn't as bad as Stalin -- or the late Agosto Pinochet because unlike Hitler he did not invade his neighbors or do a Holocaust.

If we must never let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the workable good, we must also never let the horrid use the horrific as an excuse for its existence.

Quote:

Teejay Wrote:I am predicting that the 2020's will an emergence of an "alt-left" which will be social democratic or socialist, advocating green politics and alter-globalization. The second global economic crisis will bring an economic downturn so bad that the right-wing populists are going to lose a lot of their appeal.

I think I agree, this can be the political persona of millennials in middle age. I imagine something slightly different: a fusion of nationalism (it has to be assimilated to end the polarisation!), environmentalism and PC. Anyway, how do you imagine a rebellion against the millennial establishment in the 2050s?

The GI Generation was patriotic without being the worst sort of nationalist. The valid patriot recognizes that the patriotism of people in other countries is valid. The perverse nationalist sees no validity in the patriotism of people in other lands that that nationalist wishes to subject and exploit. Environmentalism is a necessity and not a luxury in a world which cannot accelerate its use of fossil fuels and cannot simply make the manufacturing system a swift conduit of raw materials and labor to the landfill. A valid substitute for political correctness is genuine politeness. Thus it is grossly impolite to make jokes about handicaps and derisive ethnic jokes.

Promising as the GI Generation was, it also made mistakes such as believing that large-scale production and giant projects were the solutions to all problems. The Millennial Generation will be blind to the flaws in its solutions to the mess that we now have.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-25-2018, 06:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: A valid substitute for political correctness is genuine politeness. Thus it is grossly impolite to make jokes about handicaps and derisive ethnic jokes.

It's good to mock backwards traditions, though. For example, Abraham was a mentally ill individual who wanted to kill his son because of a voice inside his head. I won't respect him just because he was brown and some brown people revere him.

Quote:The GI Generation was patriotic without being the worst sort of nationalist. The valid patriot recognizes that the patriotism of people in other countries is valid. The perverse nationalist sees no validity in the patriotism of people in other lands that that nationalist wishes to subject and exploit.

All patriotism, nationalism, tribalism should be sent to the dustbin of history.

[Teejay]

(10-25-2018, 06:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: All patriotism, nationalism, tribalism should be sent to the dustbin of history.

It might very well be, given it might be hinderance to the global solutions needed for income inequality and climate change.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-25-2018, 09:26 AM)Teejay Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 06:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: All patriotism, nationalism, tribalism should be sent to the dustbin of history.

It might very well be, given it might be hinderance to the global solutions needed for income inequality and climate change.

Income inequality is moral. Competence and self-discipline have to be rewarded.

Climate change? I don't know a lot about that, but the idea that average global temperatures rising by 2° will cause a global apocalypse is suspect. But many profound scientific discoveries are counter-intuitive, so I don't rule this dystopian scenario out. It is however suspiciously similar to old-fashioned religious fearmongering about divine wrath.

We need complex ecosystems to prevent soil from being depleted. We need interaction with wild nature for our emotional well-being. But some environmentalist causes are perverted. Is saving an obscure species of lizard more important than making our global economy more productive? Reallyy?

[pbrower2a]

In the case of Abraham, one voice told him to sacrifice his son and another told him not to do so. Apparently, God said no, and I can't say who gave the other voice.

Not doing human sacrifices is one of the first characteristics separating Judaism from other religions, including the Ba'al cult.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-25-2018, 10:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: In the case of Abraham, one voice told him to sacrifice his son and another told him not to do so. Apparently, God said no, and I can't say who gave the other voice.

Not doing human sacrifices is one of the first characteristics separating Judaism from other religions, including the Ba'al cult.

Yes, I know it, but I was thinking about the Islamic version of the story. A rather funky approach, I know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_in..._sacrifice

As Abraham attempts to slay Ishmael, either the knife is turned over in his hand or copper appears on Ishmael to prevent the death and God tells Abraham that he has fulfilled the command

So the Islamic version of Abraham (unlike ours) intended to commit murder, which makes him fundamentally ignoble. Not to mention another Islamic prophet, who slept with a 9 year old!

I agree that mocking a person because of his ancestry is impolite, but mocking Islamic doctrines should be legal. PC advocates disagree, hindering intellectual development of persons of Muslim ancestry.

[Teejay]

(10-25-2018, 10:29 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Yes, I know it, but I was thinking about the Islamic version of the story. A rather funky approach, I know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_in..._sacrifice

As Abraham attempts to slay Ishmael, either the knife is turned over in his hand or copper appears on Ishmael to prevent the death and God tells Abraham that he has fulfilled the command

So the Islamic version of Abraham (unlike ours) intended to commit murder, which makes him fundamentally ignoble. Not to mention another Islamic prophet, who slept with a 9 year old!

I agree that mocking a person because of his ancestry is impolite, but mocking Islamic doctrines should be legal. PC advocates disagree, hindering intellectual development of persons of Muslim ancestry.

I agree that criticism of Islamic doctrines should as acceptable as criticizing Christian one. However it is even more unacceptable in general discourse than it was ten years ago.

[Eric the Green]

(10-25-2018, 05:22 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 01:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The millennials don't favor right-wing "populism" (which is not populism). They favor the opposite. So that prediction is based on an incorrect assumption. The millennials oppose Brexit and other right wing alt-right nationalism favored by older generations in Europe and America today.

In Britain, they favour Corbyn. But in many places on the Continent, they favour the nationalists. Younger American millennials (born in the late 90s) also preferred Trump over Hill.

I'm not so sure about that.

Quote:

Quote:There is no "authoritarian progressivism." Progressivism and social justice are liberal and create genuine freedom. Only neo-liberals think that pro-business policies are policies of "freedom," and that opposing oligarchy is "authoritarian."

PC is authoritarian. Full stop.

PC is not a very strong element within government and politics. It has its place on campuses, but that is a comparatively trivial arena, and not very influential in congress. PC is mainly asking or requiring people to use respectful language toward all groups. It sometimes goes too far, and some left-wing groups are too focused on limited causes. I consider that poor strategy, but not authoritarian.

Totalitarian communism is certainly authoritarian, but that's not what progressives advocate.

Quote:

Quote:If indignation of tyrannical governments rises in the third world against western imperialism, then perhaps neo-cons could rise in The West among those who want to maintain it. But since neo-cons are out of date, so is western imperialism, which is what it is.

Imagine a scale of authoritarianism, from 0 to 100. Western imperialism could be 30, maybe 40, but many of your beloved national liberation movements are close to 100. A combination of Western-educated intelligentsia's left-wing authoritarianism and traditional tribalism seems to be the worst. Neo-cons were right to fight this devilry.

Neo-cons did not fight devilry; they imposed it. It's main product was the unwarranted invasion and occupation of Iraq. It had other ambitions yet to be realized, such as the conquest of Iran, and earlier, a militant approach to communism. The aim in Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein and secure oil properties and revenues for the USA and The West. That had little to to with overthrowing Iraqi tribalism, nor with Iraqi Western intelligentsia. Saddam was a Sunni Moslem, imposed some degree of egalitarian opportunity, and aspired to be an Assyrian Emperor. The principle result of that adventure was the creation of the Islamic State. At home, USA neo-cons imposed a state that tortures its enemies and spies on its citizens. It's other prime objective was to boost Israel in its mission of suppressing the Palestinians.

Some national liberation movements were communist and authoritarian. I consider this the result of the fact that socialism and communism were the leading liberation movements of those times (early to mid 20th century). These movements in the 3rd world were easily corrupted by ambitious leaders, but so were other nationalist movements that were not communist ones. Many third world governments remain corrupt oligarchies, but there is a range of development among them.

[Eric the Green]

(10-25-2018, 06:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 06:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: A valid substitute for political correctness is genuine politeness. Thus it is grossly impolite to make jokes about handicaps and derisive ethnic jokes.

It's good to mock backwards traditions, though. For example, Abraham was a mentally ill individual who wanted to kill his son because of a voice inside his head. I won't respect him just because he was brown and some brown people revere him.

Quote:The GI Generation was patriotic without being the worst sort of nationalist. The valid patriot recognizes that the patriotism of people in other countries is valid. The perverse nationalist sees no validity in the patriotism of people in other lands that that nationalist wishes to subject and exploit.

All patriotism, nationalism, tribalism should be sent to the dustbin of history.

I'm with you there. It doesn't come quickly though.

[Eric the Green]

(10-25-2018, 10:16 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 09:26 AM)Teejay Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 06:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: All patriotism, nationalism, tribalism should be sent to the dustbin of history.

It might very well be, given it might be hinderance to the global solutions needed for income inequality and climate change.

Income inequality is moral. Competence and self-discipline have to be rewarded.

Climate change? I don't know a lot about that, but the idea that average global temperatures rising by 2° will cause a global apocalypse is suspect. But many profound scientific discoveries are counter-intuitive, so I don't rule this dystopian scenario out. It is however suspiciously similar to old-fashioned religious fearmongering about divine wrath.

We need complex ecosystems to prevent soil from being depleted. We need interaction with wild nature for our emotional well-being. But some environmentalist causes are perverted. Is saving an obscure species of lizard more important than making our global economy more productive? Reallyy?

The morality of income inequality: To the extent that it is the result of competence and self-discipline, and everyone is given a basic guarantee of health and survival, it is moral. To the extent that it is the result of the use of economic and political power to favor those already wealthy, it is not. In the USA today, the latter is strongly the case. CEOs are, despite claims, no more competent today than average workers, and no more deserving, but they earn 300 times as much money in corporations and large businesses. Their speculations and abuses have immoral consequences for all of us.

We have no right to kill off any species, and all are important to global ecology. No conflict exists beween ecology and economy. Saving a species does not hurt the global economy. It may require slowing development in certain places.

Without changing the course we are on, global warming will certainly go at least to 4 C more by the end of this century. Religious people are generally unwilling to accept the science, so that's where the old-fashioned religion comes in. Unhindered, sea level rise will reach 4 feet by century's end and global warming will cause a lot of damage through more severe storms, droughts, fires and killing of life in the oceans and endangered species. Exactly how damaging is not real clear, but the risk is great, and requiring companies to change their products, though inconvenient to libertarian dogma, is the prudent course.

Here is one view of sea level rise:

..... Several studies in the last year or so have suggested that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of increase is actually accelerating.

Just this month, a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that sea levels have been rising by an average of about 3 millimeters (around one-tenth of an inch) per year since the 1990s, and that the rate is gradually speeding up. If the process continues at its current rate, sea levels could rise by more than 2 feet by the end of this century alone.


Other recent studies have also suggested that previous estimates of sea-level rise, under a variety of future climate scenarios, may be too modest. Several papers in the last year, for instance—including an October paper in Environmental Research Letters and a December paper in Earth's Future—suggest that better accounting for some of the physical processes affecting ice loss in Antarctica could significantly increase estimates of future sea-level rise. Under severe climate change scenarios, these new studies suggest that sea levels could rise by more than 4 feet by the end of the century.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seas-will-rise-for-300-years/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...300-years/

summary of impacts:
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-w...9NMRdQrLyM

greenhouse gases emitted today will cause sea levels to rise for several centuries. For every degree of warming, sea levels will rise by more than 2 meters in the next few centuries.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-lev...ctions.htm

Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet (2.5 meters) by 2100 and 50 feet (15 meters) by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky, according to a review of sea-level change and projections by Rutgers and other scientists.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-global-sea...s.html#jCp

[Bill the Piper]

Eric the Green Wrote:It's (neo-con's) other prime objective was to boost Israel in its mission of suppressing the Palestinians.

I don't support the Palestinian movement. But since you operate under a rather difficult framework than mine, I'll enlarge upon my stance.

There is no "right to a nation-state". There is no right to ethnic identity. All that is nationalist tosh. So neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian nationalists are entitled to a state. The ONLY purpose of a state is to provide a good standard of living (conditions for material and emotional well-being) for its inhabitants. Israel does it. Fatah and Hamas don't. Especially, we both know that human beings need some degree of political participation and will demand a democracy once their survival needs are fulfilled. Israel is a democracy, where everyone including Arab-Israelis has a vote. The Palestianian authorities are undemocratic. That's why I support Israel.

Even from a nationalist viewpoint the Palestinian cause is not really valid. There was no notion of "Palestinian nationality" before the 1940s. It was invented by Arab nationalists to claim back the areas where Israel was created. "Arabs" could not claim to have no homeland of their own. There already was Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. The loss of the area called Israel was not a big loss for Arabs as an ethnic group.
See also:
http://markhumphrys.com/palestine.invented.html

Vile nature of the Palestianian regimes is especially demonstrated by the way they indoctrinate and militarise children in order to have more "resistance fighters".

Finally, look at the following diagram:


Why haven't these refugees assimilate since the 1940s? All other groups have. The answer is, the Palestinian regimes indoctrinate generation after generation because otherwise they would have run out of "resistance fighters".

The other side of the coin is that Israel is not competent or moral, since it allows these regimes to exist. They should have created a democratic administration in Gaza and the West Bank. The reason they didn't is probably fear of losing the "uniquely Jewish" character of their country. Which is, sadly, tribalism.

[Bill the Piper]

Eric the Green Wrote:..... Several studies in the last year or so have suggested that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of increase is actually accelerating.

Just this month, a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that sea levels have been rising by an average of about 3 millimeters (around one-tenth of an inch) per year since the 1990s, and that the rate is gradually speeding up. If the process continues at its current rate, sea levels could rise by more than 2 feet by the end of this century alone.


Other recent studies have also suggested that previous estimates of sea-level rise, under a variety of future climate scenarios, may be too modest. Several papers in the last year, for instance—including an October paper in Environmental Research Letters and a December paper in Earth's Future—suggest that better accounting for some of the physical processes affecting ice loss in Antarctica could significantly increase estimates of future sea-level rise. Under severe climate change scenarios, these new studies suggest that sea levels could rise by more than 4 feet by the end of the century.

These 4 feet don't seem much. And this is what happens "under severe climate change scenarios". The real change will be probably 2 or 3 feet. I don't feel like worrying about that.

Quote:Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet (2.5 meters) by 2100 and 50 feet (15 meters) by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky, according to a review of sea-level change and projections by Rutgers and other scientists.

These predictions are bad science fiction, nothing more. The technologies of 2100, let alone 2300 will be radically different than ours. First of all, oil will be long gone. Also, the development of nuclear fusion will mean combustion will not be used as a source of energy because in comparison with fusion it's comically ineffective.

By 2300 we will have colonised Mars and built habitats inside asteroids. So the burden of human and transhuman civilisation won't be placed on the Earth alone. Then our descendants will be able to undertake a rewilding project on the home planet if they want.

Quote:We have no right to kill off any species, and all are important to global ecology. No conflict exists beween ecology and economy. Saving a species does not hurt the global economy. It may require slowing development in certain places.

This slower development might be a cause of someone's death. Imagine people sacrificed on the altar of Gaia. Greens certainly don't intend to kill people, but deaths caused by malnutrition and infections still happen. The only cure is economic development.

Under my value system, human life is above anything else. I thought it's common sense.

[David Horn]

(10-27-2018, 08:12 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Why haven't these refugees assimilate since the 1940s? All other groups have. The answer is, the Palestinian regimes indoctrinate generation after generation because otherwise they would have run out of "resistance fighters".

The other side of the coin is that Israel is not competent or moral, since it allows these regimes to exist. They should have created a democratic administration in Gaza and the West Bank. The reason they didn't is probably fear of losing the "uniquely Jewish" character of their country. Which is, sadly, tribalism.

Essentially correct, but incomplete. The Palestinians continue as a resistance movement for many reasons, not the least being their lifelines from other Arab communities. They are the ultimate proxy people: standing tall for <insert the anti-Israel entity of your choice>. Israel is even less flexible, having invited the world's Jews to the banquet, and getting an overflow crowd from places that have always been dogmatic.

We Americans can't even resolve our issues dating back to the ACW, and this is the ACW of the Arabian peninsula. It's not getting resolved in our lifetimes.

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2018, 08:17 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:..... Several studies in the last year or so have suggested that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of increase is actually accelerating.

Just this month, a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that sea levels have been rising by an average of about 3 millimeters (around one-tenth of an inch) per year since the 1990s, and that the rate is gradually speeding up. If the process continues at its current rate, sea levels could rise by more than 2 feet by the end of this century alone.


Other recent studies have also suggested that previous estimates of sea-level rise, under a variety of future climate scenarios, may be too modest. Several papers in the last year, for instance—including an October paper in Environmental Research Letters and a December paper in Earth's Future—suggest that better accounting for some of the physical processes affecting ice loss in Antarctica could significantly increase estimates of future sea-level rise. Under severe climate change scenarios, these new studies suggest that sea levels could rise by more than 4 feet by the end of the century.

These 4 feet don't seem much. And this is what happens "under severe climate change scenarios". The real change will be probably 2 or 3 feet. I don't feel like worrying about that.

4 feet in this century, and up to 50 feet by 2300. It is a lot to worry about, because during high tides and storm surges, the sea rises much higher, and in some places like the east coast of the USA, it also is rising higher.

Quote:

Quote:Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet (2.5 meters) by 2100 and 50 feet (15 meters) by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky, according to a review of sea-level change and projections by Rutgers and other scientists.

These predictions are bad science fiction, nothing more. The technologies of 2100, let alone 2300 will be radically different than ours. First of all, oil will be long gone. Also, the development of nuclear fusion will mean combustion will not be used as a source of energy because in comparison with fusion it's comically ineffective.

By 2300 we will have colonised Mars and built habitats inside asteroids. So the burden of human and transhuman civilisation won't be placed on the Earth alone. Then our descendants will be able to undertake a rewilding project on the home planet if they want.

Oil will not be gone in time, if we don't "worry" (i.e. don't make changing our energy system a priority) about climate change. IN any case, there is no excuse whatever for continuing to develop energy from sources that will not last. The time to go renewable is right now. And if we continue on our present course, sea level rise will be 50 feet.

There is NO bad science-fiction WORSE than thinking colonizing Mars will lessen the impact of human civilization on Earth. Re-wilding our home planet is a top priority and supreme value TODAY, not for the future. The Green vision of the sixties is the one to follow and implement, NOT the transhuman vision. It's a difference in values and generations, perhaps, but your civic, tech-oriented generation will soon be just as passe as you now consider hippie boomers to be. The new prophets will stop the transhuman projectory, and redouble down on the sixties hippie green vision. Virtual machine worlds do not nurture the spirit, and they do not create or preserve life and consciousness; they destroy it all.

Quote:

Quote:We have no right to kill off any species, and all are important to global ecology. No conflict exists beween ecology and economy. Saving a species does not hurt the global economy. It may require slowing development in certain places.

This slower development might be a cause of someone's death. Imagine people sacrificed on the altar of Gaia. Greens certainly don't intend to kill people, but deaths caused by malnutrition and infections still happen. The only cure is economic development.

Under my value system, human life is above anything else. I thought it's common sense.

Horrendous storms, fires and droughts are already destroying human life. Pollution destroys human life, as for example in China, and in flooded neighborhoods of southern Texas and in coal-polluted West Virginia. ONLY the new green energy systems are viable for future development (although I don't completely reject nuclear power, provided it and also ALL green energy systems are fully safe and recyclable). The time to change is now; the longer we wait the worse things will get.

And there is NO human life without other life. Destroying the life in our oceans will destroy human life too. There is no coherent or meaningful vision or value system of transhumanism in which we destroy other life and replace everything with machines. Revering Nature is uppermost; it gives us our life, and restores our life. Without it, we know nothing of life at all, human or otherwise. The new alpha-wave prophets will reject your millennial generation's transhuman virtual value system. But, thanks for sharing and clarifying. It helps to know where we all stand.

The arts, not science, are our primary link and support for our life and spirit.
I am a piper too. I am Eric the Piper

[Eric the Green]

(10-25-2018, 05:22 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: PC is authoritarian. Full stop.

Well, it does get tiring sometimes. Should we "purge" Halloween and make it PC?

Bill Maher makes the case that politics is taking ALL the fun out of ALL Hallows Eve.

I mean, Republicans don't like wierdos at your door asking for free stuff; that's socialism!

And dressing up like a crazy person offends Kanye West. I mean, where does this PC obsession not to offend, end?

[Bill the Piper]

(10-27-2018, 12:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: 4 feet in this century, and up to 50 feet by 2300. It is a lot to worry about, because during high tides and storm surges, the sea rises much higher, and in some places like the east coast of the USA, it also is rising higher.

Today's prediction about the year 2300 are about as reliable as early 18th century predictions about the year 2000 would be. It is not only about technology, but also ideology and philosophy. Could Voltaire imagine the rise of environmentalism?

Quote:Oil will not be gone in time, if we don't "worry" (i.e. don't make changing our energy system a priority) about climate change. IN any case, there is no excuse whatever for continuing to develop energy from sources that will not last. The time to go renewable is right now.

Fine, but there is no better energy source than nuclear fusion. It requires only hydrogen, the most abundant element in the Universe.

Quote:There is NO bad science-fiction WORSE than thinking colonizing Mars will lessen the impact of human civilization on Earth. Re-wilding our home planet is a top priority and supreme value TODAY, not for the future. The Green vision of the sixties is the one to follow and implement, NOT the transhuman vision. It's a difference in values and generations, perhaps, but your civic, tech-oriented generation will soon be just as passe as you now consider hippie boomers to be. The new prophets will stop the transhuman projectory, and redouble down on the sixties hippie green vision.

Quote:And there is NO human life without other life. Destroying the life in our oceans will destroy human life too. There is no coherent or meaningful vision or value system of transhumanism in which we destroy other life and replace everything with machines. Revering Nature is uppermost; it gives us our life, and restores our life. Without it, we know nothing of life at all, human or otherwise. The new alpha-wave prophets will reject your millennial generation's transhuman virtual value system. But, thanks for sharing and clarifying. It helps to know where we all stand.

I agree that we should to preserve the genetic diversity of our ecosystems, as far as it's possible without sacrificing human well-being. But why would our descendants, living in outer space, revere the Earth? Should I revere a swamp in the Belarus which was home for some of my remote ancestors? The concept sounds suspiciously like what the traditionalists preach. "Revere the Earth/God because it gives us our life".

But I don't have a "virtual value system". I agree with the following assessment by Brian Holtz, a fellow extropian:

http://holtz.org/Thoughts/Thoughts.html#Axiology

If pleasure were one's ultimate value, then one would be agreeable to entering an illusory paradise. An illusory paradise is an artificial or virtual environment which one believes is real and which is actively and intelligently optimized for one's happiness. For example, in such a paradise one would have all (and only) the success and luck that is consistent with one's need for challenge and achievement. We who value intelligence and life more highly than pleasure would reject an illusory paradise

Finally, for extropians technology is not an end in itself, but a means to fullness of life. So it's not necessarily an ideology for civic generations only. The principles were formulated by Max Moore, who is a boomer!

Quote:Horrendous storms, fires and droughts are already destroying human life.

The better a person's standard of living, the better chances she has to survive a natural disaster. People living "in harmony with nature" are most vulnerable.

Quote:The arts, not science, are our primary link and support for our life and spirit.
I am a piper too. I am Eric the Piper

Your music is wonderful Thank for posting it!

The future perfected galactic humans certainly will create art as well, but I won't speculate about the nature of their art. I don't believe they will be obsessed with science only. I only hope that they will outdo us emotionally and artistically as well as intellectually.

(If you are curious, my name is a tribute to Billie Piper, a British actress I have a crush on, as well as to the Pipers, an Orion's Arm species)

[Eric the Green]

(10-28-2018, 06:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-27-2018, 12:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: 4 feet in this century, and up to 50 feet by 2300. It is a lot to worry about, because during high tides and storm surges, the sea rises much higher, and in some places like the east coast of the USA, it also is rising higher.

Today's prediction about the year 2300 are about as reliable as early 18th century predictions about the year 2000 would be. It is not only about technology, but also ideology and philosophy. Could Voltaire imagine the rise of environmentalism?

Ha ha, probably. There was some environmentalism only a couple of generations later, with the Nature poets like Wordsworth, and then Ruskin, and Thoreau and all those transcendental cats.

But this type of prediction is not about philosophy or ideology, but is only an extrapolation of current science about a particular physical process, so it's not like predicting what humans will be preoccupied with in 2300, but just what the ocean will do if we con't change our behavior now.

Quote:

Quote:Oil will not be gone in time, if we don't "worry" (i.e. don't make changing our energy system a priority) about climate change. IN any case, there is no excuse whatever for continuing to develop energy from sources that will not last. The time to go renewable is right now.

Fine, but there is no better energy source than nuclear fusion. It requires only hydrogen, the most abundant element in the Universe.

But Bill the Piper, that may be true, but it's still only a pipe dream. We need to change our energy sources now, and there will be more innovations in the future, I am sure.

Quote:

Quote:There is NO bad science-fiction WORSE than thinking colonizing Mars will lessen the impact of human civilization on Earth. Re-wilding our home planet is a top priority and supreme value TODAY, not for the future. The Green vision of the sixties is the one to follow and implement, NOT the transhuman vision. It's a difference in values and generations, perhaps, but your civic, tech-oriented generation will soon be just as passe as you now consider hippie boomers to be. The new prophets will stop the transhuman projectory, and redouble down on the sixties hippie green vision.

And there is NO human life without other life. Destroying the life in our oceans will destroy human life too. There is no coherent or meaningful vision or value system of transhumanism in which we destroy other life and replace everything with machines. Revering Nature is uppermost; it gives us our life, and restores our life. Without it, we know nothing of life at all, human or otherwise. The new alpha-wave prophets will reject your millennial generation's transhuman virtual value system. But, thanks for sharing and clarifying. It helps to know where we all stand.

I agree that we should to preserve the genetic diversity of our ecosystems, as far as it's possible without sacrificing human well-being. But why would our descendants, living in outer space, revere the Earth? Should I revere a swamp in the Belarus which was home for some of my remote ancestors? The concept sounds suspiciously like what the traditionalists preach. "Revere the Earth/God because it gives us our life".

But I don't have a "virtual value system". I agree with the following assessment by Brian Holtz, a fellow extropian:

http://holtz.org/Thoughts/Thoughts.html#Axiology

If pleasure were one's ultimate value, then one would be agreeable to entering an illusory paradise. An illusory paradise is an artificial or virtual environment which one believes is real and which is actively and intelligently optimized for one's happiness. For example, in such a paradise one would have all (and only) the success and luck that is consistent with one's need for challenge and achievement. We who value intelligence and life more highly than pleasure would reject an illusory paradise

Finally, for extropians technology is not an end in itself, but a means to fullness of life. So it's not necessarily an ideology for civic generations only. The principles were formulated by Max Moore, who is a boomer!

Earth and Nature DO give us our life, although Nature includes Spirit too. But our descendants are not going to be living on Mars. Maybe a few adventurous souls will stay there for a while, and then come home. There will be no "terraforming," (yes I say confidently), and even if there were, Mars is too small to hold our teeming billions. Earth is indeed the most unique planet not only in our puny solar system, but perhaps in our entire galaxy. This is indicated to us by the traits of the lights in our sky, the Sun and Moon. They literally reflect the most precious and radiant metals in the universe, gold and silver respectively. This indication is further expressed by the fact that these two lights are the same size when viewed from Earth, and by all the mathematical proportions among our lights and planets that indicate the special harmony that exists here in this solar system as experienced and viewed from here on Earth. And the spirit life of Earth is so amazingly beautiful, inspiring and alive that other alien beings who have expanded into the galaxy come here to steal our DNA and otherwise learn from the special living beings here who have such perfect bodies and amazing spirits.

If technology remain a means, and not the ends, or the evolutionary destination, then technology can serve us well. But only if humans are clear about what the goals of life are for which tech is a means, and about how our technology can advance the interests of all of life, and not just human life. Future tech must be what was recently (before millennials) called "appropriate" for the values of the Whole Earth. The Catalogue of that name is still relevant, along with Mother Earth News, although ignored right now by most millennials who live in their smart phones (millennials are wonderful in many ways, don't get me wrong, I love millennials, but they may be more limited in their perceptions right now than they realize, because the second turning has largely been kept hidden from them).

Quote:

Quote:Horrendous storms, fires and droughts are already destroying human life.

The better a person's standard of living, the better chances she has to survive a natural disaster. People living "in harmony with nature" are most vulnerable.

The most vulnerable to climate change-caused disasters are:
1) people who have settled on islands or in lowlands long before they knew what industrial de-civilization would do to them, and
2) wealthy people who feel entitled to build their homes close to the ocean or near the forest.

Quote:

Quote:The arts, not science, are our primary link and support for our life and spirit.
I am a piper too. I am Eric the Piper

Your music is wonderful Thank for posting it!

The future perfected galactic humans certainly will create art as well, but I won't speculate about the nature of their art. I don't believe they will be obsessed with science only. I only hope that they will outdo us emotionally and artistically as well as intellectually.

(If you are curious, my name is a tribute to Billie Piper, a British actress I have a crush on, as well as to the Pipers, an Orion's Arm species)

Thanks for listening to my pipes. I don't know what Orion's Arm is, but sounds like an interesting species if they are called that.

Oh I see, more from that sci-fi website. "The Pipers are an aquatic xenosophont species native to Iridule (Demonia system), discovered by Keterist explorers in 8091 A.T. Their name is derived from their complex, musical vocalisations." That's nice; I'd like to hear them.

Perfected future galactic humans will only be able to make great art if they are attuned and inspired to the organic aspects of life, as well as to its mystic aspects within. Even the best purely electronic music that I know (and I know a lot of it) is inspired by experiences in nature and with spirit. Artists above all need to be sensitive to feelings and intimations that come from their lives. Machines will never accomplish this.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-28-2018, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Earth and Nature DO give us our life, although Nature includes Spirit too. But our descendants are not going to be living on Mars. Maybe a few adventurous souls will stay there for a while, and then come home. There will be no "terraforming," (yes I say confidently), and even if there were, Mars is too small to hold our teeming billions.

I believe the opposite. We need to spread and colonize the stars. This is a duty, in order to realize the potential of the Universe and fill its voids with life. For our mental and emotional enrichment we also need contact with other modes of intelligence and personality (whether naturally evolved on other planets or artificial made by us). The choice is between the extropian adventure in the Cosmos and stagnation. Without constant expansion our existence will cease to be an adventure. Art and philosophy will be able only to reiterate old achievements. Social order will become stereotyped, until some natural disaster destroys us. Such are the costs of abandoning space exploration.

Quote:Earth is indeed the most unique planet not only in our puny solar system, but perhaps in our entire galaxy. This is indicated to us by the traits of the lights in our sky, the Sun and Moon. They literally reflect the most precious and radiant metals in the universe, gold and silver respectively. This indication is further expressed by the fact that these two lights are the same size when viewed from Earth, and by all the mathematical proportions among our lights and planets that indicate the special harmony that exists here in this solar system as experienced and viewed from here on Earth. And the spirit life of Earth is so amazingly beautiful, inspiring and alive that other alien beings who have expanded into the galaxy come here to steal our DNA and otherwise learn from the special living beings here who have such perfect bodies and amazing spirits.

You seriously believe in this myth? Or is this your response to me quoting Orion's Arm myths?

Of course Orion's Arm is in no way a religious prophecy (I was ridiculed on another forum for quoting it), but it shows a civilization we should strive to become.

Quote:If technology remain a means, and not the ends, or the evolutionary destination, then technology can serve us well. But only if humans are clear about what the goals of life are for which tech is a means, and about how our technology can advance the interests of all of life, and not just human life. Future tech must be what was recently (before millennials) called "appropriate" for the values of the Whole Earth. The Catalogue of that name is still relevant, along with Mother Earth News, although ignored right now by most millennials who live in their smart phones (millennials are wonderful in many ways, don't get me wrong, I love millennials, but they may be more limited in their perceptions right now than they realize, because the second turning has largely been kept hidden from them).

Sorry to disappoint you. I don't live in a smart phone. I prefer to identify as an Xennial since I'm also critical of millennials, in two ways. The first is their predisposition to collectivism, shared with the previous civic generation. The second is the fact that the digital gadgets made them superficial emotionally. This is a result of addiction of sorts. Interacting with these gadgets result in dopamine levels going up. It's similar to porn addiction or alcoholism. We need to fix our genes to make future generations invulnerable to addiction!

Quote:Perfected future galactic humans will only be able to make great art if they are attuned and inspired to the organic aspects of life, as well as to its mystic aspects within. Even the best purely electronic music that I know (and I know a lot of it) is inspired by experiences in nature and with spirit. Artists above all need to be sensitive to feelings and intimations that come from their lives. Machines will never accomplish this.

If wouldn't say A.I.s will never create art. But it is very likely that their art won't appeal to us, and our art won't appeal to them. Too much difference in basic mental patterns. But this is mere speculation. If by mystical aspects you mean emotions, A.I.s and transhumans will certainly need that to create true art.

[pbrower2a]

So what will be purged? Lets start with the culture. I expect the worst X elements in culture such as the cynicism and destructiveness in pop music to be gone -- and to not return until the next Reactive generation comes onto the scene. I expect communications to be more sanitized, with seditious material being treated much like Communist propaganda was in the last 1T. Society will insist that cultural expressions not harmless almost to the point of insipidness will have some clear motive of profit or educational value. 1T culture will be undeniably commercial. Look to 1950s and early 1960s television to see what will be the general pattern.

Whatever will be discredited in the Crisis Era will be treated with ridicule if not condemnation. Even if the victors do not vilify the nations vanquished in a 4T they will suppress the most loathsome characteristics of the defeated enemy.

Economics? Anything that looks like a quick-buck proposition with a shaky foundation in finances will get quick rejection. There will be much activity in real estate, but it will be much as housing was done in the 1950s; bankers will be obliged to look at lending as a long-term proposition. Bankers will not get the chance to bet on appreciation of the property on which a mortgage loan is made. I look at the sort of lending commonplace in the early years of the Double-Zero decade, and see shyster dealing, especially in real estate, that we will never tolerate again until about 2080. Offer a loan with negative amortization around 2035, and if the borrower defaults, YOU go to prison for fraud if you offered or authorized the loan -- even if your bank made money off it. Lenders made crooked deals in markets with rising real-estate prices, and if the borrower defaulted, the banker got to take the proceeds of foreclosure. IN the 1950s, foreclosure usually resulted from the death or disability of the breadwinner because bank officers expected borrowers to stay with the same company and not even change careers within the company. So if you were a factory laborer you were a good risk, but if you went to night school while doing factory work to take accounting, you were a poor risk by the standards of the time.

Curious about Donald Trump? He will be seen as having either inaugurated a new era of American greatness and be lauded like Washington and Lincoln, or seen as a scapegoat for all that was wrong in America. I expect the latter. We are far from seeing the last of Obama-like pols in American life. I see him as X at its political best, and if you follow me closely, you will notice how often I compare him to Eisenhower for temperament, integrity, and effectiveness. How would you like another President, liberal or conservative, who is clean of scandal, who has at most one big new program for America, who tries to stay out of wars. respects legal precedent and diplomatic protocol, eschews any form of populism, and tries to work across the aisle? (Democrats of the 1950s let Eisenhower do that, but Republicans would not do so for Obama, and that has nothing to do with the desires of those two Reactive Presidents.

I already see conservative dissent forming with President Trump. There will be conservatism in the 1T, but it will look more like disdain for deficits, trust in the tried-and-true, rejection of populist demagoguery, and overall blandness in public life.