The Anthropocentric Future

[Cognisant]

The real economy is economic activity that pertains to real needs, like food, water, shelter, and activities that facilitate the production/acquisition of food, water and shelter. There are only so many hours per day and every day we incur expenses in terms of the working time we must spend to meet these needs, which in the modern day means spending time at a job to earn money to buy food, pay rent and the water utilities bill. I am of course oversimplifying; people don’t just need food/water/shelter there’s also intermittent needs like healthcare and instrumental needs like an education.

Then there’s the bullshit economy comprised of things we want but don’t actually need, this is especially true for the things we ascribe value due to their scarcity or speculative value; things like antiques, jewellery, high fashion (impractical clothes), food lacking nutritional value, toys for adults (including adult toys) and the many forms of entertainment.

Spoiler

The setting of Cyberpunk is the perfect example of a world consumed by bullshit and it's a world we're getting closer to all the time, a world of paradoxical decadence in poverty, a world of arrogance and vice where your overstimulated little monkey brain can have anything it desires so long as it isn't wholesome.

It's not technology that's the problem but rather a simple lack of self restraint, we have over the centuries gained so much productive efficiency that it only takes the labor of a few people to feed clothe and shelter hundreds. Now I'm not saying we ought to go Communist and centralize everything, every time that's been attempted it's been an absolute disaster, rather we need to visualize what the culture of a utopian society actually looks like. A sort of anti-cyberpunk, a high tech society that utilizes technology but also respects the power of technology, specifically how that power influences us. Again it's not the technology that's the problem, it's human nature, particularly when we disregard ourselves as part of the equation and assume that we are in control, that we are unaffected, because we're not.

Any significantly advanced technology is essentially magic and magic is fucking dangerous.

See this is what I mean, these packets are airtight, inflated with oxygen displacing gas to preserve the contents, the plastic they're made of will (if kept out of the sun) last longer than our civilization, indeed six thousand years later the contents could still be edible, not that they contain any actual nutritional value. I know I'm being the killjoy here but this is what's killing us, literally this shit is poison, it's just not toxic enough to actually kill you unless you tried eating nothing but these for a week straight. It's a technological marvel we're using to poison ourselves and pollute our planet because we like the taste.

There are healthy snack foods, there are natural snack foods, we don't have to do this to ourselves.

This (below) is what an actual utopia looks like, it's high tech but anthropocentric, this is people being happy and healthy and living authentic lives. But this isn't possible unless we can learn some self restraint.

It starts with the individual's choices and one of those choices is to encourage others to do the same, and if we can get this positive vision of the future to spread we can start enacting real change in our society and lobby governments to enact policies that push society in this direction and away from the Cyberpunk dystopia.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Now I'm not saying we ought to go Communist and centralize everything

Minor history less. Neither were communist during revolution asking for this. They were forced to centralize things at gun point by Lenin and Stalin. Literally 99 percent of communist were against Lenin and Stalin. Real communism died with Lenins stinky middle finger up Trotsky's ass.
Communism is against any servitude. Hence why todays capitalist republic model is closer to state communism than communism is to state communism.

Communism at heart is not being owned, by anyone and willingly sharing your own good with others. It means you own shit, and you share it willingly. That is heart of communist ideals. Even my parents who grew up in Marixst Leninist bullcrap don't know this. Because they were brain washed. So I don't expect Americans or Australians or Westerniazed people to understand this.

 

[ZenRaiden]

It starts with the individual's choices and one of those choices is to encourage others to do the same, and if we can get this positive vision of the future to spread we can start enacting real change in our society and lobby governments to enact policies that push society in this direction and away from the Cyberpunk dystopia.

Without government telling you what to do, this is called anarchy. People doing what is best for themselves, without lobbying, just doing it right away on mere consensus of free will and community choice.
Its something like Athenian democracy.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think at least in my book type 1 civilization unlike Michio Kakus whats his name inventory, my type 1 civilization would be a civilization that can harness enough energy to meet production of human needs.
I assume AI will be instrumental in this, but essentially we already can produce enough, but money is not a good system for distribution of goods.
Its better than centralized systems, but most world still lives in basic poverty.

We also need to redesign agglomerations to include nature. Lack of nature is killing us way faster than junk food.
Junk food is actually bad for us mainly, because it already existed in dawn of civilization ergo bread was the first junk food.

We as civilization are actually working way harder to produce way too little for way less benefit, because we don't seem to be too hung up on efficiency.

I think if this society had more INTJ at the helm we be in utopia in no time.
Mean while your typical INTJ is playing supervillain blowing up train stations and killing puppies.
That where the real potential is at.
I don't think INTPs gonna solve any major problems in this day and age.
We are more liable in invented a convoluted board game or a weird musical electronic instrument that consists of lasers and fish ear drums.

So essentially the way I see the future is INTJs play their 5 D chess and telling ENTPS to get back to work and inventing shit, and INTPs being told not diddle their life on hentai and ENFJs telling little NTs to shoot for the Star Trek without the tech impairment.

 

[Cognisant]

 

[ZenRaiden]

The irony that we have games today that are better than classes in college sometimes.
I mean I remember learning more about WWII and airplane tech from an old sim.
I kind of like their music though.

 

[scorpiomover]

The real economy is economic activity that pertains to real needs, like food, water, shelter, and activities that facilitate the production/acquisition of food, water and shelter. There are only so many hours per day and every day we incur expenses in terms of the working time we must spend to meet these needs, which in the modern day means spending time at a job to earn money to buy food, pay rent and the water utilities bill. I am of course oversimplifying; people don’t just need food/water/shelter there’s also intermittent needs like healthcare and instrumental needs like an education.

Then there’s the bullshit economy comprised of things we want but don’t actually need, this is especially true for the things we ascribe value due to their scarcity or speculative value; things like antiques, jewellery, high fashion (impractical clothes), food lacking nutritional value, toys for adults (including adult toys) and the many forms of entertainment.

Spoiler

The setting of Cyberpunk is the perfect example of a world consumed by bullshit and it's a world we're getting closer to all the time, a world of paradoxical decadence in poverty, a world of arrogance and vice where your overstimulated little monkey brain can have anything it desires so long as it isn't wholesome.

It's not technology that's the problem but rather a simple lack of self restraint, we have over the centuries gained so much productive efficiency that it only takes the labor of a few people to feed clothe and shelter hundreds. Now I'm not saying we ought to go Communist and centralize everything, every time that's been attempted it's been an absolute disaster, rather we need to visualize what the culture of a utopian society actually looks like. A sort of anti-cyberpunk, a high tech society that utilizes technology but also respects the power of technology, specifically how that power influences us. Again it's not the technology that's the problem, it's human nature, particularly when we disregard ourselves as part of the equation and assume that we are in control, that we are unaffected, because we're not.

Any significantly advanced technology is essentially magic and magic is fucking dangerous.

I've thought about this a lot. What's the difference between "technology" and "magic"? Harry Potter has to say a spell to make light. We have a clapper. What's the difference? If there is no difference, we're just saying the aim of science is magic. But science is supposed to be antithetical to magic.

There is a parallel in Star Trek, where many of the super-powerful beings were powered by machines. There is a natural fear that if our technology becomes so advanced we don't need to know how it works, that we'll forget how it works, and then treat it like magic, without understanding of how the clapper works.

The key, therefore, is for everyone to have to learn the science behind everything we use. If you want to drive a car, you have to learn how cars work. If you want to use modern medical services, you also need to learn how modern medicine works.

View attachment 7164
See this is what I mean, these packets are airtight, inflated with oxygen displacing gas to preserve the contents, the plastic they're made of will (if kept out of the sun) last longer than our civilization, indeed six thousand years later the contents could still be edible, not that they contain any actual nutritional value.

The aim of most companies is to make as much money as possible. If they can convince you to use something without knowing how it works, they can cut corners without you realising. This sort of using ignorance as a weapon against the interests of your own customers is not illegal, and it makes money.

I know I'm being the killjoy here but this is what's killing us, literally this shit is poison, it's just not toxic enough to actually kill you unless you tried eating nothing but these for a week straight. It's a technological marvel we're using to poison ourselves and pollute our planet because we like the taste.

There are healthy snack foods, there are natural snack foods, we don't have to do this to ourselves.

It doesn't bother most people when it causes harm to 1 person out of 30 million, because the total harm to 1 person is 1/30 million-th of the potential harm to the entire nation. But when it is widespread enough for long enough that it causes enough harm to enough people, that the total harm to all the people in your country is now quite significant, THEN people worry.

In other words, most people only worry when it becomes so popular that it starts to be a problem for the country.

This is where Kant comes in. Kant's First Maxim points out that you should always consider what happens if your a behaviour becomes so popular that it becomes universal, and then has negative effects due to becoming a universal property.

In other words, a packet of crisps once a month won't kill. But when someone gets into the habit of eating a packet every day, then the total cumulative effect over several years could be extremely significant.

The way to combat this, is simply that each person looks out for another and monitors them, and if they do start eating too many crisps, acts in the other person's interest to help them get it under control.

Then you can have crisps if you want, without it becoming a big problem.

This (below) is what an actual utopia looks like, it's high tech but anthropocentric, this is people being happy and healthy and living authentic lives. But this isn't possible unless we can learn some self restraint.
View attachment 7165
It starts with the individual's choices and one of those choices is to encourage others to do the same, and if we can get this positive vision of the future to spread we can start enacting real change in our society and lobby governments to enact policies that push society in this direction and away from the Cyberpunk dystopia.

I notice that in this picture, the interior looks like an old-fashioned village, before anyone had TV, WiFi or the Internet. The exterior looks futuristic. So it strikes me that this picture is depicting a model of society where technology is kept to the exterior, the areas that humans don't actually normally deal with, while their day-to-day life lacks almost all electronic technology.

 

[Cognisant]

If you live in a climate controlled space habitat and your home doesn't have an air conditioner is it because you don't need one or you already have one?

We make many aesthetic compromises for the sake of practicality but as technology gets better, and less obtrusive, we can shift our focus back to aesthetics.

 

[scorpiomover]

If you live in a climate controlled space habitat and your home doesn't have an air conditioner is it because you don't need one or you already have one?

We make many aesthetic compromises for the sake of practicality but as technology gets better, and less obtrusive, we can shift our focus back to aesthetics.

I'd be only too happy to re-introduce aesthetics into design. The Victorians focussed on giving something both form and function. So anything useful, such as a house, a chest of drawers, were given ornate carvings. It made their stuff both desirable to use, and useful to use. So whatever they made was used often, and thus was highly efficient and had a high ROI. So sure, that type of stuff would be great, and would be highly profitable as well.

 

[ZenRaiden]

If you live in a climate controlled space habitat and your home doesn't have an air conditioner is it because you don't need one or you already have one?

We make many aesthetic compromises for the sake of practicality but as technology gets better, and less obtrusive, we can shift our focus back to aesthetics.

I'd be only too happy to re-introduce aesthetics into design. The Victorians focussed on giving something both form and function. So anything useful, such as a house, a chest of drawers, were given ornate carvings. It made their stuff both desirable to use, and useful to use. So whatever they made was used often, and thus was highly efficient and had a high ROI. So sure, that type of stuff would be great, and would be highly profitable as well.

I actually gave this huge amount of thought.
Interestingly human bodies have aesthetic design or at least we view them that way, and they are highly functional.
Personally I like the word functionalism.
One of the most beautiful aicrafts is French
Many things in nature have function and aesthetic look, probably because aesthetics are efficient.

 

[Cognisant]

I see aesthetics as like a secondary form of innovation, if you're selling a product and you cannot make it work better you make it look better. In recent times technological progress has been rapid which has consequently resulted in a lack of aesthetic development.

The transition from boat hulls being wood to iron to fibreglass to marine grade aluminium to advanced composites happened so quickly there wasn't enough time to develop a visual language for each material. But wooden boats have been around for centuries which is why the prettiest boats are wooden, using a visual language unique to that material.

Eventually we will reach another technological plateau and when that happens utilitarian minimalism will be superseded by intense competition to develop the most aesthetically pleasing designs.