The general construction and infrastructure within the Rock City doesn't elicit much contention since either machines can do it or thex can't, the time schedules are realistic or unlikely, etc. People probably won't go to the park and give speeches to pigeons based on that type of material.
The sociology does get radical because it is a more evolved world than this one and we certainly hope so insofar as cultural evolution goes anywhere more than simply keeping itself alive.
What do you know, that brings us to the first point of contention in terms of whether a culture has any 'responsibility' to do any more than replicate itself so the same thing will exist in the next generation.
Here in the Theology of the Rockhouse, naturally the best and most sacred kind, we believe there is a moral duty for the culture to evolve to its highest potential.
And, amazingly enough, that brings us to the next point of contention as to what is the highest potential for a culture.
Is it simply safety as the highest potential. If everyone feels safe, is that all the culture is supposed to bring.
Is it fulfillment such that everyone in the culture feels as fulfilled as possible.
Even in some things which appear simple can appear huge contention and validly since they will be the focus of the culture and thus the government if, unlike this one, it has any concern about the culture, the people, etc.
Note: that was not a cheapshot. When the state stands by and / or supports digging up sacred Indian land, that's fucked-up and it's wrong. The Dakota pipeline provides a case in point regarding the contention on the highest potential of a culture.
As we can see in the Dakotas, the matter is already well past fractious. In general, the people are insisting on the right to protect their culture and their land while the state has a unilateral view of cultural evolution and they're not in it. Sure there will be contention, a whole lot of it.
I'm aware the content I'm pitching bucks up against Karl Marx. There are two problems with that insofar as I'm not Karl Marx and, worse, I'm not twenty so there's not the time I would dedicate to writing a full-blown manifesto, etc.
I'm guilty as to failing to think all aspects of the economic changes all the way through and deliberately so because I'm watching this evolve as well. Delivering a fully-cooked economic system ready to pass to Economics 101 in the survey courses isn't going to happen but conceivably it's possible to work up some model short of that which is credibly functional.
The first part of the economy is the Universal Basic Income and, to no-one's surprise, this elicited Great Horror. Nevertheless, that aspect is a fundamental and the logic has to be better justified to make clear the purpose isn't to present hyperbole for melodramatic effect but rather to consider a likely course of human cultural evolution and what consequence will come from it.
The matter of the UBI is not at all settled just now and Lotho is trying to believe but he's just not buying it. Therefore, I have failed to adequately present the case.
Fundamental to the UBI is the belief jobs will ultimately evaporate for large segments of society. That case has not been sufficiently proven either or we could jump right past to what do we do about it (i.e. UBI).
Note: I'm well aware American manufacturing goes far beyond just making cars and military weapons. That's my next curiosity as in getting more detail on just what the hell America makes. We know it's not Oreo Cookies or Ford cars and there's a lot of it so what is it.
More to come.
The sociology does get radical because it is a more evolved world than this one and we certainly hope so insofar as cultural evolution goes anywhere more than simply keeping itself alive.
What do you know, that brings us to the first point of contention in terms of whether a culture has any 'responsibility' to do any more than replicate itself so the same thing will exist in the next generation.
Here in the Theology of the Rockhouse, naturally the best and most sacred kind, we believe there is a moral duty for the culture to evolve to its highest potential.
And, amazingly enough, that brings us to the next point of contention as to what is the highest potential for a culture.
Is it simply safety as the highest potential. If everyone feels safe, is that all the culture is supposed to bring.
Is it fulfillment such that everyone in the culture feels as fulfilled as possible.
Even in some things which appear simple can appear huge contention and validly since they will be the focus of the culture and thus the government if, unlike this one, it has any concern about the culture, the people, etc.
Note: that was not a cheapshot. When the state stands by and / or supports digging up sacred Indian land, that's fucked-up and it's wrong. The Dakota pipeline provides a case in point regarding the contention on the highest potential of a culture.
As we can see in the Dakotas, the matter is already well past fractious. In general, the people are insisting on the right to protect their culture and their land while the state has a unilateral view of cultural evolution and they're not in it. Sure there will be contention, a whole lot of it.
I'm aware the content I'm pitching bucks up against Karl Marx. There are two problems with that insofar as I'm not Karl Marx and, worse, I'm not twenty so there's not the time I would dedicate to writing a full-blown manifesto, etc.
I'm guilty as to failing to think all aspects of the economic changes all the way through and deliberately so because I'm watching this evolve as well. Delivering a fully-cooked economic system ready to pass to Economics 101 in the survey courses isn't going to happen but conceivably it's possible to work up some model short of that which is credibly functional.
The first part of the economy is the Universal Basic Income and, to no-one's surprise, this elicited Great Horror. Nevertheless, that aspect is a fundamental and the logic has to be better justified to make clear the purpose isn't to present hyperbole for melodramatic effect but rather to consider a likely course of human cultural evolution and what consequence will come from it.
The matter of the UBI is not at all settled just now and Lotho is trying to believe but he's just not buying it. Therefore, I have failed to adequately present the case.
Fundamental to the UBI is the belief jobs will ultimately evaporate for large segments of society. That case has not been sufficiently proven either or we could jump right past to what do we do about it (i.e. UBI).
Note: I'm well aware American manufacturing goes far beyond just making cars and military weapons. That's my next curiosity as in getting more detail on just what the hell America makes. We know it's not Oreo Cookies or Ford cars and there's a lot of it so what is it.
More to come.
17 comments:
Your economy has a basic flaw in generating the UBI. Secondly it is creating a two tiered class system.
The steps between those tiers will just get higher and higher because the workers will always want more and the other will just lay about
Wanting more is a nebulous thing since quite a bit of that is artificially created in creating the demand and then filling it.
How about a sauna since people may want a private sauna because this one I can use when I'm naked and I enjoy that. There's something to want which isn't so much a thing, maybe, as a car or a TV set. After you pay for the sauna, will you now keep working so you can add something else to your pad. With cars, people can always come up with reason for more of them but collecting saunas or things of that nature may be different.
As consumerism winds down, it's likely status will come in different ways. I strongly suspect conspicuous consumption is going to look progressively worse to people and not so much because we resent it but rather it's just tacky in a pointless display of wealth.
The thinking consumerism winds down is due to better shepherding of resources. For example, there's the current drive for carbon dioxide reduction. I don't want to kill production but I definitely want to see it taking place more sensibly.
I get naked in my sauna. I dont see it slowing down as there is always something cool out there.
I am not a keeping up with the Jones kind of person but I do like to add to my homestead so that I dont have to go out to enjoy what I add. And I cover my carbon footprint pretty well. Whichbis much easier if you have space only way to do it in the city is to buy it from others or reduce your impact .
Which is another reason why I am nota candidate for RC I like stuff
Sure and you made it so you could get naked in it but that's no an acquisition kind of thing like collecting the most cars or getting the biggest yacht or some such. Maybe I split hairs as I see the others as consumerism whereas the sauna is something different. It's not so much that you built it but rather it's not something you replace next year because a newer model came out or some such.
I'm sure there are city people and there are country people and one of my favorites comes from Rudy Vallee's dying words, "You know how I love a good party." (I think he could see fireworks for some type of New York celebration and, with that, he expired. Tres cool.)
You are splitting hairs. The sauna one year, a 12 person swim spa the next, other car for the driveway etc etc.
There is always more.
It's not a general rule as I know I would not have moved out of my apartment except for the harridan in the next apt. I liked it, particularly that I didn't have to deal with any homeowner type things. I haven't seen it as a general rule that people want more all the time.
Tne ecomomy is based on people want more. Cell hones are a prime example with the fight for the latestcand greatest
The economy is based on it but I don't believe people necessarily are. Some want power because they like leading and money gives power so get money. All the Machiavellian troglodytism spins up around that and doesn't change much over time.
When a man buys a Harley, he's expecting if he takes care of it then the bike will be just as good twenty years from now as they day he bought it. With computers, they're often kept over two years now but that's fairly recent. Mobiles are lucky if they go two years. It comes progressively down and obsolescence is designed when the only way to upgrade something is to replace it.
In making Harleys or long-term things, I'll call it an economy but it's something else when it's making things while at the same thing preparing the things which will strongly push replacement of that product.
Most Harley owners own multiple bikes.
At one point you owned many many guitars. No matter what ewuipment you had you wanted more a different effect a better effect different lights better lights more cameras better cameras
Only limited by the cash on hand. Even buying gadgets instead of food
I wasn't ever a collector of bikes nor did I collect guitars. When you had two high-end bikes at the same time, that was the most of anyone I ever knew. This one-size-fits-all view of humanity is not much realistic.
I remember at least 5 guitars at the same time on multiple stands. I said most bike owners. I had 4 at one time. Two were not all that much.
I notice you do not deny the arms race you were almost always conducting in the others I mention
And you are trying to generalize from a very small sample size
Collectors hang them on the wall and don't play them. To me that's different.
Not sure what arms race means.
My sample size is everyone I've met and there are varying shades of two types, pitchers and catchers. Pitchers will throw stuff out as soon as look at it but catchers don't let anything go. Practically everyone will fit somewhere on that continuum.
There is no difference to a consumerism economy wether you play them or not. Just to your attitude for having them
The arms race is how you acquire gadgets needing the lastest and greatest. Nothing wrong with that but it does fuel the consumer driven economy.
I still say that most of the population continually want more than they have
The arms race is also a peach of a way to marginalize what could have been the greatest nation in history but why quibble, right?
Characterizing others only in terms of yourself is only going to come back to the same conclusion each time.
There's evolution beyond that but getting there requires actually believing people like the Dalai Lama and mostly he just gets played for soundbites on Facebook but people don't listen much to what he says.
Post a Comment