There is a suggestion that the development of agriculture had a negative impact on average human size and lifespan, while making possible the development of civilisation and an increase in the human population. This may be the argument that is referenced in Genesis. If you accept the suggestion that the “Tree of knowledge of good and evil” is a metaphor for technology, the authors seemed to have thought that technology was a Bad Thing, but that once it had started we had no option but to live with the consequences.
At or near the beginning. That doesn’t mean that those who run the Feed are blameless. I’m truly confounded by the deep idea people seem to have* that blame is some indivisible property, i.e. that if someone says “A helped X happen” that that’s the same as saying “B,C, and D had nothing at all to do with it”.
* I’m not saying you’re one of those that so think.
4 Likes
#Nooooooooooooooo!!!
2 Likes
1 Like
no-nonsense down to Earth Real Americans?
There, FTFY
1 Like
Can we please be done with these pointless mouth-for-eyes transpositions?
They have become truly boring, they add nothing to the conversation, and yet still remain repulsive.
We have enough of that coming to the US Congress next year, thank you very much.
Can we please Move On to the next wonderful thing?
1 Like
Scale suggests otherwise. The worrying thing for me about the 21st century is the rapid rise of non-State actors not subject to democratic scrutiny and the electorate, from oligarchs through corporate lobbying. The rallying cry of the Socialists was that the State would own the “means of production, distribution and exchange.” They omitted information. There is a sense in which Facebook is as oppressive as the Stalinist control over the Soviet media - incomplete but it creates the environment. The assumption that Zuckerberg is benevolent in any way has to be proven, but even if he were, being benevolent does not mean that your actions are good, because between the desire and the reality, between the emotion and the act, falls the shadow.*
*According to one well known Harvard graduate and social commentator.
1 Like
I suddenly have a vision of an enormous treadmill containing many thousands of hateful uncles, all rushing forward constantly trying to grasp effigies of various right wing hate figures, and the resulting power being used to drive the dynamos that power the Facebook data center.
2 Likes
Fake news about the rapture? I might believe it.
1 Like
[quote=Article]log into your facebook acount[/quote]Nice try, Zuckerberg. My account is solely for getting extra benefits from free to play mobile games.
1 Like
It’s another belief - almost an axiom - that progress is good, but where they also confuse any change with progress.
Yeah, I’ve always thought that it was a metaphor, like the very similar story of Enkidu in the Gilgamesh epic, for the switch from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to settled agriculture and “civilization.” Heavily romanticizing the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, of course, but also recognizing that the transition was pretty unpleasant, and that the switch caused unavoidable changes to the society and even human nature. Now in Silicon Valley, there’s a dislike of acknowledging that particular technologies might necessarily bring with them specific dynamics that have inherent impacts on the culture, much less impacts that might not be desirable. Instead there’s the rather fuzzy idea of “progress” which is seen as inevitable, encompasses all knowledge and technologies, and is assumed to be good, but those assumptions are not to be examined too closely.
1 Like
Yes, and it’s equally crazy to think that advertising on Facebook influences the purchasing actions of Facebook users.
Based on actual forensic anthropology, or just-so-story health fads like “paleo”?
1 Like
Not all socialists are statists. I certainly am not. I think that people leaving existing states is the best hope for democracy. People being free to associate is far more just than being a captive audience.
Most socialists would roll their eyes at the “Statist” slur I would imagine, considering it tends to come from AnCaps and refers to anyone of a collective-friendly bent.
You sure you’re not an ancap/Ron Paul fan that has lost their way? I’ve never heard the “freedom of association” meme from anyone relatively leftist.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding intention here and focusing too much on the specific phrases, just seems odd choices to focus on considering whom I usually hear fixating on “statist” and “freedom of association”.
A word which is accurate does not become a slur based upon you expecting to hear it from somebody else. That’s your own baggage.
Without being free to associate, how exactly would people form collectives? My city, state, and country both implicitly and explicitly forbid me to engage in most kinds of collective organization, collective ownership, collective marriage, collective childraising, etc. So which is more likely to happen first? We make the US accepting to communes as legitimate living choices? Or we strike out and make these arrangements without the auspices of the state?
I don’t know who that might be, but it certainly isn’t me.
Just to explain my sensitization to the phrase-
http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/the-civil-rights-act-and-freedom-of-association
The source is not my belief but the Libertarian pro-segregation, anti-Civil Rights Act arguments for it. Perhaps I don’t interact with those on actual communes but I just haven’t heard it from others.
I guess I can see that. To me “freedom of” can mean “freedom to” or “freedom from”. So what I am trying to get away from is default associations with structures which enforce individualism and competition, and be free to devise more collective and cooperative ones. That’s a counter-intuitive aspect of libertarianism for people of the left and right alike - it really makes people as free to be egalitarian as it does for them to be selfish. The US is currently the worst of both worlds. I am pro collectivism, but I am opposed to any government being imposed upon people.
Unfortunately, I don’t either. That’s why I have wanted to start some, but the preexisting systems here are quite hostile to how I think it should be done. I started a topic on communal living some months back. Even most of the fairly open-minded people on BB didn’t sound keen on it.
Based on skeletal records.
