Random Thoughts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barty

Technology improved because of trade. See Matt Ridley. It all comes back to exchange and capital development.

---

Sure, trade is a significant factor. It's been theorized that the Presocratic philosophers developed at the time and place they did because of the expansion of the region and ideas in relation to trade routes. These thinkers travelled around and had greater access to a greater wealth of knowledge. But no it doesn't all come back to capital. That's your God, not mine. I have no God of economics or otherwise.

There are many factors to technological development and that is why I said at 'the core'. Because there have been plenty of periods of trade and exchange of capital with little technological or scientific advances. Scientific advance is the key to technological advance because the more we understand about the way the world functions the more we can manipulate it to our behest. But yes, trade does play a significant role in scientific growth also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barty

Slavery has always been less profitable for the majority of people (obviously the slaves included) than free exchange. Had the Ancient Egyptians done away with slavery the ruler-kings and queens would have been worse off, but the community as a whole would have had far more rapid development. Again, see Ricardo and Comparative advantage.

---

I don't see how this is really a response to my quoted statement. I am saying that technological advances lead to moral elbow room to advance justice. I would assume that the Ancient Egyptians doing away with slavery would have been better for the community as a whole. But my point is that such a thing could not happen at that juncture in history because technology had not advanced to the point to allow sufficient moral elbow room to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qrazy

I don't see how this is really a response to my quoted statement. I am saying that technological advances lead to moral elbow room to advance justice. I would assume that the Ancient Egyptians doing away with slavery would have been better for the community as a whole. But my point is that such a thing could not happen at that juncture in history because technology had not advanced to the point to allow sufficient moral elbow room to do so.

---

That's not true at all, you can't use past history to make a statement about what technology would or would not allow at any given point. History isn't written in some Marxian way that is has a pre-determined path of progress and we are along for the ride. It's unknowable. And technology certainly doesn't determine the course of history or values in any scientific way, otherwise we wouldn't still have people arguing about Mexicans taking our jobs.

I'll agree increased standards of living certainly allow for more room to think about moral issues (or any issue really) since your time of the day isn't all spent on pure survival. However, the issue of technology itself at any given point determining the morality of slavery or allowing it to fade away is misguided because at nearly any point the standard of living would have been better for everyone but a select few with slavery being abolished. More likely slavery stayed around out of the pure political and power hungry side of certain elements of society as well as rulers, and a healthy dose of economic ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barty

That's not true at all, you can't use past history to make a statement about what technology would or would not allow at any given point. History isn't written in some Marxian way that is has a pre-determined path of progress and we are along for the ride. It's unknowable. And technology certainly doesn't determine the course of history or values in any scientific way, otherwise we wouldn't still have people arguing about Mexicans taking our jobs.

---

History is unknowable? I don't know what this means. Do you mean using history to predict the future? As Marx did when speaking of class warfare? That's not what I'm doing. For all I know we'll have WWIII tomorrow and be back at square one.

If you're saying I can't make elucidations of moral trends in relation to technological trends in relation to political trends in relation to economic trends, of course I can. The linkage I am arguing in favor of could be wrong certainly, although I don't think it is. Personally it makes much more sense to me than that social movements happen spontaneously or as just a build up of injustice and moral outrage, which seems to be the commonly held view. If you look at periods of vast social restructuring there is usually one (or many) game changing technological advances which occur just prior.

Prejudice is a deep rooted socio-psychological phenomenon, it is not surprising that people still make such arguments (re: Mexicans). And I am not arguing against the fact that the status quo is pervasive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barty

I'll agree increased standards of living certainly allow for more room to think about moral issues (or any issue really) since your time of the day isn't all spent on pure survival. However, the issue of technology itself at any given point determining the morality of slavery or allowing it to fade away is misguided because at nearly any point the standard of living would have been better for everyone but a select few with slavery being abolished. More likely slavery stayed around out of the pure political and power hungry side of certain elements of society as well as rulers, and a healthy dose of economic ignorance.

---

I am not speaking of the moral validity of abolition. I am saying that the possibility for systematic moral change in a society only comes about when sufficient technological advance makes it possible to do so. You're welcome to argue that point but above you are arguing something else entirely.

Whoa its a Barty debate/discussion. I haven't seen him engage in one of those in ages.

Today I actually went outside and enjoyed the absolutely gorgeous weather by playing disc golf with friends. I did really terrible, but still had fun.

Man alive. It's March 14th, all the snow is gone, and today's high is 72 degrees.

There is no way I am not grilling today.

More shocking than a joint number8/Barty opinion is the synchronicity of Irish/Sven. I don't necessarily agree with Irish's wording and approach here and there, but I think his is a fundamentally sound perspective. Barty's broad wielding of well-rebutted libertarian logic (previously employed to rationalize the benefits of worker exploitation and ignoring the realities of financial oppression) only cements my disapproval of the concept.

Though I confess to feeling out of touch, as I'm surprised so many people think it's a good idea to start looking at vagrants as beacons. So weird.

I can understand the argument for it. I didn't understand that the homeless were receiving some money for this when I made my initial reactionary comment.

But I still find this troubling, and there are many questions I would like answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sven

Though I confess to feeling out of touch, as I'm surprised so many people think it's a good idea to start looking at vagrants as beacons. So weird.

---

So is your disapproval based on the fact that they are a wifi spot? Would you be less offended if they were just holding signs advertising a business or handing out flyers to customers? I say this without any hint of snark, just in case it's reading that way. I can see being uncomfortable with the technology, but if you can get past that, it's really just temporary employment for the homeless.

Anybody remember Bumvertising from a few years back? It was a big debate back then, too. This college kid paid either pittance or cheap gas station food to bums on highways to wear a sign advertising his online poker site. I wasn't hot on that idea, because to me that's the emotional exploitation comparable to BumFights that Irish was trying to make. It saw homeless people only as desperate cheap labor in order to circumvent paying a fair wage for advertising.

This project pays the homeless guys involved a daily minimum wage plus commission, comparable to what survey canvassers make. By any decent standards, it's a legit temp job, which requires a skill set these homeless guys possess (mobility and interaction) that they could have looked for in college students, but didn't in favor of giving people from homeless shelters an opportunity to make extra money. Of course the marketing firm is using the fact that they're homeless as a stunt gimmick, but it's a direct quid-pro-quo business arrangement that's happening, so why the hell would I be against it?

Not to mention, they've set up donation funds for these guys on the wi-fi homepage, and the nature of getting the wi-fi access requires you to approach the vicinity of these guys and interact, unlike Bumvertising where you just pass by them as if they're inanimate objects.

We should just give the homeless people homes, then they won't be homeless anymore.

Problem solved. Next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sven

More shocking than a joint number8/Barty opinion is the synchronicity of Irish/Sven. I don't necessarily agree with Irish's wording and approach here and there, but I think his is a fundamentally sound perspective. Barty's broad wielding of well-rebutted libertarian logic (previously employed to rationalize the benefits of worker exploitation and ignoring the realities of financial oppression) only cements my disapproval of the concept.

Though I confess to feeling out of touch, as I'm surprised so many people think it's a good idea to start looking at vagrants as beacons. So weird.

---

Yeah, I was a bit shocked by that too. And you're not the only one who noticed the Irish/Sven synchronicity. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurosawa Fan

So is your disapproval based on the fact that they are a wifi spot? Would you be less offended if they were just holding signs advertising a business or handing out flyers to customers? I say this without any hint of snark, just in case it's reading that way. I can see being uncomfortable with the technology, but if you can get past that, it's really just temporary employment for the homeless.

---

Snark not detected, and it's a good point. However, the branding issue is enormously regressive ("Homeless Hotspot" is terribly tasteless, and relying on pity/shock). I'm unsure of the awareness that BBH is trying to raise by allowing moneyed citizens to utilize the homeless (who aren't being paid nearly enough to be human antennas IMO) without necessitating direct interaction.

I do see good in the project, obviously. Anything that shifts means from the wealthier to the poorer. But it is too little, too tastelessly marketed, and at the cost of dehumanizing further those that society already sees as lesser. And yes, I do get sad when I see billboard hobos. Maybe I'm just too much of a bleeding heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by number8

...the nature of getting the wi-fi access requires you to approach the vicinity of these guys and interact, unlike Bumvertising where you just pass by them as if they're inanimate objects.

---

A few sites I've read suggest that people can bypass the "awkwardness" of interaction and access from a distance. Which is a significant component of the rubbing-me-wrongness that's happening.

I was having an X-Files marathon last night and my girl kept commenting how Scully was turning her on. Today I found out that Gillian Anderson just came out as bisexual on the latest issue of Out mag.

This is a sign and I must purchase tickets to England immediately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sven

A few sites I've read suggest that people can bypass the "awkwardness" of interaction and access from a distance. Which is a significant component of the rubbing-me-wrongness that's happening.

---

Hm, the ones I read said you get a code from them. Maybe there's option for both, in which case I think it's just a smart idea. It provides an incentive to engage, but doesn't actually force you to do things as a customer. And again, you still have to seek them out and find out who they are regardless (the Google map to find them show their names and photos to know where access is available, and the homepage tells their stories). Still better than using them as billboards.

There's a certain specific saccharine pungency that is common between some deodorants and a decaying rodent.

Neil Degrasse Tyson in Time Magazine interview:

Quote:

---

After we went to the moon, it all ended. We stopped dreaming.

---

Me, in a script, two years ago:

Quote:

---

We can do great things. We landed on the moon, for God’s sakes. But after that...it’s like, as a nation, I mean, we just stopped dreaming.

---

:cool:

Quote:

---

We can do great things. We landed on the moon, for God’s sakes. But after that...it’s like, as a nation, I mean, we just stopped dreaming.

---

I know. We still can't put metal in a microwave. It's bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sven

More shocking than a joint number8/Barty opinion is the synchronicity of Irish/Sven. I don't necessarily agree with Irish's wording and approach here and there, but I think his is a fundamentally sound perspective. Barty's broad wielding of well-rebutted libertarian logic (previously employed to rationalize the benefits of worker exploitation and ignoring the realities of financial oppression) only cements my disapproval of the concept.

---

Well rebutted only in your mind of ignoring reality and the laws of economics.

We stopped dreaming? Maybe the ability of transmitting information from one side of the planet to the other in seconds is just riff-raff.

Knock on Tyson, not you DaMU, unless it's autobiographical.

Stopped dreaming? We're using the homeless as antennas to connect to virtual realms of infinite knowledge and communication!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sven

Stopped dreaming? We're using the homeless as antennas to connect to virtual realms of infinite knowledge and communication!

---

Just wait until NASA unveils their newest program of rocketing the homeless into outer space! Two birds with one stone.

[

Show Spoiler

Ahhh tasteless humor... I don't actually endorse the above perspective.

]

He's been using that phrase a lot in promoting his new book Space Chronicles (which I recommend). Someone made this great video from his various talks:

[youtube]CbIZU8cQWXc[/youtube]

I cannot tell you how fucking pumped I am for him to be hosting the new Cosmos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by number8

Today I found out that Gillian Anderson just came out as bisexual on the latest issue of Out mag.

---

Whenever a hot female "comes out" as bisexual, I'm all like
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0dryw9kxw1qzf0b3.jpg