Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

The Technism/Vyrdism Discussion Thread

technism Vyrdism postcapitalism automation technotariat proletariat John Henry Vyrd post scarcity artificial intelligence robotics

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#41
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,143 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

 

Brutally honest summation.
qr3OO9L.jpg

Well shit, this describes me perfectly.

 

I actually have added 2 more:

"Mechanization of military and police forces" 

"Suspicious of egalitarianism"


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#42
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

My profile:

 

Yes - 2

More yes than no - 2

Neutral - 1

More no than yes -4

No - 7

 

 

Added descriptions:

 

Mechanization of military and police forces - more "no" than "yes"

Suspicious of egalitarianism - "no" as in "I am not suspicious of egalitarianism."


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#43
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,742 posts

Looking at our ability to choose leaders...I think a AI leader would be a good idea.

 

AI would realize that we need to focus on the nation as a whole and not just a few percent at the top. AI would want to feed the population, provide healthcare as it would see suffering as illogical and would fund science.


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#44
Casey

Casey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Brutally honest summation.
qr3OO9L.jpg

 

1. I wouldn't call myself obsessed, but yes, I keep up-to-date about it as I do with any technology that I think has the potential to change the world for the better.

2. I'm in favor of it, but this isn't an area I've ever read up on much or given a lot of thought to.

3. Skip, too complicated to answer without a wall of text.

4. Nah.

5. Yes, absolutely. I love people like Elon Musk and companies like Google.

6. Yes.

7. Not really.

8. Not sure what this means.

9. Yes.

10. Leaders who place an emphasis on technology are something I would like to have, though I'm reluctant to answer this either way since I don't know much about technocracy.

11. Leaning towards yes. Once AI's good enough to take charge, I'm in favor of it doing so.

12. Yes, definitely. Though I was never a big science fiction person, a lot of science fiction has become pretty intolerable ever since I got into futurism due to so many of them having Luddite undertones or overtones.

13. Yeah.

14. No to both.

15. I'm sure the world's in for some major upheaval, but I've always figured things will work out.

16. Nope.



#45
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,236 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

1. Not obsessed, just interested.

2. Yes.

3. Strong yes.

4. Strong no.

5. Yes.

6. Neutral. Don't really care.

7. Strong no.

8. Strong no.

9. Strong no.

10. Strong no.

11. Strong no.

12. No. Prefer neutral portrayal.

13. No.

14. No.

15. Strong no.

16. Neutral.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#46
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,143 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

I've cleaned up the Early Warning Signs.

 

jTkO0sZ.jpg

 

 

For me, it's "Resounding Yes" from 1 to 20. In my mind, it takes only saying "Yes" to nine to make you a hard technist. Of course, Vyrdists will probably oppose quite a few of these. Market Vyrdists and Marxist-Vyrdists will find a lot to say "No" to.


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#47
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,236 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

This is just fascism with AI thrown in. Seen it before. Would not buy again.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#48
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

1) Yes

 

2) Yes, immortality is in reach

 

3) Extremely

 

4) Hit and miss, you have to do it a way that doesn't make you out of touch with the people.

 

5) Yes

 

6) Extremely

 

7) Look at my signature

 

8) As long as it is voluntary and not forced on the population.

 

9) Read the books by Han Hermann Hoppe. He strictly proposes such societies.

 

10) Yes

 

11) While I prefer little to none, it is preferable to human governance.

 

12) See 11

 

13) Yes

 

14) See 11

 

15) Meh I'm agnostic my self but these technologies could change my views if they are reality.

 

16) Yes, there are forces that want to end western civilization and looks like we finally started to fight back in 2016.

 

17) Extremely. Read Hans Hermann Hoppe. Such groups would not fit in such a covenant and  would be physically removed from society if they tried to subvert it.

 

18) Yes

 

19) Yes, it would be privatized.

 

20) Well I'm only against Egalitarianism when it conflicts with Meritocracy and property rights.


  • Yuli Ban likes this

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#49
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,143 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

20) Well I'm only against Egalitarianism when it conflicts with Meritocracy and property rights.


In a society where there are multiple intelligent species across multiple substrates of life, egalitarianism falls apart. I can understand egalitarianism by law, but it simply can't be the same socially or politically.

As I've said before, a human would never allow himself to be ruled by a chimp. Transhumans/posthumans and AIs will likely feel the same way.


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#50
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

 

As I've said before, a human would never allow himself to be ruled by a chimp. Transhumans/posthumans and AIs will likely feel the same way.

 

In such a society, such entities would dominate leadership positions, governance, media and generally everything due to vastly superior capabilities. I have no problem with what you said.


What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#51
nomad

nomad

    The Darkness

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 548 posts

 

20) Well I'm only against Egalitarianism when it conflicts with Meritocracy and property rights.


In a society where there are multiple intelligent species across multiple substrates of life, egalitarianism falls apart. I can understand egalitarianism by law, but it simply can't be the same socially or politically.

As I've said before, a human would never allow himself to be ruled by a chimp. Transhumans/posthumans and AIs will likely feel the same way.

 

 

A chimp, no, but maybe more of a cat/human relationship? I could kinda see a variant of that.


Cats.


#52
BasilBerylium

BasilBerylium

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationArgentina

 

 

20) Well I'm only against Egalitarianism when it conflicts with Meritocracy and property rights.


In a society where there are multiple intelligent species across multiple substrates of life, egalitarianism falls apart. I can understand egalitarianism by law, but it simply can't be the same socially or politically.

As I've said before, a human would never allow himself to be ruled by a chimp. Transhumans/posthumans and AIs will likely feel the same way.

 

 

A chimp, no, but maybe more of a cat/human relationship? I could kinda see a variant of that.

 

I think that it will be like a Host/Parasite relationship



#53
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts

Woah its almost as if this is Fascism but devotion to Technology instead of devotion to the state.



#54
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

Sorry, a Robot Is Not About to Replace Your Lawyer

 

https://www.nytimes....ss&emc=rss&_r=0

 

Introduction:

 

Impressive advances in artificial intelligence technology tailored for legal work have led some lawyers to worry that their profession may be Silicon Valley’s next victim.

But recent research and even the people working on the software meant to automate legal work say the adoption of A.I. in law firms will be a slow, task-by-task process. In other words, like it or not, a robot is not about to replace your lawyer. At least, not anytime soon.

 

“There is this popular view that if you can automate one piece of the work, the rest of the job is toast,” said Frank Levy, a labor economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “That’s just not true, or only rarely the case.”

 

An artificial intelligence technique called natural language processing has proved useful in scanning and predicting what documents will be relevant to a case, for example. Yet other lawyers’ tasks, like advising clients, writing legal briefs, negotiating and appearing in court, seem beyond the reach of computerization, for a while

.

“Where the technology is going to be in three to five years is the really interesting question,” said Ben Allgrove, a partner at Baker McKenzie, a firm with 4,600 lawyers. “And the honest answer is we don’t know.”

 

Interesting how this last sentence would seem to contradict or at least call into question the headline.  I suppose a lot depends on how "about to" is defined. Next month? Next Year? Next decade? Next century?


  • Jakob likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#55
BasilBerylium

BasilBerylium

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationArgentina

Woah its almost as if this is Fascism but devotion to Technology instead of devotion to the state.

The interest reflected in Yuli stories to totalitarisms can be a hint to this



#56
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

In exploring the future and we may wish to develop more than one tactic to deal with the problem of an increase in technological unemployment. Another tactic/policy that has just occurred to me actually is a very ancient tradition: Jubilee.

 

https://ourfuture.or...ng-student-debt

 

 

The election of 2016 forced us, like so many Americans, to reconsider much of what we imagined we knew about our country and our society. For example, only a few months ago there was a growing, nation-wide movement for tuition-free higher education. At the time, we proposed debt forgiveness for the many Americans – the figure now stands at 43 million – who carry the burden of student loans.

 

Now, all three branches of government are under the control of ideologues who espouse a harsh and individualistic brand of conservatism. That forces us to ask ourselves: How can we pursue such an ambitious and visionary goal when we are confronted with a direct challenge to the communitarian ideals that have guided this nation to its best achievements?

 

And yet, individually and together, we have reached the same conclusion: this is a more important time than ever to reaffirm our bravest and highest values. Jubilee – the ancient concept of debt forgiveness as an affirmation of community – reflects those values. We can reject the reactionary principles that the right wing represents by embracing the concept of a student debt jubilee as the symbol of our long-held community values.

 

Democratic societies are founded on two, seemingly conflicting principles: individual liberty and collective responsibility. If individual liberty is taken to an extreme, society collapses in an orgy of Darwinian competition. If collective responsibility is taken too far – something that has not happened in this country but has occurred in communist totalitarian states – personal freedoms are trampled under the iron heel of the state.

 

We have always been plagued by the sins of racism and greed. But, in its finest historical moments, including our recovery from the Great Depression and the years during and immediately after the Second World War, our nation seemed to find a better balance between individual and community values. During that time, it is important to remember that public colleges were practically tuition free in almost all states. Students could “work their way through college” without incurring debt in most cases.

 

 

 

 

This is actually a variation on monetary policy.  Monetary policy can ease the burden of debt by putting more money into circulation.  This can result in inflation, which in turn can make it easier for those who hold debt to pay off their debt, and harder for those who have made loans to actually clear an after inflation profit.  Jubilee merely explicitly targeted holders of debt without shifting the quantity of the money supply. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#57
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,143 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

QtVzTln.jpg

I've been saying that the first two were entirely tongue-in-cheek for a reason.

Technism is literally just "social and economic system defined by machine ownership of the means of production or some form of which".


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#58
BasilBerylium

BasilBerylium

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationArgentina

 

Woah its almost as if this is Fascism but devotion to Technology instead of devotion to the state.

The interest reflected in Yuli stories to totalitarisms can be a hint to this

 

Confirmed



#59
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,143 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda
UPDATE

Development of semi-automated techno-coop ventures with fractional ownership of property


They're actually gonna do it.
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#60
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

Senator Gillibrand Advocates for Legislation to Encourage Employee Ownership

 

https://nonprofitqua...oyee-ownership/

 

Introduction:

 

Earlier this week, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) visited Nunda—a small community of 3,000 people located 20 miles due south of Geneseo and a little over 60 miles east-southeast of Buffalo—to meet with 70 or so employee-owners of Once Again Nut Butter, “a maker of nut butters, honey and other natural products.” A 70-employee business may not seem particularly noteworthy, but in a town the size of Nunda, the fact that the company is the town’s single largest private-sector employer perhaps comes as no surprise.

 

Gillibrand came to Nunda as part of her effort to build support for legislation that would make it easier to create employee-owned companies. Gillibrand has become one of the nation’s leading congressional advocates of employee ownership. Earlier this year, she was among four senators—the other three were Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT)— to coauthor legislation designed to make it easier to create employee-owned businesses.

 

As Livingston County News reporter Ben Beagle explains, the first of these bills is known as the WORK Act.

 

[The WORK Act] would provide more than $45 million in funding to states to establish and expand employee ownership centers, which provide training and technical support for programs promoting employee ownership. A second bill would create a U.S. Employee Ownership Bank to provide $500 million in low-interest rate loans and other financial assistance to help workers purchase businesses through an employee stock ownership plan or a worker-owned cooperative.

 

As Nonprofit Quarterly has pointed out, employee ownership can be an effective strategy for preserving local economies and generating employment without the expense of corporate tax incentive payments, such as the $3 billion the state of Wisconsin recently provided Foxconn to attract a 3,000-person factory to Racine, an amount that works out to $1 million per job. (There is the “potential to grow” to 13,000 jobs, supporters of the tax incentives said.) By contrast, in Ohio, a small technical assistance nonprofit housed at Kent State University has been able to retain 15,000 jobs since 1987 at the cost of less than $1,000 per job. Evidently, preserving the tax base can also help nonprofits be better able to access public funds and serve their communities.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: technism, Vyrdism, postcapitalism, automation, technotariat, proletariat, John Henry Vyrd, post scarcity, artificial intelligence, robotics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users