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 zeitgeist the 2020's


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,863 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

As Arthur C. Clarke alluded to when he said that power and wealth were to become less and less important in the future the zeitgeist of the future will not be predominated by ideological primitivity as they were in the 20th century with communism and capitalism. The zeitgeist of the future will not be dictated by such savagery of apes as that demonstrated by mass shootings, corruption, and misgovernance. 

 

No the zeitgeist of the future as Sir Clarke once again said will be one where science is the determining factor. We will become not only more intelligent but better critical thinkers. https://www.scientif...foolish-things/

 

Your biases, my biases will be things seen with more distaste and disgust than open defecation is. In fact zeitgeist will be an outdated and obsolete term. William Gibson's "consensual hallucination" will not only apply to our reality as in our spacetime but also to our mutual understanding. 

 

Culture will exist but it will be so nuanced and esoteric that to an outside observer it will seem trivial. Specialization will be out distinguishing factors not such primitive debauchery as race or political orientation. 

 

Again I allude to Sir Clarke who said that neither power nor the acquisition of wealth were worth the time or effort of grown men. I pray we all grow up out of the cesspool of pre-civilization and pre-intelligence in which we currently reside. Of course I do not pray for I wish to remain what dignity is possible in this wretched state. 

 

The Human Condition is defined by our progression not by our clinging to our primitivity and to our savagery. Get a grip you filthy rotting corpse of an ape.  


  • Mike the average likes this

The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#2
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,940 posts

Yawn. Whatever.



#3
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,863 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Yawn. Whatever.

Insightful input. Very well said my fellow American. 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#4
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s
I to look forward to a world where chasing wealth is seen as primitive and barbaric. But can you really call me barbaric for doing that when not doing this equates to death or slavery in our society. Call my communism primative all you want, but a world without individual wealth where all needs are guaranteed is inherently communistic and what you are describing is just that.

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#5
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,863 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

I to look forward to a world where chasing wealth is seen as primitive and barbaric. But can you really call me barbaric for doing that when not doing this equates to death or slavery in our society. Call my communism primative all you want, but a world without individual wealth where all needs are guaranteed is inherently communistic and what you are describing is just that.

No having 'needs' met, accepting the possibility that these 'needs' will not be our current 'needs' and that 'met' will not necessarily entail a government, is not inherently communism (a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. - Google). Also did I even mention having needs met in my post? The last time I checked the pursuit of wealth was not the exclusive domain of acquiring shelter and sustenance. 

 

What is more simply because something is necessary does not absolve it of barbarism. 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#6
Mike the average

Mike the average

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts
Good find TG.
'Force always attracts men of low morality' - Einstein
'Great spirits always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Einstein

#7
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

No having 'needs' met, accepting the possibility that these 'needs' will not be our current 'needs' and that 'met' will not necessarily entail a government, is not inherently communism (a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. - Google). Also did I even mention having needs met in my post? The last time I checked the pursuit of wealth was not the exclusive domain of acquiring shelter and sustenance. 

 

What is more simply because something is necessary does not absolve it of barbarism. 

 

So you anticipate a world in which people will still need to acquire individual wealth in order to have their basic survival needs met, but we will all grow out of our childish obsession with pursuing individual wealth anyway?

 

As long as individual wealth is the gateway between having what we want and not having it, the pursuit of individual wealth will remain a fundamental drive of our society. 



#8
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,863 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

 

 

No having 'needs' met, accepting the possibility that these 'needs' will not be our current 'needs' and that 'met' will not necessarily entail a government, is not inherently communism (a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. - Google). Also did I even mention having needs met in my post? The last time I checked the pursuit of wealth was not the exclusive domain of acquiring shelter and sustenance. 

 

What is more simply because something is necessary does not absolve it of barbarism. 

 

So you anticipate a world in which people will still need to acquire individual wealth in order to have their basic survival needs met, but we will all grow out of our childish obsession with pursuing individual wealth anyway?

 

As long as individual wealth is the gateway between having what we want and not having it, the pursuit of individual wealth will remain a fundamental drive of our society. 

 

Even I don't know what I mean when I look back on my writings, but what I probably meant here was that our "needs" could, in the near future, be met by simply plugging into a portable fusion reactor.  


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#9
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • LocationLondon

Looking back today my point was really more of a "well technically you're wrong because..." rather than anything useful or constructive. 

 

It seems obvious that a hundred years from now (assuming the world doesn't end or whatever) it should be easily possible for some sort of automated/semi-automated system to meet people's basic needs at very low costs. 

 

Whether this will be done on a socialist model, or a competitive one will make a big difference in how pursuit of wealth is seen in that future society. 

 

We would probably be better off working to align the gain of wealth and power with contribution to society (so those that help society the most get the richest) than trying to get people to stop pursuing wealth, power and status. 

 

The kind of philosophical shift in thought and goals you're thinking of could happen, but I strongly suspect it won't be able to really take hold until we are able to get some sort of fresh start, with a new nation populated by people opting in (like a lunar/mars colony or sea steading or similar) without the weight of history and the conservative/reactionary parts of the country fighting it tooth and nail. 



#10
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,940 posts

Looking back today my point was really more of a "well technically you're wrong because..." rather than anything useful or constructive. 

 

It seems obvious that a hundred years from now (assuming the world doesn't end or whatever) it should be easily possible for some sort of automated/semi-automated system to meet people's basic needs at very low costs. 

 

Whether this will be done on a socialist model, or a competitive one will make a big difference in how pursuit of wealth is seen in that future society. 

 

We would probably be better off working to align the gain of wealth and power with contribution to society (so those that help society the most get the richest) than trying to get people to stop pursuing wealth, power and status. 

 

The kind of philosophical shift in thought and goals you're thinking of could happen, but I strongly suspect it won't be able to really take hold until we are able to get some sort of fresh start, with a new nation populated by people opting in (like a lunar/mars colony or sea steading or similar) without the weight of history and the conservative/reactionary parts of the country fighting it tooth and nail. 

You think there won't be conservatives on Mars?

 

I'll  gladly go to Mars to fight socialism (and other stuff...)



#11
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,798 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

 

You think there won't be conservatives on Mars?

 

I'll  gladly go to Mars to fight socialism (and other stuff...)

 

 

Careful there. Conservatives of the future are the ultra liberals of today. :D


  • Erowind likes this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#12
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,940 posts

 

 

You think there won't be conservatives on Mars?

 

I'll  gladly go to Mars to fight socialism (and other stuff...)

 

 

Careful there. Conservatives of the future are the ultra liberals of today. :D

 

No they aren't. Social change is not linearly progressing in the direction of some liberal fantasy. The pendulum swings back and forth. The meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" also change. We're currently in a liberal era, but my generation is striking back.



#13
BasilBerylium

BasilBerylium

    Terminally Lazy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts
  • LocationArgentina

No they aren't. Social change is not linearly progressing in the direction of some liberal fantasy. The pendulum swings back and forth. The meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" also change. We're currently in a liberal era [...]

I agree.

 

[...], but my generation is striking back.

Not all.


  • rennerpetey likes this
Spoiler

#14
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,940 posts

 

No they aren't. Social change is not linearly progressing in the direction of some liberal fantasy. The pendulum swings back and forth. The meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" also change. We're currently in a liberal era [...]

I agree.

 

[...], but my generation is striking back.

Not all.

 

https://www.forbes.c...r-generation-z/

 

May be different outside the US though. Generation Z is a US thing, after all.



#15
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

 

 

No they aren't. Social change is not linearly progressing in the direction of some liberal fantasy. The pendulum swings back and forth. The meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" also change. We're currently in a liberal era [...]

I agree.

 

[...], but my generation is striking back.

Not all.

 

https://www.forbes.c...r-generation-z/

 

May be different outside the US though. Generation Z is a US thing, after all.

 

Our generation is splitting between two extremes, youth flood the ranks of the far left just as much as they do the far right. Also keep in mind that alot of the people who voted for Trump after Bernie lost the nomination are demsoc maximalists.

 

Also depending on who you ask the both of us could be millennials. At least I think, you were born in 97 right? 


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#16
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,940 posts

 

 

 

No they aren't. Social change is not linearly progressing in the direction of some liberal fantasy. The pendulum swings back and forth. The meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" also change. We're currently in a liberal era [...]

I agree.

 

[...], but my generation is striking back.

Not all.

 

https://www.forbes.c...r-generation-z/

 

May be different outside the US though. Generation Z is a US thing, after all.

 

Our generation is splitting between two extremes, youth flood the ranks of the far left just as much as they do the far right. Also keep in mind that alot of the people who voted for Trump after Bernie lost the nomination are demsoc maximalists.

 

Also depending on who you ask the both of us could be millennials. At least I think, you were born in 97 right? 

 

1999.

 

You're old bruh.



#17
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,863 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

 

 

 

You think there won't be conservatives on Mars?

 

I'll  gladly go to Mars to fight socialism (and other stuff...)

 

 

Careful there. Conservatives of the future are the ultra liberals of today. :D

 

No they aren't. Social change is not linearly progressing in the direction of some liberal fantasy. The pendulum swings back and forth. The meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" also change. We're currently in a liberal era, but my generation is striking back.

 

I would say that this is not entirely true considering the history of a relatively young nation like the United States. If you look at our country and its political/ideological genealogy the one could certainly draw the conclusion that society has and is becoming more liberal or progressive. Perhaps more so socially than fiscally but even in fiscal terms our government is much more pervasive in terms of regulation and taxation, let's not even mention spending, than it was in the times of the wild west and the period of the robber barons.

 

Classifying this evolution of government and society as liberal or any other such label which is, I suspect, highly ill defined is a task which purveys no real understanding as to the aforementioned evolution. 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#18
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,863 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Also Jakob I would caution you as to how much you read into any study which touts the political leanings of "Generation Z" simply considering the previous election and a more recent example like the Alabama senate race where those 18-44 supported Jones approximately 60 to 40 in a reciprocation of the over 65 demographic which supported Moore 60 to 40. 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#19
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

You think there won't be conservatives on Mars?

That depends, If someone goes to Mars and establishes a colony, and says "here are the laws/systems upon which this new nation will function", and lays out a new society focused around building a nation where these sort of ideas are accepted as the norm:

 

"Neither power nor the acquisition of wealth were worth the time or effort of grown men. I pray we all grow up out of the cesspool of pre-civilization and pre-intelligence in which we currently reside"

 

or this:

 

I to look forward to a world where chasing wealth is seen as primitive and barbaric.

Then, no you won't be there, or if you do go there you'll be deported pretty quickly.

 

You'll be busy establishing the libertarian colony on the other side of the planet. where no one will be whining about handouts, or regulations, and when people don't pay their oxygen bill, you just shut off oxygen to their rooms, or throw them out an airlock.


  • Jakob likes this

#20
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,940 posts

I think in the early days, any Mars colony will be pretty apolitical. Until we reach the point when there are non-essential personnel on Mars and not everyone's day job is "surviving Mars", people will probably put aside any personal political differences--the crew will be hand-picked and trained to make this easier no doubt. It'll only change once there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of permanent residents on Mars. I doubt anyone would gain much ground trying any little utopian experiment (either left-wing or right-wing) until there are millions of people on Mars.

 

 

You'll be busy establishing the libertarian colony on the other side of the planet. where no one will be whining about handouts, or regulations, and when people don't pay their oxygen bill, you just shut off oxygen to their rooms, or throw them out an airlock.

I think in general, unless you're talking about some kind of hippy anarcho-communist colony, non-essential personnel would still have to pay for oxygen. In non-libertarian colonies, it would probably be treated as a public utility and regulated like electricity and water services on Earth. In libertarian colonies, of course, there would be no state-enforced monopoly and far fewer regulations--many different oxygen companies could compete to see who wins over the most consumers.

 

Shutting off oxygen is probably sufficient, the state has no need to take any active role (and certainly corporations don't get to just chuck people out of airlocks). You don't have people come to electrocute you if you don't pay your electricity bill, do you? They just shut off your power.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users