To add to this, LLMs write pretty trite poetry, for example. If we think of code from the creative side, it’s hard to imagine that we’d want to simply hand all coding over to these systems. Even if we got working solutions (which is a major undertaking for large systems), it seems we’d be sacrificing elegance, novelty, and I’d argue more interesting explorations.
The issue is that even in your framing “…’nothing’ at any point in time…” is at odds with the Big Bang theory which says time had a beginning. How do you conceive what was there ‘before’ the universe came to existence? (In the absence of matter, space, time and energy)
It doesn't matter which 'serious issues' exist, no one has any explanation for why the future points to a high entropy version while the past point to a low entropy version. You can have issue with any particular issue of the big bang theory, but no matter what you put forth you have to answer the very hard question of 'why was entropy low', being that we know of no way in our current universe to reset entropy.
People don't spend much time on those theories because they are inherently of little practical consequence. What includes that they are also not clearly testable.
Even physics has limits because our physical reality and approach has limits. Not everything can be a controlled experiment, especially things that are way beyond what our senses allow.
So in the end, everybody's theory holds 'almost' the same weight. We're all clueless, yay!
The question is the launch off point for exploration. Just because a question is philosophical in nature does not mean it cannot be answered or that there’s no point in asking.
And replace it with what? The scary part of suggestions of “tear it all down” is how do we know that the replacement will be any better? In the grand scheme of things the West is in a state of abundance and luxury. Much more so than the communist experiments ever achieved. Additionally global poverty has been trending down for decades. While global literacy has greatly increased.
The key strength of a free-market seems to be that it assumes people will act in their own self interest and it creates a space where we can a get a roughly ‘win-win’ situation. That while you act in your self interest both you and the community are rewarded. So starting a bakery would give you a financial reward and others baked goods at a competitive price. Assuming that changing the system will force people to stop acting in their self interest seems to be how alternatives go wrong.
"Things are bad. They shouldn't be like this." OK, could be. "We should destroy it all." Yeah, will that make things better, or worse. To not have the current set of problems doesn't mean you have no problems. You can have far worse problems. So before we agree to tear it all down, you have to convince us that 1) your replacement will actually be better, and 2) you have a realistic plan to actually bring that about. Otherwise, you're just one more vandal, destroying but not building.
I think anything that ends ecological destruction and rising CO2 levels will be better than what we have now. We will just have to be brave and work within such a new system instead of being scared children surrounded by our technology.
We have solved nuclear fission power, created vaccines for COVID, and went to the moon. Surely we can go back to a world of greater sustainability than now.
Plenty of older societies had more strict regulations to soften the devastating effects of the free market. At the very least we should reinstitute customs that prevent unfettered economic growth and more sustainable population levels.
If you "bring down the current system", do you think what results is going to be less destructive to the environment? Or will 8 billion people all do whatever they have to in order to survive, regardless of the damage it causes?
You have to have a realistic replacement for the current system, and a realistic plan to get there. Without that, bringing down the current system won't lead to something better, but to something worse.
We have a model for what happens when you “bring down the system”. Do you think it would be better if we were all living in the equivalent of Somalia? It can be very difficult to engineer a stable revolution and all too often it ends up in chaos.
> We have solved nuclear fission power, created vaccines for COVID, and went to the moon. Surely we can go back to a world of greater sustainability than now.
I'm not sure about that at all. These three things you listed are just science/technical problems, while the latter is a governance problem. Governance is much harder than science and technology.
So you don't actually want to "tear it all down", yes? That would indeed be very stupid. Revolutionaries almost always make things worse, and often has wicked motives. Reformers can make things better.
Unfettered capitalism is certainly worth criticism. A just economic arrangement is one that rests on a sound philosophical anthropology. Of course, a good portion of those raging against "the system" are driven less by moral concerns and more by envy masquerading as moral concern.
The end user expects some connection between “buying a Lego” and buying digital content. We use metaphors such as “a cart” or “add to your library” that make a user think this is just like buying from a store bringing something home — it is in my library. If we aren’t going to keep these metaphors true, we should stop using them. It’s not in “my library”, it’s more like an amusement park I have perpetual access to until it one day closes.
But in the dvd case you don’t expect someone to effectively repossess your dvd a couple years down the road without reimbursing you. You don’t own the content but you do own your dvd which allows you to indefinitely watch the content.
It seems like an observation to me. Let’s take the Marxist utopian ideology. It led to 40 - 60 million dead in the Soviet Union (Gulag Archipelago is an eye opening read). And 40 - 80 million dead in Mao Zedong’s China. It’s hard to even wrap my mind around that amount of people dead.
Then a smaller example in Matthia’s cult in the “Kingdom Of Matthias” book. Started around the same time as Mormonism. Which led to a murder. Or the Peoples Temple cult with 909 dead in mass suicide. The communal aspects of these give away their “utopian ideology”
I’d like to hear where you’re coming from. I have a Christian worldview, so when I look at these movements it seems they have an obvious presupposition on human nature (that with the right systems in place people will act perfectly — so it is the systems that are flawed not the people themselves). Utopia is inherently religious, and I’d say it is the human desire to have heaven on earth — but gone about in the wrong ways. Because humans are flawed, no economic system or communal living in itself can bring about the utopian ideal.
We are quite OT here, but I would say christianity in general is a utopian ideology as well. All humans could be living in peace and harmony, if they would just believe in Jesus Christ. (I know there are differences, but this is the essence of what I was taught)
And well, how many were killed in the name of the Lord? Quite a lot I think. Now you can argue, those were not really christians. Maybe. But Marxists argue the same of the people responsible for the gulags. (I am not a marxist btw)
"Because humans are flawed, no economic system or communal living in itself can bring about the utopian ideal."
And it simply depends on the specific Utopian ideal. Because a good utopian concept/dream takes humans as they are - and still find ways to improve living conditions for everyone. Not every Utopia claims to be a eternal heaven for everyone, there are more realistic concepts out there.
Huh, I've read Marx and I dont see the utopianism you're referencing.
What I do see is "classism is the biggest humanitarian crisis of our age," and "solving the class problem will improve people's lives," but no where do I see that non-class problem will cease to exist. People will still fight, get upset, struggle, just not on class terms.
Maybe you read a different set of Marx's writing. Share your reading list if possible.
This article gives a clear view on Marx’s vs. Engel’s view of Utopianism vs. other utopian socialists [1]. That Marx was not opposed to utopianism per se, but rather when the ideas of the utopia did not come from the proletariat. Yet you’re right in that he was opposed to the view of the other utopian socialist, and there is tension in the views of the different socialist thinkers in that time. (I do disagree on the idea that refusing to propose an ideal negates one from in practice having a utopic vision)
That said my comment was looking mainly at the result of Marxist ideology in practice. In practice millions of lives were lost in an attempt to create an idealized world. Here is a good paper on Stalin’s utopian ideal [2].
I know we are a bit off topic. It seems it would be more like if several prominent followers of Jesus committed mass genocide in their respective countries within a century of his teachings. Stalin is considered Marxist-Leninist.
Oh ok. That makes sense. That's because if someone has an idea that causes a lot of immediate harm then the idea is wrong, but if there is a gap then it is not?
It seems like an endless cycle. It was said that Trump’s win was rigged via Russian collusion. Then that Biden’s win was rigged via voter fraud. So seemingly every election will be considered “rigged”
One allegation was that Russia assisted by providing information, basically corruption or collusion, the other allegation is that democracy is dead because votes were literally thrown out.
