Ian Banks did a better job of portraying post-scarcity society than Star Trek ever did.
I’d still need a seat. My favorite team can’t have an infinitely large field section, and there can’t be infinitely-many hottest clubs.
Sweet, how do I get one of his originals?
But he pre-supposed a culture that didn’t value material possessions and status symbols. That, combined with near-infinite resources and super-powerful benign AI, would probably allow money to go away. But I’m not sure that humans would really ever give up their status symbols and possessiveness.
Maybe understanding the misperceptions and straw man versions of liberal views was part of the point? Or maybe that’s too clear for you?
If we understand these conversations to be an exercise to better understand each other, to gain insight into each others’ internal thoughts, and not simply competitive contests to “win”, it makes more sense.
To reach that form of government, I will gladly turn in all of my BMWs, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis in a heartbeat. They may happen to be some of my favorite Matchbox & Hot Wheel cars, but I’m sure the sacrifice is worth it.
I mean those are the big ones. Go far enough to the left and they’ll start going after the 14th with regards to white folks, but those are mostly outliers in the grand scheme of things.
Definitely these days. Which is one of the big criticisms of them. They’ve shirked a lot of their dedication to their goal and are playing to the left a lot now. I think overall they’re still a force for good, but there are a lot of valid criticisms of how they’ve changed.
I mean I didn’t say there was, but this isn’t the thread of “what annoys you about liberals who are in places of political power and influence.” And don’t forget not that long ago the GOP wasn’t all Tea Party shitbirds and traitors, but those things start in the base and tend to filter up over time if people let them.
I do if they don’t call out people in their camp for it. Again, see Republicans. They didn’t used to be this completely fucked, but they let the racists and idiots stew around in the party without denouncing them and eventually they managed to infiltrate the party and finally completely take it over. I don’t want in 30 years to be dealing with openly pro-Communist Democrats getting elected (though to be fair I’ll probably be dead by the time that happens if it ever does).
Sure. But as a rule* conservatism does not trust the government. You don’t let the government decide what people can say or do because it WILL eventually exploit that power and fuck everyone over. I’m not talking about dollar amounts, I’m talking actual power. Right now we have a President that acts like a dictator and that’s the sort of thing conservatism strongly opposes.
- the current GOP is in no way conservative. If anything they’re the opposite of it, so using parties to point things out isn’t very effective. I’m talking ideologies, not parties.
They’re not mysterious. We hear them every fucking day.
This is absolutely false in practice. Conservatives always trust law enforcement. Conservatives always trust the military. Conservatives always trust the intel community. Conservatives trust and value government authority, it is almost part of their brand to do so.
Also, too, this [*]
Is a No True Scotsman fallacy. You have to dance your conservative dance with the conservatives that brought you. There are no others.
No, you’re saying Republican = Conservative in all situations.
It’s an ideology, not a political party. The same as Liberal is not the same as Democrat.
Except it isn’t. This is why people get angry with you. You don’t have discussions in good faith.
We’re not talking about fucking Republicans. I don’t give a shit what they call themselves, conservatism has a definition and that definition isn’t “American Republican Party in 2018.”
Scott, why not just mute this thread and let it stay on topic?
You’ve made it crystal clear you hate the idea that someone might say something about liberals that you don’t think applies, or doesn’t apply to the “good” liberals, or is somehow invalidated because some GOP/Conservative/whatever is being hypocritical about it.
Point made.
But you’re just killing the thread for everyone and disrespecting the spirit of the thread as laid out by the guy who started it.
Let this one go, and perhaps mute it so you don’t have a reminder that someone might be saying something you don’t agree with.
No, I’m pointing out that you make a claim about conservatives that isn’t evidenced by the actual people who call themselves conservatives. And that you make the claim without pointing to any conservatives who actually exhibit that claim, and you make it while acknowledging that those people who call themselves conservatives don’t exhibit that claim. That is the exact definition of a No True Scotsman fallacy. The way to fix this is to point to the conservatives you say actually exhibit this claim, not to complain when someone points out what you’ve done. Point to the conservatives you admire who act as if, unlike liberals, they don’t trust government with power.
Hey, I’m a conservative, I don’t trust the government with power, so there’s that one solved.
If the spirit of the thread is ‘come here where you can make perfectly mundane discredited claims about liberals without being challenged’, then it doesn’t deserve respect. If it is something else, then the disrespecters of the thread were those people who made perfectly mundane discredited claims about liberals, but it was apparently all right when they did it. I mean, as if there is no outlet on the internet where people can spread lies about people on the left, right? They need one more, and I’m fucking it up for them?
Here, convince me: Point to the post in this thread you say exhibits a genuinely thoughtful criticism of liberalism, not a tired trope we’ve all heard a million times before. I’ll wait.
I’m a liberal, and I don’t trust the government with power, so that’s not a distinction.
Scarcity would still exist. Like access to sexy people. The role of captain in a exploration space ship. Everyone will want to have a sexy partner, and the best jobs/roles.
In videogames, where energy is a fiction (so can be infinite) we create societies, and these have scarcity that is programmed into the virtual societies we create.
Also, according to both Voyager and DS 9, not everything can be replicated.
I always thought that was just a plot device. Replicator technology breaks dramatic plots just like transporter technology does, so writers have to invent reasons why it can’t be used to resolve the situation around which the plot revolves.
I mean the limitation is less ‘things’ and more ‘events’ in a post scarcity economy. As mentioned up thread there are things that are only ever limited. Unique experiences, one of a kind items and the like.
Cubs World Series tickets would still have value even if food and items were ‘free’. Because there is an absolute finite amount available. Land is still finite. An original manuscript is still unique. For many an adequate substitute may exist for ‘free’, but people still pay lots of money for a first edition Audobon’s book for example.
There are also services. Even with automation, some stuff will always need human handling. And human interaction for things like education, medical services, counseling, etc, will always at least be desired.
Ah. A new thread I wonder what…
Never mind.