[ckaihatsu]

Poorly. Since I rape constantly, sex robots can't come soon enough!

Constant rapist, huh?

If you lower your standards a little there *are* sex *dolls* available *today* -- so I've heard. It would save some wear-and-tear on your fellow unconsenting vic-- I mean, *partners*.

[Beren]

This is rather *far-fetched*, and you're not specifying what your *concern* is, here.

Either it is far-fetched or I'm just predicting or extrapolating, and alienation of people from their humanity or human nature is my concern here, I guess.

However, it's not pornography specifically that I find problematic, it's rather hyper-civilisation through reckless technological advancement that rules us more than we rule it.

[QatzelOk]

...the Salem witch trials, sociologically, which weren't technological at all.
...irrespectively of technology:
One could say this about *any* hobbyist-type pursuit, like art in general, etc. (porn is not a technology)

I think I have to make what I mean by "technology" here.



In the case of monogamy and sexual regulations...

If you were playing the game Sid Meyer's Civilization, you would be working towards a civilizational advance (technology) called "Sexual Regulation of Humans" and it would require that you had already mastered "Animal Husbandry" and "Ideology" first.


In this illustration of dialog boxes from the game, the player is 6 turns from developing animal husbandry, and 11 turns away from developing sailing. Sexual Regulation of Humans is another few generations of development ahead, and eventually, a YouToo movement civilizational watershed will be "made possible" by the accumulation of other technologies.

[ckaihatsu]

Maybe it's always existed, however, by the help of technological advancement and virtual reality or robot technology it could completely replace real sexuality someday, which clearly points out the path human civilisation is actually taking.

Now it's starting to sound like a *scare tactic*, to freak-out the average person who will be stalwartly demanding 'real organic sex' with 'real people', in the upstairs bedroom of a subdivision house on the cul-de-sac of a suburban side-street.

Nice try.


---

This is rather *far-fetched*, and you're not specifying what your *concern* is, here.

Either it is far-fetched or I'm just predicting or extrapolating, and alienation of people from their humanity or human nature is my concern here, I guess.

However, it's not pornography specifically that I find problematic, it's rather hyper-civilisation through reckless technological advancement that rules us more than we rule it.

Got onto the 'technological singularity' teleology bandwagon, huh -- ? Any sales so far?


= D

[ckaihatsu]

I think I have to make what I mean by "technology" here.

Civ5logo.jpg


In the case of monogamy and sexual regulations...

If you were playing the game Sid Meyer's Civilization, you would be working towards a civilizational advance (technology) called "Sexual Regulation of Humans" and it would require that you had already mastered "Animal Husbandry" and "Ideology" first.

Jeez, so animal husbandry is a *prerequisite* for 'Master of the Empire' -- ?


x D

521341784.jpg

In this illustration of dialog boxes from the game, the player is 6 turns from developing animal husbandry, and 11 turns away from developing sailing. Sexual Regulation of Humans is another few generations of development ahead, and eventually, a YouToo movement civilizational watershed will be "made possible" by the accumulation of other technologies.

Um, yeah, *that's* 'technology'. (What was *I* thinking -- ?)


x D


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show

Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0

Spoiler: show

[Beren]

I think I have to make what I mean by "technology" here.

Sure, you actually mean civilization. Got it.

[Beren]

Got onto the 'technological singularity' teleology bandwagon, huh -- ?

I rather got onto the Marxist bandwagon, I guess, and don't believe that uncontrolled technological advancement under capitalism is really good for mankind.

[QatzelOk]

I rather got onto the Marxist bandwagon, I guess, and don't believe that uncontrolled technological advancement under capitalism is really good for mankind.

And this destruction of the future is possible under Marxism as well. It all depends on how "common good" is defined, and also what kind of "production" is possible in a world of mostly rabid capitalists and their ignorant slaves. Whenever you see a "normal" person driving a massive SUV on a wide asphalt surface - whether it's a Lincoln Navigator or a Lada Niva - remember, we are walking (or driving) the ground of future generation's dreams.

If that dream is "shattered, pot-holed and polluted to the point of starvation," it was the previous generations who "decided" (by watching mass media) that this trampled poison crap is what the future generations deserve as a world in which to activate their "dream."

It's amazing how Modern Religion Technologies (monogamy technology, along with literacy and incense technoligies are required in most civilizations to advance to this stage) has not, in any way, defended future generations from contamination by "the faithful."

Perhaps this reveals that "organized text-based religion" was actually part of the process of destroying the future livability of the planet - allowing faithful-types to destroy the living earth in exchange for promises of heaven with perfect conditions forever.

[Patrickov]

Being more than just thinking about survival, human being are compelled to think about all those wacky stuff to avoid being bored to death. Technology is just one of them.

I really don't understand why the OP has to be so negative on this.

[Rancid]

I really don't understand why the OP has to be so negative on this.

Well, you just don't know Qatz.

He's only happy when he's not happy.

[Beren]

And this destruction of the future is possible under Marxism as well. It all depends on how "common good" is defined, and also what kind of "production" is possible

Under Marxism, or rather Communism it's all supposed to depend on the people at least.

[QatzelOk]

Under Marxism, or rather Communism it's all supposed to depend on the people at least.

But if a "vanguard" is appointed to "represent" the people's wishes, then we're back at Walmart and it massive parking enclosures for obese people with no social capital.

Never underestimate the power of the forces of backwardness and human vanity. The rich and powerful are always looking for ways to "stay in control of their slaves." Michel Foucault refers to all these "slavery maintaining institutions" as Disciplinary. A "vanguard" is likely to become yet another of these institutions of institutionalized Karen-hood.

Technologies are invented to help Karens and other totalitarians maintain control over their "domesticated" human populations. Could a form of Marxism avoid this trap?

[Beren]

But if a "vanguard" is appointed to "represent" the people's wishes, then we're back at Walmart and it massive parking enclosures for obese people with no social capital.

In a real Marxist view a vanguard is only necessary to lead the proletariat in the class struggle to overthrow capitalism and class society, like a war cabinet, but it's not supposed to exist afterwards.

[QatzelOk]

In a real Marxist view a vanguard is only necessary to lead the proletariat in the class struggle to overthrow capitalism and class society, like a war cabinet, but it's not supposed to exist afterwards.

And as a true believer, the communist-vanguard supporter is supposed to believe that this powerful clique will just decompose once a critical moment arrives.

It might be religious naivete to think that a powerful clique will commit hara kiri after gaining an incredible amount of power over other people.

I like Tito's "cooperative communism" and Cuba's well developed community cooperation networks for their bottom-up approach to assessing what people want and need. A vanguard will not have the broad general knowlege and familiarity with enough lifestyles to act holistically.

Communist technology - invented to cure capitalist and imperialist technologies - contains many of the assumptions and traps of the techs it was created to replace, and supplied a few other slave-creating features of its own (the vanguard says that this is for the collective and they are very modern and secular so you must obey these new priests).

So looking backwards at what was destroyed (by technology) - is probably a better approach that trying to invent something new and improved that a vanguard can market to everyone to gain power.

[Beren]

And as a true believer, the communist-vanguard supporter is supposed to believe that this powerful clique will just decompose once a critical moment arrives.

It might be religious naivete to think that a powerful clique will commit hara kiri after gaining an incredible amount of power over other people.

As a matter of fact Vanguardism is a Leninist idea, not Marxist, but some people actually need to lead the proletariat in the class struggle anyway. The whole thing is workable only if the proletariat is class conscious enough to succeed, which means their leaders are not their masters or overlords they mindlessly follow or obey to.

[ckaihatsu]

I rather got onto the Marxist bandwagon, I guess, and don't believe that uncontrolled technological advancement under capitalism is really good for mankind.

Technological development *is* ultimately uncontrolled under capitalism, as we've seen with the nuclear arms race between the two superpowers during the Cold War of the 20th century.

And this destruction of the future is possible under Marxism as well. It all depends on how "common good" is defined,

I think this mostly *obscurantist*, because 'common good', in the revolutionary Marxist context, is mostly meant in *biological* terms, meaning basic food and shelter for *all* in the world's society, barring no one.

and also what kind of "production" is possible in a world of mostly rabid capitalists and their ignorant slaves.

*This* is a different matter altogether, and mostly reflects Beren's concern about the status quo, above.

Whenever you see a "normal" person driving a massive SUV on a wide asphalt surface - whether it's a Lincoln Navigator or a Lada Niva - remember, we are walking (or driving) the ground of future generation's dreams.

I'm sorry again, Qatzel, but this is quite *muddled* -- you're being rather *dramatic*.

Does driving an SUV on a paved road really 'mess up' future generation's 'dreams' -- ?

What if, in a few years, all internal combustion engines become replaced with electric and hydrogen sources of fuel? Would your concern still be valid in the least, especially if 'future generations' *also* want to drive their own SUVs, etc. -- ?

If that dream is "shattered, pot-holed and polluted to the point of starvation," it was the previous generations who "decided" (by watching mass media) that this trampled poison crap is what the future generations deserve as a world in which to activate their "dream."

Now you've shifted to strictly *material* terms, as to whether world society should tolerate potholes and pollution -- there *have* been technological 'reforms' so far, particularly the catalytic converter, that have cut against individualistic sources of air pollution, as from internal-combustion vehicles, with many global-warming sources of greenhouse gases still to be addressed.

My understanding is that *animal* emissions -- methane -- are far more damaging to the environment than even CO2, so the societal priority should be a shift to *cell cultured* meat instead of animal-based meat.

It's amazing how Modern Religion Technologies (monogamy technology, along with literacy and incense technoligies are required in most civilizations to advance to this stage) has not, in any way, defended future generations from contamination by "the faithful."

Really -- ? You're entering into the *cultural* wars by denouncing *incense* and *literacy* -- ?

You're implying that humanity should only use *oral cultures*. Whatever.

And what the hell is 'monogamy technology' -- ?

Perhaps this reveals that "organized text-based religion" was actually part of the process of destroying the future livability of the planet - allowing faithful-types to destroy the living earth in exchange for promises of heaven with perfect conditions forever.

I'm no fan of monotheism myself, but you're definitely overreaching if you're using religious written culture as a way to denounce *literacy*.

But if a "vanguard" is appointed to "represent" the people's wishes, then we're back at Walmart and it massive parking enclosures for obese people with no social capital.

This is borderline *slanderous*, and even mean, if you think that mass-distribution vehicles like Walmart (corporations) *shouldn't* be wielded by the working class, in a revolutionary transition, to distribute life-necessary goods and services to those who need them the most.

You're confirming, with this line, that you're more concerned with *culture* / cultural preservation, than with life-necessary material supply to the underprivileged.


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

Spoiler: show

[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show

---

Never underestimate the power of the forces of backwardness and human vanity. The rich and powerful are always looking for ways to "stay in control of their slaves." Michel Foucault refers to all these "slavery maintaining institutions" as Disciplinary. A "vanguard" is likely to become yet another of these institutions of institutionalized Karen-hood.

Technologies are invented to help Karens and other totalitarians maintain control over their "domesticated" human populations. Could a form of Marxism avoid this trap?

No. A revolutionary vanguard is *anti-capitalist*, by definition, and wouldn't be *upholding* the kind of social privilege that you're indicating.

In a real Marxist view a vanguard is only necessary to lead the proletariat in the class struggle to overthrow capitalism and class society, like a war cabinet, but it's not supposed to exist afterwards.

To clarify, I'd say that a revolutionary vanguard is only necessary to *coordinate* the proletariat in class struggle to overthrow capitalism and class society -- yes, like a war cabinet.

It would necessarily be based on *mass support* from below, so it couldn't be *too* substitutionist, and the idea is that it would exist mostly to *repress the bourgeoisie* and coordinate material supplies within the working class. It would bring about the *liberation of humanity* from bourgeois ruling class hegemony, so once that's complete humanity would be able to self-determine, finally, and the vanguard itself would be *defunct*, by definition, since it would pale in comparison quantitatively to all of humanity.

And as a true believer, the communist-vanguard supporter is supposed to believe that this powerful clique will just decompose once a critical moment arrives.

Marxism / communism / vanguardism is *not* a religion -- I've explained it to some extent *materially*, already.

It might be religious naivete to think that a powerful clique will commit hara kiri after gaining an incredible amount of power over other people.

That's not what it's about -- you're equating vanguardism to a standing Stalinist-state bureaucratic elite, but it's *not* Stalinist, or a standing government. (See above.)

I like Tito's "cooperative communism" and Cuba's well developed community cooperation networks for their bottom-up approach to assessing what people want and need. A vanguard will not have the broad general knowlege and familiarity with enough lifestyles to act holistically.

You *like* Stalinism / bureaucratic-elitism, and small-scale capitalism, then.

You seem to think that the vanguard will have to provide luxury-catalog-style *utopia* to all individuals, when that's not the case at all -- it's mostly to crush the bourgeoisie and to coordinate things internally for the working class.

Communist technology - invented to cure capitalist and imperialist technologies - contains many of the assumptions and traps of the techs it was created to replace,

Like *what*, exactly -- ?

and supplied a few other slave-creating features of its own (the vanguard says that this is for the collective and they are very modern and secular so you must obey these new priests).

It's not dictatorial over the working class and it's not religion, either.

So looking backwards at what was destroyed (by technology) - is probably a better approach that trying to invent something new and improved that a vanguard can market to everyone to gain power.

So you're content to retain bourgeois ruling class hegemony.

As a matter of fact Vanguardism is a Leninist idea, not Marxist, but some people actually need to lead the proletariat in the class struggle anyway. The whole thing is workable only if the proletariat is class conscious enough to succeed, which means their leaders are not their masters or overlords they mindlessly follow or obey to.

Yup.

[QatzelOk]

As a matter of fact Vanguardism is a Leninist idea, not Marxist, but some people actually need to lead the proletariat in the class struggle anyway. The whole thing is workable only if the proletariat is class conscious enough to succeed, which means their leaders are not their masters or overlords they mindlessly follow or obey to.

My point is that one technology (communism texts) leads to another (vanguard strategy) which leads to another (domination through propaganda). And that this line of technologies ends with premature death or extinction.

If technology is a death trap, then communist technology is just a different way to the same destination. Communism is a bit more like the natural form of human social organization (sharing, group conscious, concerned with the basics of life and the average person's betterment), but it is still a tech that will fail and end up creating new techs that will also fail.

Does driving an SUV on a paved road really 'mess up' future generation's 'dreams' -- ?

The better question would be: do slick moderns care enough about future generations well being? I think the answer is obviously NO, and this is I believe, a result of all the techno-pollution in our souls, not just in our driveways.

Parents practice things, in our day, that will ensure that their own offspring will live the nasty, short, brutal lives that Hobbes said would happen if we ever stopped being capitalist white-supremacists loyal to European ideologies.

"The adults in the room are shitting in their children's bed" is not an exaggeration. And we got there through modern propaganda and through the alienation resulting from modern tech's life change requirements.

[Beren]

My point is that one technology (communism texts) leads to another (vanguard strategy) which leads to another (domination through propaganda). And that this line of technologies ends with premature death or extinction.

If technology is a death trap, then communist technology is just a different way to the same destination. Communism is a bit more like the natural form of human social organization (sharing, group conscious, concerned with the basics of life and the average person's betterment), but it is still a tech that will fail and end up creating new techs that will also fail.

Your point actually seems to be that we should be the least civilised possible, we should be apes again if we could.

[QatzelOk]

Your point actually seems to be that we should be the least civilised possible, we should be apes again if we could.

We still are apes.

But through the dark magic of technology, we have become apes who play with nuclear fuel rods and ocean acidity. And we play alone and are losing more and more of what it means to be human and to be happy.

[Beren]

We still are apes.

Then we should return to being apes only, which is simply impossible. But even if we could do it, how could we exclude the possibility of a restart? It's like science fiction more than Communism is.