I honestly think most of these bugfuck crazy views stem from we humans not having evolved to deal with the modern world. People feed us the simple answers we crave.
We were meant to subsist off of grubs, berries, and whatever your extended family could hunt as we trekked around, dying randomly of infections and bear attacks. Then some fucking asshole started farming and it’s all been downhill since!
Really? Are people out there that thinks that death is a design flaw? I know it’s shitpost, but it’s based on something after all
I’m also hung up on “Crypto is UBI”. Surely this is a one off crackpot quote and not a thing, right?
This one is empirically falsified. I never heard it before, and even though I can believe somebody is saying it somewhere, it’s an incredibly stupid thing to say.
I believe this is an idea most legitimately championed by Nick Bostrom. Here is a video explaining his perspective.
I feel like, at least from the stance of abstract philosophy, he makes some good points. And I’m not enough of a philosopher to refute them (though I’m sure some have). Personally, my stance is “I’ll cross that bridge when I arrive at it” - I expect to die before that happens.
Yes, there are people who believe we will find a way to transcend death via technology. I personally think a world ruled by immortal omniwealthy methusalas that will never let even death release their boot from the necks of the common man is a bad thing, but…
Once I read a creepypasta where the wealthy spent a lot of money paying research and development of immortality, only achieving a worse version of cancer. The wealthy obviously went dead.
Depends on how literally you mean it, in general, those most likely to say it wont think that humans are literally designed not to die and only do so because someone made a mistake, but more that humans might be redesigned or modified not to (or at least not from biological aging). Not a hard to find sentiment if you hang out in spaces with transhumanists, but I find the ones that overlap with AI bros, that tend to have an attitude like “this will totally happen in my lifetime and with no effort because the AI singularity is going to come and give us everything in a few years” impossible to talk to, because all too often they will cite even the tiniest listed improvement in any AI system as proof that literally everything possible or impossible is about to happen and then insist you arent paying attention when you give them skeptcism.
post-scarcity society
RAM prices going up
It’s funny, just yesterday I looked at RAM prices randomly for the first time in months, thought “wow, that’s high”, and today I see reference after reference after reference about how high it is.
we will make global anarchy by tomorrow. no more money, capitalism and suffering, trust
The thing about Anarchy is that, for many people, the cashless society where you own nothing and are fully removed from the machine of industry is already here. Its just called “poverty”.
The problem is that this kind of poverty isn’t equally distributed. You’ve still got this large, heavily armed occupying force that preserves money, capital, and the painful prodding of induced productivity for everyone else.
Post scarcity is kind of an odd man out here. The idea predates tech broism by a solid half century, and informs a lot of contemporary leftist theory. There is nothing inherently wrong with using utopian thinking as a guiding principle for iterative policy. I’d argue that anything which doesn’t do that is cynicism.
While post scarcity is excellent and I do believe it is possible in theory, it’s used as a buzzword to handwave away all the dystopian things being pushed.
It occurs to me that I’d argue we’re heading towards a forced scarcity society rather than post scarcity. That’s the only way they can make sure we don’t get a Star Trek type future if/when we figure out fusion power. Hell, we’ve already basically been able to feed everyone for ages.
Artificial scarcity is definitely nothing new. Look at the diamond industry, for example. Diamonds are common as hell, but they regulate the supply so severely in order to sell these cheap chunks of carbon for thousands of dollars.
If there’s no competition in a market willing to race others to the bottom in terms of price, there’s no incentive to actually produce a reasonable amount of something people want. You can just withold supply and charge way more.
forced vs post scarcity
tbh i’m happy whenever someone at least acknowledges the tension between these two facets.
anyway my actual point, imo the “too many humans” propaganda is part of the forced scarcity lobby. there’s perhaps too many humans to live as wastefully as we are, so why wouldn’t reducing waste be our #1-3 top priorities?
but waste is more ‘profitable’ (in short term), so we go all in - while pretending Us Living & Others Not-Living is a moral obligation on our part wtflol
I choose death
Depending on how serious you are:
Choose weed instead
Or the crisis line. You probably already know where to find it. Help is available. You do not have to suffer alone. I love you homie.
He’s an assassassin. He never said the death was his own…
The asses are never safe
They be assin’
Just kidding, unless given that exact choice lol. Weed has been a great help this year. Love you too fam, appreciate the thoughtful comment.
“Everyone and everything will end in my lifetime. I’ll be here to see it all crumble just before I am incinerated in the blast.”
is another popular escapist fantasy.
No one wants to believe they’ll just have to hobble through a slow and painful decline.
OoooooooohPleaseNukeItFromSpace
I mean scientifically speaking, we are all made of stardust. Everything in the universe is. Including the existential crisis your trying to forget by disassociating.
And blue light does keep you awake. Are we team Esotheria?
