yeah but its too smart for joe soap, and IMO if you watch this your vote SHOULD count for more in democracy.

We spent centuries fighting for universal suffrage. Better to fight for an informed electorate than take away the right to vote. (There was a Storyville interview the other week, may still be on iPlayer, with Goebells' secretary. Her sheer ignorance of what was going on around her was chilling to say the least, but better education is the solution, not conditional votes)

paul tighe d mem Myt5?, Teooteo

and scientific advancement and hydro carbons

@@rodrigoameixa6792 prove it , I can show u innovation happens at the same rate even in depressions its a technical process. If the tech was around in feudalism u would say the same thing

@@rodrigoameixa6792 wtf are you on about? The Soviet Union have major advancements in eye care (thank them for laser eye surgery) innovation is a technical process. Not an economic development , these systems only produce the end goods and disabute it. Science is apolitical , there is not a conservative or Labour party way of making a aeroplane. There is principles of how and why it's made. The "profit" of selling said good is irrelevant. People will want to improve things and figure shit out is part of human nature. Thus is the last talk to you . You free market zealot.

​@@rodrigoameixa6792 No it didn't - decades of state-funded research did. That research was handed to the private sector, who created goods with it, renting the "IP" back to the people who paid for it in the first place. That's you. Your taxes also pay for the enforcement mechanisms that maintain the state-backed monopolies on information.

Bog Creature bullshit

Wtf are you talking about?

@@joelcoool it's a meme page on facebook inspired by Bastani's concept.

@@ejlatsaknetxis Thought it was a meme from Star Trek

dwc1964 Logically, perhaps, but the argument for automobiles comes down more to convenience and comfort. People like their own space, their own transportable storage, sound systems or quiet space, etc. They like being able to go wherever they want, whenever they want, instead of relying on a public transport schedule and route. EVs make things more convenient and decentralized, charging at home instead of needing gas stations, etc... I see more people owning automobiles under a technologically driven communist system, not less. Especially in the wake of Covid, stuffing everybody onto the same public transport might not be such a desirable thing. As much as possible, everybody should have their own personal transport.

@@AWSVids for moving around the city, I've found it more convenient to use public transit and *not* have to worry about parking or being tied to my vehicle - I can go wherever I want and hop on the nearest available transit to wherever else I want to go. And the major maps app can find me a few different ways to get me from any A to any B in the greater metro area, and there's another one that uses the transit agency's GPS to show you where the vehicles actually are. Obviously, if you live outside a major metro area with decent public transit (and my city really ain't that great either, tbh, but I'm in a very good spot for it), or if you frequently have to schlep lots of people and/or gear around, then yeah, you'll want a personal vehicle. But the automobile is still the worst tool for the job of moving large numbers of people around a densely populated urban area, and that's just the fact.

Also getting some economists, geologists, etc. would help.

Is your FIL British?

Maybe I've missed it, but I've never seen the people from that project clarify who will own the means of production. And that's the central question in these technoutopian visions

Gary Purkeljc That's exactly what I was thinking too!

I was gonna say that. Jacque fresco. Has already put the plan of how to do it not just words. He actually designed the cities and how they will function.

Travelcrip yeah he’s off with that, capitalism created its last child with Artificial intelligence and A.I. Will kill capitalism off.

You can buy the book directly from Verso!

@@NovaraMedia That's great, thank you!

Also, asteroid mining would not be a sustainable option as it would be adding mass and element imbalance to the earth (albeit very slowly but still significant) And on the subject of A.I that is intelligent enough to think like a human which is what you would need in order to eliminate work for humans (otherwise you would still need engineers etc) then what would that mean ethically as it would be conscious to a certain degree (if not completely). That wouldn’t be communism it would be capitalism in the form of using A.I labour to benefit us.

The UK is contracting diesel generators as the capacity market has been implemented. Rather than reducing fossil fuel dependance, the intermittency of PV and wind has increased it. Indeed the majority of winning bids in recent years for the UK capacity market have gone to large incumbent coal and gas plants, because they provide the largest amount of system inertia and therefore, capacity credit. Ironic that a mechanism intended to promote "demand response" (power rationing) and "energy storage" (buy low, sell high, a new stock market for electricity) has instead empowered generators that have been able to be relied upon - coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydroelectricity. It is an ample demonstration of the fact that "marketisation" of _services_ is fundamentally flawed and always has been. Governments around the world did perfectly fine with vertically integrated, nationalised utilities that had planning horizons of 20 years. There was always an excess of generation to account for unplanned trips or grid disruptions. Electricity is a service, not a commodity. People can and do die if this service is cut off. To sell off power generators like trinkets at a garage sale and then have private companies "bid" into a "market" is a recipe for incumbents to ride their assets into the ground so as to minimise capital expenditure, while guaranteeing the rise of a complex series of easily perverted incentives to drive investment - where before investment could be rationally and importantly, be democratically planned. UK reserve margin has reduced under electricity marketisation. Prices have gone up, hurting ratepayers. Investment is moribund without direct subsidies or incentives. It's almost as if all the things that neoliberals promised actually weren't real. Cheap, clean, reliable power is the backbone of a strong industrial sector and economy in general. Deregulation and marketisation has produced the opposite: a North Sea gas addiction. A moribund nuclear industry that can't build its own reactors. A coal industry that is all but dead, which is good for climate change but devastating for coal mining communities. And a dependance upon foreign manufacturing of imported solar PV and wind turbines, so you can't even argue the jobs angle.

Why would you assume that would happen at all? We don't need need any of our robotic tools which create goods to be self aware. Our toaster-ovens and our assembly line robotic limbs exist right now, and do not need self-awareness. Why would we suddenly decided they needed it? I actually legitimately can't think of a reason to. Nor can I think of type of 'goods' we make which we require and also requires self-awareness. Even in Art we already have not-self-aware robots which can make art. There are absolutely going to be ethical quandaries with regard to self-aware AI's, I just don't think this (what you've said) is going to be one of the problems they face.

Na

@@xxxxOS survival is competition against nature

@@8DX you're right, source was probably the wrong word but I would say competition is a great driver for innovation as well as human curiosity

Survival is competition against nature. Benevolence is competition against evil. Cooperation is competition against competition. Literally everything is competition. Even solid matter itself is composed of 99% congealed competition (1% expanding foam) .

The most big innovations ever made didn’t come from a competition as they are the pioneers

skugga quite right! Speaking more quickly than thinking! There are large animals that live a really long time though, the Greenland shark is one. I didn’t actually know the lobster thing re senescence 😬

Just as technology can make things more equitable or distribute resources more efficiently and/or easily, so too can it be bent to the purpose of domination and subjugation. An entire generation of university graduates in the United States were snapped up by the financial sector to engineer complex financial instruments and produce staggering profits that had absolutely _nothing_ to do with any physical commodity or service. The amount of capital sloshing around in Wall Street is tied up on bets upon bets upon bets, and in 2008 that house of cards collapsed as the banking sector found that if you load people up with too much debt, eventually, they can't earn enough money to pay it. All of those derivatives upon derivatives became actual obligations that had to be paid - but there was no way they could be paid. We're talking quadrillions in dollars of bets upon an economy that produces maybe a few trillion dollars of goods and services a year. So of course it collapsed - and it did so in a way that was facilitated by technology. Now you could be a Neo-Luddite and say "that's it. No more technology." And indeed that is the path some people have taken with anarcho-primitivism. Imagining some romanticised past before civilisational advancement where people were innocent of the original sin of inventing better ways of doing things. It's a reactionary mindset quite typical of deep greens and depressingly, an increasing amount of people in academia that lean left. Weary of the way capitalism seems to corrupt technological advancement into tools for domination and exploitation, they turn against technology itself. Which is self-destructive in 2 ways. One is that people do find that technology is helpful, otherwise they would not invent a better way of doing something. So immediately this reactionary line of thinking puts them into conflict with people that find technology useful. The other problem is that simply making a stand against something - pushing to ban it, etc. - does not change the demand for it, while playing right into the hands of corporations. Increased legislative barriers simply make big companies able to overcome those costs, even more dominant.

Malthias but when technology frees us from most labour, what would be the point in domination. It would be domination for dominations sake, and so utterly pointless. When all peoples needs are met, what is point of power as a concept... it isn’t from competition for resources. All it could only be from is sadism. This then will be the pressing concern for us in this future. Tackling psychopathy, which even a psychopath tries to do by faking normal behaivour. Perhaps this is the saving grace, a general attitude toward pleasantness/pleasantries for all humans.

@@lostgleammedia In a way, the Neo-Luddite stance against technologies like nuclear power, transgenic crops, plastics, or even advanced, highly energy-intensive society itself are a form of capitalist realism. They find themselves highly critical of capitalism's exploitation, but cannot think of any alternative to it. So they fight it the only way they know how: by opposing its tools of domination. The counter-culture of the 70's was as much a reaction against the technologies of the post-war era as it was a reaction against capitalism. Unable to overthrow capitalism, greens turned their attention instead to fighting nuclear power, fighting GMOs, and fighting plastic pollution. Today, nuclear power is basically the domain of state-owned industries. GMOs, once a thriving ecosystem of university and farmer co-ordinated innovation, is now almost exclusively corporatised and dominated by Monsanto and Syngenta. Plastics are dominated by BASF in Europe and by Chinese state industries, and plastics pollution continues apace. Their very opposition to the technologies as a way of sabotaging capitalism has instead pushed them out of democratic control and into corporate control. Increased regulatory barriers erected to make accessing the technology have made large incumbents even more dominant and not less. This is not to say that things like nuclear power or GMOs should not be tightly regulated. Indeed I would argue that all industries should be regulated to the same standards - and if they were, we wouldn't have global warming in the first place, since there is no way that the fossil fuel industry could ever internalise all waste generation nor could large scale agriculture implement those biosafety controls. My point is that instead of tackling the _institutions_ and the governments and the ideologies that maintained capitalism and reproduced its heirarchies and inequalities, greens attacked technology as a reaction against the way capitalism used technology for domination. In so doing, heirarchies were maintained, and technology remained out of democratic social control. Fully automated luxury gay space communism is the first synthesis of socialist thought that finally recognises this grave mistake and recognises the reactionary roots of Neo-luddism while finally seeing that technology is but a tool and it is up to humans to decide whether that tool is used for social goods or for social ills. But before we get there we really need to be imagining a real alternative social vision that encompasses all scales from the individual to the community to the nation state to the world. Neoliberal capitalism won in the 1970-1980's because they had that social vision of unfettered capitalism and unfettered "personal choice". Of course this vision was always a false one and a shiny lie told to the masses to bring them into compliance. That did not stop it from dominating all political discourse even up to today and even despite multiple economic downturns highlighting its many fallacies and inequities. Neoliberalism succeeded because it took people's dissatisfaction with statist Keynesianism and alienation from social control of the economic fabric of society and used that as a vehicle to destroy public services and mass privatise state institutions. It succeeded in toppling the USSR again because of the alienation of the people in the USSR from the state and the relatively low living standards and conveniences Soviet citizens enjoyed compared to their counterparts. If there is to be a social vision for the left going forward it will need to overcome these sources of alienation, while exploiting the alienation people already feel vis a vis capitalism's excesses. Statist political domination and state economic planning will need to be substituted for democratic control of economic planning and a more democratised form of local and federal government that devolves more power to a lower level. Technology can help with this quite a lot, especially if you consider the historical precedent of the Cybersyn system implemented by Stafford Beer for Chile's Allende government. I do think that Bastani here has made a strong argument for rebooting the socialist project once more from a technological humanist perspective. It will take organisation and a social movement with clearly defined goals and demands to achieve it.

Malthias GMO is wrong though, no research has gone into what a fuck tone of GMO pollen out in the wider environment will do to an already strained planet. No one knows what will happen then or what has happened now from GMO.

I'm not saying it's wrong I just don't get it

How does one put two different economic systems to the test? Practically speaking? One is established, the other is not. And you're excuse for uprooting capitalism for communism, is so to put the two to test of capitalism? These are not products on the market, these are economic systems that rule people's lives. You are not thinking your point through.

Hopeful Bacon shut the fuck up

Universal Basic Services

its not economics at all, its pure fallacy

No matter what, the intelligence of a device is limited by the AI and capacity allocated to it. A clock can never become equal in thought to a sci-fi robot unless you actually give it a micro computer with some god-tier chip. Which, if you don't want a slave clock, you don't make.

The machines we have now? Require a quantum leap to become analagous to anything more than single-function insect brains. We can make those *very* well, but generalized Artificial Intelligence out of Science Fiction? Is not possible on any extension or refinement of current technology. But I like how you're thinking inclusively. Where AI interfaces with my life, I like to treat it like a pet that I raise well. Someday, it may be a child, then a friend, then... But that requires several quantum leaps (and no, not quantum computers. They dont work that way).

Damani Wilson 😂😂

you can be gay if you want. that's communism. it's for gays and straight.

On the US side, that crisis was created when those specific central planners gave up, and let the market "self-regulate" through immortal institutions hell-bent on profits, damn the laws, damn your rights, damn whats good for anything else. Of course, if we remove the profit mechanism from such institutions? We might have some hope of sanity. Nobody's tried it yet without getting cut off from the world market, or getting privatized after ~10 years of existence.

I took that as him playing around with the Trump-says-GINA meme. Not that it needs a defense either way. Ethnic humor is not _the first step_ to alarmism.

it was a mockery of Trump

I think he forget the word "use". He meant "we can make more USE of the land we have"

no, it should be

Exponential change will make it happen in the next few years.

@Vicky Zabaras Yes, everyone knows that. However, exponential change will make a fully automated society happen in the next few years. Machines will be our slaves so all of us can live in prosperity.