I imagine some kind of schism and a(nother) American pope

Or be sad you weren’t born 10.000 years earlier with a 15 hour work week.

Currently reading: James Acaster’s Classic Scrapes. A funny collection of stories from his childhood, an enjoyable read. I’d recommend it if you’re looking for something light and funny.

Before this, I gave up on the book All Our Wrong Todays by Elan Mastai, after about a hundred pages. I just couldn’t get into it, the story kept halting in favor of flashbacks and setting the MC’s backstory. I hate stories not starting soon enough with the actual story. Unnecessary to say, but I would not recommend this :)

Yes indeed! In my mind civilization and hierarchy overlap perfectly, am I mistaken? Care to hand me some examples where that is not the case?

It wasn’t meant to come over as cynical. I just wanted to indicate how this is not exclusive to these times. Before the modern age, there were already a lot of powerful people doing a lot of heinous things. I just wonder when the finger will start pointing, not at those in power, but at power itself.

a.k.a. the history of civilization

Nice, thanks for that! Bonus points for using DockGE, I prefer that over portainer as well!

deleted by creator

Appreciate the insight! I vaguely recall hearing that before, but it seems to have been drowned out by AI’s rising popularity and omnipresence.

Dude, Walter, Donnie and the Jesus from The Big Lebowski. Whenever I see Turturro play any other role, he’s so bland and normal.

Is Claude blackmailing Anthropic into releasing this news? Seems weird that a company would be so honest about this.

You need the state to optimize sharing of resources

I don’t believe this to be true. There were no states in the earliest of tribes, yet they survived:

early human societies managed resources through communal efforts and mutual agreements without the need for a centralized authority. These tribes relied on shared cultural norms and direct cooperation among members to allocate and utilize resources effectively. The absence of a formal state did not prevent them from thriving. Instead, it fostered a sense of collective responsibility and interdependence. This demonstrates that resource sharing can be successfully managed through decentralized and community-driven approaches, challenging the notion that a state is essential for optimizing resource distribution.

you get smaller and smaller tribal groups competing

Over scarce resources - yes that is a plausible scenario indeed. That’s why a plan is essential in order for people to be able to believe in such an undertaking. The groups will need to federate on the level of neighborhoods, towns, cities, states, nationals, and eventually, the planet. If attained, that’s all the protection they’ll need. But granted, that’s a big if.

Not really sure why, but the title reminded me of this Frankie Boyle joke:

American foreign policy is horrendous 'cause not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what’s worse, I think, is that they’ll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.

An Inconvenient Truth came out almost 20 years ago. The “lesser evils” have had what, 3 terms, in that period? So projecting into the future, the next 3 DNC administrations will have a lot of work to do to solve this completely.

So yea, go ahead and keep that hope alive, but then also permit me to remain skeptical.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

deleted by creator

At the moment, it’s hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. People currently do seem as you describe, but I’m confident it’s not their inherent nature. They were taught to be that way, so perhaps there’s a way to unteach.

Eventually, I reckon we’re progressing towards a point where the state will no longer have sufficient funds for the most basic services towards their citizens. People at that point do have an incentive to be compassionate. Not sure if a state failing will provide for enough time for people to organize mutual aid groups and networks they can depend on, but at least it’s a glimmer of hope.

No argument here, I wholeheartedly agree. But let me state the obvious: parliamentary democracy is a feature of capitalism.

That’s the most important question of our time. We have only a few decades to not only come up with that answer, but also with its rigorous implementation.

There seem to be many theories and strategies, either working within and outside the current system, but few seem ideal. Further worsened by the fact that the more ideal a solution seems, the more change it requires of regular folks, thus the more resistance it will face.

But then again, I’m sure once more people see the necessity of it, more discussions will happen, hopefully resulting in better contemporary strategies.

There are arguments to be made in favor of that yes, in the sense accelerationism. But that is based on the delusion that the fascist state will eat itself in the end, which is not guaranteed. That and all the suffering of course.

What I’d really prefer is not to have a corrupt lying stooge between me and decision-making.

The nature of parliamentary politics sure, but that’s just oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy. No politician is ever responsible, stronger still, the more they push austerity, the more they are rewarded with top-level positions in international institutions. That is what drives politicians, not the betterment of their people. So I can’t undo myself of the impression that participating in this sham is reinforcing it, legitimizing it.