Climate Denier Hard To Refute

[heydaralon]

China is not just like us. China is an epic Potemkin Village.

I agree. I think the situation in China is more precarious than ours. For better or for worse, and in spite of all that has happened, people believe in the fundamental legitimacy of the United States. It has survived a civil war, severe economic crises, and 2 world wars. China as it is today is a collage of various ethnic groups that were absorbed after ww2 ended, and held together through severe repression and use of force. The government of China believes that they can stave off serious political protests and problems by keeping the economy chugging along and ignoring the fact that every economy experiences depressions and recessions. I don't know if China would fall apart if they experienced a severe recession, but I do know that their leaders are quite terrified of this. I believe Japan's economy has not been so hot since the early 90's. Yet the Japanese people do not protest and destroy shit. They have lasted 26 years from that point. I'm not sure that China would last 26 weeks after a severe economic crisis. Contrasting the two tells me Japan has more institutional legitimacy than China does.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don't think so. The few Chinese natives that I've met have a very weird obedience to authority. Those people are willing to put up with anything, if they're told to.

It's the oldest civilization on earth, by far. And historically, the most stable. Outside of some rebellions, they held shit on lockdown since the dawn of history.

Mongol invasions, the British Empire, world wars, nothing cracks that stone. It's enough to make me actually consider StAs 'genetic behavior' theories. That is one incredibly resilient society.

[heydaralon]

I don't think so. The few Chinese natives that I've met have a very weird obedience to authority. Those people are willing to put up with anything, if they're told to.

It's the oldest civilization on earth, by far. And historically, the most stable. Outside of some rebellions, they held shit on lockdown since the dawn of history.

Mongol invasions, the British Empire, world wars, nothing cracks that stone. It's enough to make me actually consider StAs 'genetic behavior' theories. That is one incredibly resilient society.

Tibet and those western provinces etc, are relatively recent additions. They have put up with a lot of shit, but there is really no way to take an accurate poll or anything. I don't believe in that Fukuyama fairy tale that they are right around the corner from turning into a democracy (China and Russia are proof that Fukuyama is a discredited retard whose entire career is a waste), but I think their government goes to great lengths to control dissent and maintain the mirage of economic growth because they do not trust their own citizens. I believe the Communists took over in 1947. So in 70 years, this huge country comprising many different ethnic groups, held together by a largely defunct ideology, has not gotten to the point where they can accept criticism of government or acknowledge that economies are cyclical and eventually growth slows way down. I'm not sure how legitimate Communist rule is to the average Chinese person, but I'm willing to bet its not as airtight as we are led to believe.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don't think so. The few Chinese natives that I've met have a very weird obedience to authority. Those people are willing to put up with anything, if they're told to.

It's the oldest civilization on earth, by far. And historically, the most stable. Outside of some rebellions, they held shit on lockdown since the dawn of history.

Mongol invasions, the British Empire, world wars, nothing cracks that stone. It's enough to make me actually consider StAs 'genetic behavior' theories. That is one incredibly resilient society.

Tibet and those western provinces etc, are relatively recent additions. They have put up with a lot of shit, but there is really no way to take an accurate poll or anything. I don't believe in that Fukuyama fairy tale that they are right around the corner from turning into a democracy (China and Russia are proof that Fukuyama is a discredited retard whose entire career is a waste), but I think their government goes to great lengths to control dissent and maintain the mirage of economic growth because they do not trust their own citizens. I believe the Communists took over in 1947. So in 70 years, this huge country comprising many different ethnic groups, held together by a largely defunct ideology, has not gotten to the point where they can accept criticism of government or acknowledge that economies are cyclical and eventually growth slows way down. I'm not sure how legitimate Communist rule is to the average Chinese person, but I'm willing to bet its not as airtight as we are led to believe.

So far as I can tell, they really do believe in their system. Maybe it's a product of generational abuses of power, or just that they're so unique in the world, or something else.

As for those ethnic minorities, look up the diversity stats some time. It's something like 95% Han, I believe.

[Hastur]

Age and stability does not guarantee a great civilization. It's what they accomplish. What burden they take on and how they perform in doing it.

[Martin Hash]

Don't anthropomorphize society, it's nothing but a convenience for individuals to achieve their own goals.

[tue4t]

So.. are you saying.. This is a "moral failing that destroys our fellow man every day. Only by living under the Laws of Progressive God could they have saved themselves from ruin"?

LOL nice try.

No, the system needs to be changed. Capitalism is meeting the same sorry end as Communism did - massive corruption eating it from the inside out. It's unavoidable, unless we put an AI in charge.

I don't know what's next, but it won't be pretty. Maybe our grandkids will come up with something better.

As for AI, people just assume that robots would do a better job than humans because they are supposedly impartial. As a thought experiment, would you want to be governed by perfectly impartial AI? Would that lead to a better or worse outcome for you?

Yea, this question troubles me. To a certain extent the central planners might be correct in saying that it just hasn't been done right because they never had an oracle AI. I mean it's an obvious observation that human decision making doesn't always make the best choice in one's own interests. Our best tool so far in combating individual ignorance has been the market mechanism of collating and aggreggating the information held by the many into an accessible package of relative prices.

But what if we get a runaway super oracle AI that knows far better what is in our interests than we ever could. Would that justify slavery to a god so to speak. Is there inherent value in freedom, or is it only valuable insofar as its pragmatic utility to the collective flourishing and survival of the human species?

It's also always interesting to note that this was a question people before us tried wrestling with thousands of years ago before they could even conceptualise a pragmatic idea of a god e.g. super AI. We see it for example in the story of the garden of eden where 'god' deliberately puts something in the conceptual idea of utopia that he then tells adam and eve not to eat from. What happens when individualism gets cast aside as a religious concept at odds with science and rationality...

[Speaker to Animals]

You are assuming these AIs are like other people. They are just programs. Expert systems with all kinds of pattern recognition abilities to boot. They are more like theorem solvers. They would be able to tell you why they made a decision, provide all the alternatives, etc.

It would still be people who make the final call. The AI is more like a sophisticated analysis and decision tool.

For instance, some trading firms now run expert systems to make trading decisions. But people still have the final say. The expert system is just a tool they use.

[tue4t]

You are assuming these AIs are like other people. They are just programs. Expert systems with all kinds of pattern recognition abilities to boot. They are more like theorem solvers. They would be able to tell you why they made a decision, provide all the alternatives, etc.

It would still be people who make the final call. The AI is more like a sophisticated analysis and decision tool.

For instance, some trading firms now run expert systems to make trading decisions. But people still have the final say. The expert system is just a tool they use.

Yea, but I'm talking like real, science fiction oracle AI. The run away literal god type. Not stuff like algo trading.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You are assuming these AIs are like other people. They are just programs. Expert systems with all kinds of pattern recognition abilities to boot. They are more like theorem solvers. They would be able to tell you why they made a decision, provide all the alternatives, etc.

It would still be people who make the final call. The AI is more like a sophisticated analysis and decision tool.

For instance, some trading firms now run expert systems to make trading decisions. But people still have the final say. The expert system is just a tool they use.

Yea, but I'm talking like real, science fiction oracle AI. The run away literal god type. Not stuff like algo trading.

Well, if we can assume that the AI really is working for our best interests, then yes. We should submit to it.

Humans crave a daddy figure anyway, and I'd love to have a god in charge.