#41
[account deactivated]
#42
meet me in st louis
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

hmm... i hear you marjory but i'm not sure i like the idea of handing over our food supply to robots. seems like a good way to get genocided by the machines.



well we are being responsive to OP, donald

#43
cheeky nato's
Post rating: ~
we can resolve this problem through the triumph of the political will
#44
[account deactivated]
#45
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
maybe?
#46
[account deactivated]
#47
Post rating: ~
They're both fantasies of justice and death at the hands of our superiors, but a revolution is just one more turn of the wheel while a robot uprising could release us from the cycle
#48
[account deactivated]
#49
Post rating: ~
the solution to problems caused by technology is surely more technology. Maybe, as Heidegger says, the technological view of the world is itself the problem.
#50
Post rating: ~
maybe the organic view is an historical aberration and the mechanisation of humanity is a restoration of heartless newtonian physics in triumph over humanistic metanarratives to this pointless world
#51
Kurdt
Post rating: +++++
the problem with robot uprisings is that they are not marxist and consistently erase class
#52
[account deactivated]
#53
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: +
Just to be clear this is NOT a pro-suicide thread, encouraging people to kill themselves is a pretty INeffective strategy for the human population reduction movement. Like how many people are you actually going to convince, per day, to kill themselves, and for how long until the amerikkkan pro-life police force catches up to you? Perhaps this would be a good creative space to come up with a good ad campaign that encourages suicide, but in a gentle and non-judgmental way. None of that "you have nothing to live for" shit. Hmmm, is anyone really moved by raw data about consumption? Could somebody fracking build the website already? Like i wanna be able to call tHE rHizzonE a think tank on my resume or else im proably fucked.
#54
Kurdt
Post rating: ~

roseweird posted:

technology doesn't cause problems, it is just scapegoated for human problems by humans who forget that technology does not actually have a life of its own.


i like how the second part is a non-sequitur to the first part

#55
Post rating: +
Between July of 2011 and November of 2013 I was employed by an international non-profit charity in a clerical/journalistic role. My duties at The Rhizzone included coordinating several long-term projects involving political advocacy, raising awareness in identified target audiences and peer reviewing my colleagues' material.
#56
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
what if there was a linkedin for revolutionaries
#57
[account deactivated]
#58
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: +

gyrofry posted:

what if there was a linkedin for revolutionaries

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/julian-assange/32/671/804?trk=pub-pbmap

#59
Post rating: ~

roseweird posted:

technology doesn't cause problems, it is just scapegoated for human problems by humans who forget that technology does not actually have a life of its own.


you should read question concerning technology, but you won't because your utopia depends on it.

#60
[account deactivated]
#61
Post rating: ~
as you mentioned above, technology is natural to humans, beginning with tool use, etc. so the notion of an antitechnological situation doesn't make sense. also humans are not "flawed" and technology does not offer the solution to whatever problem you imagine. if humans are flawed morally, then a "moral imperative" for technological advance will not succeed.
#62
Post rating: ~
ie perhaps we need to make some moral advances in how we use and envision technology
#63
[account deactivated]
#64
[account deactivated]
#65
Post rating: ~
well good. bye. except i guess males is the biological problem you refer to?
#66
[account deactivated]
#67
Post rating: +
"fuck technology, maaaaaaan", i typed into my computer
#68
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
i use linux
#69
[account deactivated]
#70
Kurdt
Post rating: +
actually i think you'll find it has strong ties to the hip hop community
#71
Post rating: +

roseweird posted:

perhaps sufficiently advanced automation can include not just single varieties planted over and over, but profiles of crops and rotations in accordance with soil conditions... i think we can probably apply ecology to automation in a way that will eventually make machines better and more ecological farmers than humans, on account of their finer ability to sense and respond to precise soil and atmospheric conditions


there's nothing technically wrong with this, like i can't point to something and say "that's not true", but it's also just basically saying "well i bet technology can somehow improve agriculture, can't really tell you how or point to anything specific, i dont have any facts, but i would guess thats the case" which doesnt really say much of anything at all

#72
[account deactivated]
#73
Kurdt
Post rating: +
i bet technology, properly applied, can make everybody miserable
#74
[account deactivated]
#75
Kurdt
Post rating: +
does hydroponics count
#76
Post rating: +
in a lot of ways agriculture is already massively automated in developed countries, we can have almost no one working in agriculture in the US and Europe and even societies like China can have a majority of the population working outside of agriculture which is ... pretty unprecedented in history. but in comparison to the factory system it's much more dubious how much labor this has ultimately saved, because so much of that is just pushed down the production line. mechanized agriculture is extremely expensive, a single piece of equipment can retail from anywhere from $200k to in excess of $1m, and the market's so unstable Western governments have to prop the industry up with subsidies. there's nothing wrong with a vision of even more mechanized agriculture but that's a discussion that has to be rooted in the technical and economic details of that system, otherwise it's like those goons in d&d who keep talking about asteroid mining and space colonies but we have no feasible or economical idea of how to do that yet and they just respond with "well, Science progresses, im sure well figure it out."
#77
Post rating: ~
.
#78
[account deactivated]
#79
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: ~
the mechanization of agriculture doesnt have to save any labor, in fact i think that as the population goes up, it takes more labor per person, for each said person, to continue to exist; and according to my research, capitalism thrives off this trend.

hents, my thread about making less people. how to add negative six billion people to the planet. probably more. i think there should be maybe 1-2 million people
#80
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
there already are 1 - 2 million people. the rest are sheeple.