CinderiaBoard

Exaequatio wrote:

How's everyone? Been quiet...

Work’s been stressful but at this point it’s literally just “that thing I do to not starve while I do what I actually want” which is elucidation and writing.

I have discovered that what I want most in life is to create art and anything that stands on the way of that is not to be respected, including a system which forces me into backbreaking work lest I starve (America really has no value for any kind of art). I have stopped giving a sh*t what happens at work, and so have basically everyone else there, because the supervisors are micromanaging hyper aggressive *ssholes and we also have absolutely no investment in it when we don’t have direct control over our livelihoods and the work is literally just used as a coercive mechanism for control.

All that being said, the writing has been going well. I know I haven’t really updated the facebooks in a while, but for me it’s easier to get it outlined on paper first.

Been having some wonderful ideas for how to move forward.

Essentially, I’m doing a kind of plot where Cinderia was actually seeded as Asgard in order for celestials to prepare for Ragnarok but through the Period of Disillusionment the Asgardian power structure collapsed and left a more modern map of Cinderia. For Cinderia, the people of the planet will have to rediscover their past, weigh it against their present situation, and figure out how to shape their destiny. It’s also an exploration into the spiritual and material connections that trigger Karma and the question of how much and what kind of control does an individual or a group have in their overall destiny.

I've been sick for the last week, but I've started a job in the national parliament here, and I've been learning to skateboard

Nickel Empire wrote:

I'm doing alright. Just finished a 9 day work week so I got tomorrow off. Got promoted after a month at my new job. So everything has been going good for me.

How have things been with you?

Nine days straight? Oof, what a ringer. Glad to hear about the promotion though!

The Grene Knyght wrote:

I've been sick for the last week, but I've started a job in the national parliament here, and I've been learning to skateboard

Oof! Hope you feel better soon!
What kind of board are you getting? :3

Petrokovia wrote:

Firstly, I would like to address something important I've noticed overall from the argument you're presenting. It seems you view the world from a very "economic" lens

Yes, I would certainly say that this is true. Increasingly so as I get older. I see economics as the bedrock on which much of society rests. If we don't have our economics in order we don't have prosperity. If we don't have prosperity we also do not have a beneficial social life. Even so, what you say next though, I personally feel like you are make a few assumptions (not only about me and my views but also 'capitalism' in general) that I believe are not necessarilly correct. I'll take those point for point.

Petrokovia wrote:

that the motive force of change in the world comes top down from those with material wealth which is based on some form of intrinsic value.

I don't believe that looking at the world though an economic lens implies that one believes change and innovation comes from a top-down dynamic. It really depends on what perspective you take in this regard I suppose. Companies produce goods and services for which they believe there is a demand but how do they know whether that demand exists or not? They can do market research, sure, but even in those cases much of this is trial and error. Companies and their products/services compete for relevance and that relevance is determined by consumer mindset. If it is valuable to them they will consume it, if it is not they won't (and the product will cease production). This "voting with your dollar" kind of dynamic is in a sense a 'bottom-up' one and in the end determines what will be produced. It's this sort of "price singaling" (to quote Von Mises and Von Hayek) which is inherently decentralized that makes an economy work. Without that information I think it is sheer impossible to know what society, what humans, really need.

As for the intrinsic value comment, I don't really follow your reasoning (or more accuratly, I don't know what you mean by it). I'm personally don't believe that something like intrinsic value even exists, al least when are speaking in terms of products. As far as I'm concerned, no object or service has any intrinsic value and all value of these things is determined by perception of value by consumers (perception which is based on personal preference determined by the personal aptitude and the thin human condition that was mentioned earlier). As such, to give an example, an apple does not have any intrinsic value. It merely has an ability to be nutritional. To make ones hunger go away. So when I'm hungry this apple could be very valuable to me. Yet every apple consumed reduces my hunger and as a result, it's value to me, up to the point my hunger is over and, in that moment, any apple ceases to be of any continued value to me (until I grow hungry again). Meaning all value is projected onto objects by consumers based on their current conditions. It is what makes the price signaling necessary to make an economy work if you ask me. As such I don't really get what you mean by your intrinsic value reference.

In other words I don't think that what you said here:

Petrokovia wrote:

I look at things in a bit more of a social lens, and believe the motive force of change in the world comes bottom-up from the masses. All things, all actions and interactions, come from the network formed by the goings-on of the people.

Is fudnamentally incompatible with my point of view.

Petrokovia wrote:

Simply put, the masses are the ones actually extracting and refining resources, building things, etc. and thus are the ones who shape the world.

In terms of pure execution yes. When it comes to the ideas driving that execution, usually less so (not saying that doesn't make it valuable though). But even so, I'm not such a big fan of the term "te masses". It's the same as "the people". Because, who are "the people"? Where do we draw the (if you ask me fairly arbitrary) line that seperates "the people" from the often derogatory refered to "rest". As far as I'm concerned rich industrialists are also part of "the people" and I see little reason in drawing distinctions between them and the regular workforce on this basis. Royalty, nobility and clergy in the so called 'ancien regime' is a different matter though as their position is protected and guaranteed purely by social convention while the rich in the modern world have some merrit going to justify their position (though some 'rich kids' were born in to it, like for instance Trump...).

Petrokovia wrote:

As Kim Il-Sung once said, "Of course there is something I believe in like God: the people. I have been worshipping the people as Heaven, and respecting them as if they were God. My God is none other than the people. Only the masses are omniscient and omnipotent and almighty on earth. Therefore, my lifetime motto is ‘The people are my God.'"

yeah well, this may be a bit more personal and subjective but looking at the state of his country, I'm not so sure this guy was sincere... Just my two cents.

Petrokovia wrote:

Under a system of private ownership, a hired worker generally does not have any say over the tools they need to perform their trade; Ultimately speaking under the law, every Amazon truck is the (majority share) property of Jeff Bezos, after all. As well as the warehouses, planes, etc. owned by the corporation. The top-down hierarchy this creates means that the workers' employment as well as their work duties are more or less subject to the whim of the business owner. Unions under capitalism only have bartering power, which is ultimately backed up by the threat of a mass strike (utilizing the masses as the motive force of change), which is just about the only thing to really force a capitalist's ego to step back. The combined might of the masses refusing to participate in capitalism is the only effective method to bring about real change in a capitalist system.

Under a system of private ownership, all things are first owned by the wealthy (who own the land the resources were extracted from and thus claim original claim rights to the resources; don't forget that because land is a commodity, all land will eventually be owned privately and the first people to own it will be those who are already wealthy). The worker must earn money from an employer if they wish to pay rent or purchase a house, to purchase the fruits of their own labor, or even just to simply advance in the world. To do this requires they perform labor for another, more wealthy person who can afford to "invest" in their labor; this is coercion, not done out of the free will of the worker. However, a stagnant wage (more on that next paragraph) means they have no way of keeping up with or surpassing rising living costs.

Profit is necessary for a capitalist enterprise to keep up with market competition, inflation, and (promised) rising standards of living (necessitates increased pay, which is balanced out by increased production costs and leads to little net change either way). Therefore, every person will either have to purchase a house from another person (or the bank) or pay rent to live (read: not die) on someone else's property, and the payment demands will inevitably increase with time. Inevitably stagnant wages lead to an inevitable economic bust as the workers who are also the consumers no longer have the purchasing power to pay for the very product they are making. I believe stagnant wages are an inevitability under capitalism due to the necessary drive for profits; instead of purchasing commodities to use (and thus reinvest in society in a way), capitalists essentially buy commodities to turn them for a profit by coercing people to do labor and paying them less than the value they have put out; they then must use that stolen "profit" to expand their corporation (otherwise their competition will grow faster than them and put them out of business). The core of capitalism is essentially a glorified pyramid scheme, in my eyes.

As for the capitalist "taking the risk," firstly, I do not believe this warrants the exploitation, as it is a poor argument. A more egregious form of this "risk" was taken by the colonists who conquered the Americas and set up slave plantations, yet slavery is still undeniably exploitative and thus wrong. Workers employed by a capitalist are giving their life, time, and very bodies in order to get the corporation to keep going; that is a very serious investment, and if they are fired or the corporation falls through, they are left with no wealth and no job, which is also a pretty big risk. In addition, wealth is insured by others with wealth, and the bigger your number, the more insured it's gonna be. If Tesla's stock plummeted to 1% of its current cost and the entire business went under, Elon Musk would survive (probably with substantial amounts left anyway due to his many other investments) and have a very different reaction to the whole fiasco than the thousands of workers who would lose their jobs and possibly their only source of income. If a company was started by the joint investment of many people however, a failed startup would impact each person much less, as the initial cost of investment per person is much less.

In addition, the idea that the "extra labor value" (from my perspective, this is just labor value which the worker produced, not conceptually different than the rest of the day's labor or "extra") didn't "yield any value to them" yet is discounting the fact that they already invested their time and effort into creating it. Additionally, the "return" they received in the form of payment, as previously pointed out, has to be less than the output value of the worker for capitalism not to implode, so they clearly are getting no "return" on that labor. It's that exact "return" that gets taken by the capitalist as "profit."

So, a determined group could start a co-op much more easily than private enterprises under capitalism do. After all, not everyone can be a manager, because who will do the labor? So the number of management positions in capitalism serves as a clear bottleneck for wealth. Combine this with the idea that management is a skill and managers look for workers with "natural skills" and you get a really scarily fascistic concept: there are some who are just born naturally better suited to lead over others.

While pretty much anything you've said here is more or less true and I sympathise with it in many ways, I think I have to clarify something first. When I talk about capitalism, I tend to mean it in a narrow sense. While what you described above here is capitalims in a broad sense. What I mean by that is that for me capitalism really revolves around the idea of determining value and the exchange of that value in the way that I described in my previous comment. This is a dynamic which pattern can be observed in many layers of society and also nature (the gene analogy I made previously).
And I do agree that too much concentration of wealth and resources into the hands of a relatively small circle of people is harmful to society, the fact that this concentration happens, when the right forces determine the allocation of these resources (such as well informed consumer behaviour), this is not a bad thing as this is basically a bottom up dynamic, as I detailed above. As such I am a big supporter of antitrust law and the idea of "the strong state" as was detailed by the ordoliberals. In one short sentence: the market is a game which nobody should be allowed to win. As such, I don't think the idea of private ownership is necessarilly the problem here. (For the record, this can only work in the context of a “state” or a stateless entity with a high social value for property, therefore the idea of “Anarcho Capitalism” is completely ludicrous. Just wanted to say that…).

Also, I do not oppose the idea of a Co-op. I’m even part of one. A siginifcant amount of Co-op’s are present in the world and I feel mainly “neutral” about the whole thing. On the other hand, I think, if a Co-op was always the better system of organisation, they would have taken over by now. Co-op’s have existed since the dawn of the industrial revolution and as such are as old as the more hierarchical system that is now common in most enterprises. As a market tends to turn to the most “successfull” formulla (however one defines success in this instance), I don’t think a Co-op is always superior in organisational terms or it would probably have becoem the dominant form of enterprise organisation by now. I have always also wondered about how a Co-op would even function in this way

On the idea that some people are better “leaders”, I think that is indeed the case. Though the idea of “born” leaders is a bit strange, the way I look at it is that they just have a natural aptitude for certain behaviors so that others, who may feel they lack the same kind of aptitude, will automatically place them in such postions. As such, true “leadership” comes from the bottom, not the top. This is often not the case in our society as people get appointed to leadership positions, not because of this aptitude but for political reasons. The latter definiton one could (though with a bit of a stretch in my opinion) call “fascistic” but not the first one. That doesn’t however mean that that is always a good scenario though because it wil most likely result in a form of “mob rule”. As such I find the advocation for “bottom up” processes combined with the rejection of the idea of “natural born aptitudes” (such as “leadership” or any other kind of “aptitude”) into a single person quite strange as these (as far as I can see) are concepts that run counter to one another.

To me capitalism is just a tool. I don’t like it, nor do I hate it. A tool (such as a hammer) can be used badly (using the stick to knock a nail into a board rather than the head) or even malisously (smashing someone’s brain in with it) but when used correctly (using the head to knock a nail into a piece of wood) it will be very efficient. And right now, I think capitalism is mainly used inefficiently. Some let it go of into the wild with no restrainsts, allowing it to be used maliously, and sometimes the value of the tool is even put into question (allowing it to be used ineffectively), rather than just embracing what it does well.

What you said about “warranting exploitation” is in my opinion not really the correct way of looking at it. When there is a mutual transaction, I don’t think there is any exploitation to speak of as both sides agree that the transaction is mutually beneficial. Off course, not everyone has the same kind of bargaining “firepower” to get the deal that they would consider mutually beneficial and that’s what I think a UBI will mitigate, more on this below.

Petrokovia wrote:

I disagree with the notion of born natural skill in this way.

I wasn't suggesting one is born with specific skills but rather with specific aptitudes that makes it more easy to pick up certain skills and as a result peaks their interest more than other things. Call it "talent". Which as far as I'm concerned is just as much a physical attribute as someone who is tall, just located in the brain structure of that specific person, rather than in any kind of outward capacity.
Though, talent only constitutes a “potential” and that potential needs to be nurtured. Without that nurturing “talent” alone won’t get one anywhere. It’s “a tandem”.

Petrokovia wrote:

People are capable of learning all kinds of new skills, and very quickly too.

I believe one can learn almost anything (emphaisis on almost) to a certain degree. I don’t think anyone can be a high achiever in pretty much anything though. That requires the aforementioned “talent” in my opinion.

Petrokovia wrote:

It's just that not all people learn the same way, so education should be tailored to the individual (I'm assuming this is a point we agree on).

Very much so!

Petrokovia wrote:

I believe one of the principle driving factors is will, followed by material support; any person who is properly supported materially and psychologically and truly wishes to learn a subject, can do so with time. After all, people are incredibly adaptable.

I’m much less optimistic in this regard. Even with the will and the material support, one can still fail when one does not have sufficient aptitude. In addition, I don’t necessarily think that this is a big problem as the will to learn something is usually derived from aptitude to begin with, at least when the reason why they have that will originates from a sense of self awareness and authenticity. I can imagine such will arising from external factors too (such as social status). One can “want” to be a lawyer or a doctor for instance for either because it is considered a high value profession and as such it will grant you a higher social standing (and as such, a higher spot in the unspoken social hierarchy) or because the payment is greater (or both, since both these things are, at least in our society very much connected with each other. I’ll come back to the point of social status later). Both of these reasons are bad ones however (or at least I believe so) as this projected onto the person from an external source so the reason for wanting to be that person is not derived form oneself, which is the only way to truly find what you are good at and where you will excel in life. (And I assume we agree on that last sentence as well).

Petrokovia wrote:

To the contrary as I see it, capitalism was made by humans, and so the conditions in capitalism were made by humans. Humans are capable of abandoning outmoded ideals and systems which don't work for them, and the masses can solve these issues if we work together and cooperatively. Inequality is manufactured by an unequal system, not a natural byproduct of the world.

I suppose this depends on the definition we give capitalism, which we haven’t really defined so far.
When I say capitalism, I refer to it in it’s most basic form, namely exchanging goods and services between groups and individuals. One group or individual has a good, that it doesn’t necessarily need and exchange it for another good that they may value more. If the other party in possession of that other good values the other good also more than their own good, both parties gain when swapping that good. Money is just a representation of value in it’s “purest form”. Rather than that value being tied up in more specialized items.

Petrokovia wrote:

The "one genius" would have been working off of concepts and skills passed to them from other people in society as a whole. There's actually a very good chance that had they not entered their chosen field, they would not have learned the trade or had the experience necessary to develop the new idea in the first place, and would probably be thinking of other things more suited to their different occupation. Additionally, there's just as good a chance that someone else within the workplace would come up with the idea or something just as good, considering they'd be in similar circumstances. One can't claim sole ownership over an invention, concept, or idea, as all a person is and ever will be is technically a specific culmination of the world around them. Additionally, just because a person was the first in a group to invent something doesn't automatically give them ownership rights over the concept. Everything you see around you was invented multiple times in different places around the world by different people, and often by reworking previous inventions (which they had not created) to make something new.

If one thinks like that, than nothing is ever original and that is just something that I refuse to believe and here is why: Yes, we all stand on the shoulders of giants but to use and old proverb: that also means we can see further. To me originality originated from the unique combination of the natural aptitude we have (which is derived from genes, which also was given to us from other people, namely our ancestors), as such the “nature” part of the equation. And the influences one internalizes from education and personal study (if any) which is inevitably a collection of works created by other people. Indeed none of this is truly “original” but the combination of this together is (there is only one "you” and as such what emerges from that unique combination can to a degree be claimed as “yours” in my opinion. The only area where this can become a little shaky is with identical twins as they are basically clones. Even though they may not have enjoyed the same sort of “nurture”).

Petrokovia wrote:

When I say that you are the master of your destiny, what I am referring to isn't some mystic "you can use quantum voodoo to lift a car" stuff. I'm saying that despite there being material constraints to a person's interaction within the world, consciousness, and thus all of psychology, is emergent from a great deal of factors, many of which are optional, variable, ever changing, and/or entirely random. This means that there are no "absolutes" in psychology. One can not say that a particular emotion, state of mind, desire, or mode of thought is universal to all people; as long as a person can conceive of a philosophical methodology, there is potential for people to legitimately adopt it in their psychology and actions. For example, many people ascribe to the idea of "natural born psychopaths" who are clinically incapable of feeling empathy and entirely incapable of self-reflection (thus making psychopathology a "base condition" for the psychopath which they could not overcome). However, the more research is done into the subject, the more we have discovered that that could not be further from the case. In fact, a psychopath can learn to adopt empathy legitimately and leave behind their self-centered philosophy, if they wish to-and logically, there are many good arguments to be made for going the empathetic route, so it's not like no psychopath would ever choose to do this.

Think less "I can physically pull off any feat I want just by thinking of it" or "I can become immortal or impervious to bullets with my brain" and more [i]"I am able to choose how I think, feel, behave, and what my motivations are myself, and there is no single intrinsic aspect to consciousness which serves as an override to that ability within me or any other being."

In other words, if you model the brain as a computer, your thoughts, skills, philosophy, etc. could be analogous to commands, programs, operating system, and so on. Just as a computer may utilize different operating systems to determine how it runs and what programs work on it (like Linux, Windows, etc), your brain may adopt different philosophical ideals, which help shape the way you perceive and interact with the world. What being a "master of one's destiny" implies here is the capacity for this computer (the brain) to recognize when their operating system can't run a program, create a patch or download new operating systems, chose which parts of which system are compatible, and ascribe to the new system or even create a new operating system from what it has learned before. In other words, the human brain could be considered the biological equivalent to the "AI singularity" concept of a constantly self-improving technological intelligence. That being said, based on more recent findings from the scientific community mixed with my own anecdotal experience around animals in the woods, I also currently go under the assumption that all animals are as intelligent as humans, and that humans have overlooked this fact out of lack of exposure, language translation efforts, or ability to project themselves fully into the animal's mindset or situation, mixed with a heavy human-supremacist bias.

The computer analogy, in my opinion, falls somewhat flat in this instance. A computer is more than just software, it's also hardware. Software may have certain hardware needs (RAM, Processor, graphics card etc...) in order to run certain programs. Sure, with a computer, you could potentially upgrade that hardware in order to run that software, but only if the new hardware is still compatible with the motherboard of that computer (changing the motherboard is basically making a new computer because everything starts with that piece of equipment. With humans the supposed "software" and "hardware" are even more interlocked than is the case with a computer. You can't just replace parts of your brain. You can influence it with chemicals, sure, but that is at best a temporary solution as it is basically equivalent to pumping Nitro gas into a petrol engine (so i'll advisable in the long run). Also, software doesn't write itself as is what you seem to allude to. Software is often adaptable but in the end can only operate within the parameters that it was given (unless updated, which requires an outside hand to do so).

The AI analogy is closer, though I feel the need to add some nuance. AI's learn by experience, just as we do. And that works pretty well. Most humans are somewhat on par with each other in basic tasks, at least those that are around the average mark and higher (which encompases almost everyone). Things like running, jumping, pathfinding, basic problem solving, etc... Those kinds of things. I do however think that this ceases to be the case when one gets into more specialized areas. The more complex a subject matter, the more specialized it becomes and then it are tiny advantages that help them reacher higher than the next person. An analogy: In a dragrace with two of the exact same cars, victory can be determined by the slightest difference. Difference in weight of the driver even, or that split second quicker throttle response. And that's where people"s paths start to diverge. Some often claim that hardworking beats talent but I think this is only true to a degree. Consider a certain field (it doesn't matter which), where one person is talented and the other is average. Let's assume the average person is hardworking. In the event that the talented person is lazy, the hardworking average person will trump him. If the talented person has an average work ethic, he will, I believe, reach about the same result as the hardworking average person at much lower personal cost and if the talented person is as hardworking as the average person, the talented person will completely blow the average person out of the water. As such, I agree that everyone can learn pretty much anything, to a certain, acceptable degree. But only the talented people will reach the top (on the condition that they apply themselves).

But in the end I do agree with the fact that one is the master of ones destiny and one should defy the social pressure to find a “stable job”, at least if that is something one doesn’t want to do. And yes, human “software” is pretty flexible. Just not infitely so and that’s something I think we as a species and as a society need to come to terms with. However, nobody else should tell anyone what their limitations are. Letting them do so can be quite damaging when that person doesn’t have your best interests at heart (or even, when that person does, it may be dangerous but in that case it is mostly fueled by fear rather than malicious intent).

As far as animals are concerned, I personally am actually very fond of most animals (case in point, look at htis cute hamster with its cheek pouches https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWzuNr0ulUY absolutely adorable!) and I also think that animals are much more intelligent than most people give them credit for. Though to claim that all animals are as intelligent as humans is I think a littlebit of a stretch. There certainly are animals where it is plainly obvious that they have comparable intelligence and perhaps only lack a certain pair of specific limbs to reach the same heights as humans. Those in my opion include: Elephants, most primates, Parrots, whales, Crows, Ravens, Dolphines etc...
While I think it is important to adress the intelligence of animals (and humility in the right place is always a good thing and the human species could use some), It hink it is also important to not fall into the trap of false humility which is equally as damaging, both for individuals (I have some experience with that) and for groups (social groups and biological species alike). We humans are the current dominant species on this planet and there is a good reason for that. At the moment we seem to have been the most able to adapt to our surroundings, or I should say, adapt the surroundings to us (which is an interesting difference humans exhibit compared with most animals).

Petrokovia wrote:

I can definitely agree with this. And while I don't believe a UBI can solve the inherent inequalities of capitalism (I tend to think of it like a band aid on a bullet wound), I agree that in general it's not a bad idea and would certainly help mitigate some of the suffering, if temporarily. Don't read too much into my pessimism here, I do think UBI is a good idea, just not a permanent solution.

I personally have no such deep qualms about capitalism. I do think it's foundations are solid (as I believe the general dynamic of it is based on basic biological patterns of behaviour in a broad sense as I already detailed above). It's the packaging that's wrotten. And UBI may help "clean" that packaging.
To me it is more of a permanent solution as the most depressing thing I see in this world is people not being able to live up to their potential and this may help them greatly. I think it should be financed by a sort of Tobin tax. Some stock brokers argue that it will destory the stock market but I dissagree as every major investment capital this world has one (Tokyo, London, Singapore etc...).

It essentially gives one the (individual) bargaining power one needs to get that “mutually beneficial deal”. As I said before, this, I believe is recognising capitalism for what it is, a tool. A tool that we need to put into the hands of more people and teach them how to use it.

Petrokovia wrote:

I think you worded your views well. Coherent, detailed, patient, and respectful, so already well above the bar for a lot of political discourse in the United States, anyway.

Thank you (as did you), I try to make that a point of honor. It certainly is a lost art. Something I see on a daily (almost hourly) basis these days....

Sorry this took so long. I got distracted by, …well…life
I’m, as ever, not completely satisfied with what I wrote here. I think it lacks some additional detail that, at this moment, I don’t really know how to express too well (or perhaps I’m just holding myself to too high standards, I don’t know. Who’s to say…) But it is as good as it is going to get I suppose.

Wow… 10 whole pages of comment and reply (and itr still feels incomplete...) This is really getting out of control (in a good way 😊 ).
If you spot any unfinished sentences, let me know. I didn't reread the entire thing before I posted it here.

The Grene Knyght wrote:

I've been sick for the last week, but I've started a job in the national parliament here, and I've been learning to skateboard

Cool, what kind of job did you get? Did you run for a seat or is it more administrative?

Nickel Empire wrote:

I'm trying to post a response however it says I have inappropriate words despite there being none.

I have had that problem before as well. Don't know how I fixed it in the end. I suppose waiting a while and trying again may (emphasis on "may") work I suppose... To what were you specifically replying?

Nickel Empire wrote:

Just replying to Petrokovia and Exaequatio about my job.

Oh ok, congratulations on your promotion by the way!

Nickel Empire wrote:

Thank you. I was just explaining what I do for my new position, which in short is taking care of the sows about to give birth and piglets at the hog breeding barn I work at.

Aww, wonderful! Working with animals is always very nice :3

Petrokovia wrote:

Oh what’s your thesis on?

I'm looking at how urban noise affects avian cognition. So basically I bred zebra finches (basically the bird version of lab rats) in different conditions (natural background or "pink" noise, urban traffic noise, and no noise) and then I compare each group's scores on various problem solving assays.

Petrokovia wrote:

If you guys don’t mind actually, I think plurality would also make for a good discussion topic for our group and I would like to discuss more about my experiences with you guys!

Yeah I agree, I know nothing on the topic, so it would be interesting to discuss.

Roelandia wrote:

-snip-

As always, a well articulated response, Roel. One thing that I would critique however, if I understood you correct, you believe that economics is a way for which society gauges what is important and unimportant. But I find this to be a dangerous way to go about doing things. And I think that is what she may have meant regarding intrinsic value. I'm sure Petro would raise the various social issues that follow suite, but for me, as a biologist, the first thing that comes to mind is the conservation ramifications of your statement. Conservation is already coming at a painfully slow rate. Its severely underfunded, few changes are ever made, and we're losing faster than we're gaining. This is simply because people deem it unimportant. And I think all of us in this discussion can agree that our natural resources, at minimum, are important for our long term survival (despite how the general consensus behaves). This is perhaps my biggest complaint with capitalism; it often neglects the long term outputs in favor of immediate gains.

Nickel Empire wrote:

-snipity snip snip too-

Whoa... that sounds like a lot of work

Petrokovia wrote:

That being said, based on more recent findings from the scientific community mixed with my own anecdotal experience around animals in the woods, I also currently go under the assumption that all animals are as intelligent as humans, and that humans have overlooked this fact out of lack of exposure, language translation efforts, or ability to project themselves fully into the animal's mindset or situation, mixed with a heavy human-supremacist bias.

Roelandia wrote:

also think that animals are much more intelligent than most people give them credit for. Though to claim that all animals are as intelligent as humans is I think a littlebit of a stretch. There certainly are animals where it is plainly obvious that they have comparable intelligence and perhaps only lack a certain pair of specific limbs to reach the same heights as humans. Those in my opion include: Elephants, most primates, Parrots, whales, Crows, Ravens, Dolphines etc...
While I think it is important to adress the intelligence of animals (and humility in the right place is always a good thing and the human species could use some), It hink it is also important to not fall into the trap of false humility which is equally as damaging, both for individuals (I have some experience with that) and for groups (social groups and biological species alike). We humans are the current dominant species on this planet and there is a good reason for that. At the moment we seem to have been the most able to adapt to our surroundings, or I should say, adapt the surroundings to us (which is an interesting difference humans exhibit compared with most animals).

Since I literally study animal intelligence, I feel like I should comment on this.

The reality is, no animal matches us in "general intelligence". Whatever that means. A problem that has plagued the scientific world is of course anthropocentrism (frankly its plagued just about every profession to some degree or another). Animals have evolved to their environment and they do it extremely well. In many cases, their cognitive capacity in their specific skillsets that they evolved, far exceeds humans' ability to do that same skillset. For example, jackdaw memory on where they store their caches is much better than if we were to cache nuts. What humans have done is test animals on our own strong points in cognition and rate them on this criteria. Our abilities are important, whereas the things we're not good at is considered unimportant. But this reasoning is of course not true. And seeing the differences in focus of certain tasks over others makes the term "intelligence" break down. In fact, many experimental psychologists and behavioral ecologists are hesitant to even use the term "intelligence" because of how vague it is.

To bounce off of Petro's statement, I don't know it its necessarily "intelligence", not in the traditionally sense, but rather emotional intelligence. I don't know about organisms like reptiles/amph/inverts/fish, to which complex social bonds have never evolved, but with birds and mammals, where said bonds are common place, I think emotions and social intelligence are very high and possibly nearly as strong, in some cases as strong or stronger, as humans. It would be a species by species case. Actually, it would likely be an individual by individual case. But again, this isn't a good or bad thing. Each animal has its strengths, and comparing them to humans is actually extremely anthropocentric in its own right.

Exaequatio wrote:

Hope you're starting to feel better! Also congrats on your new job as well!

Thanks yeah I've caught up on sleep now anyway

Roelandia wrote:

Cool, what kind of job did you get? Did you run for a seat or is it more administrative?

Just administrative but I'm enjoying it

Petrokovia wrote:

Oof! Hope you feel better soon!
What kind of board are you getting? :3

I've just been using one I found in my parents' shed lol. It's probably been in there for years but I oiled up the ball bearings and it works fine. I can do one or two tricks now sometimes

Nickel Empire wrote:

So Moderna has finally fixed its issues and will be sending 68 million vaccines to Canada when we have a population of 38 million with already 30 million shots administered.

Coinciding with this is the Pfizer shots are now being delayed to Canada so now they are asking those looking for their second shot to get the Moderna shot if they had Pfizer has their first. I will be waiting until late July if that is how long it takes to get my second Pfizer shot.

The way first world nations have been overstocking on vaccines, when so many countries don't have enough, is so ridiculous. I mean, there's obviously the humanitarian argument, but even for people who don't care, there's also the practical argument that allowing the pandemic to continue in certain countries could allow mutations to occur

Exaequatio wrote:

As always, a well articulated response, Roel. One thing that I would critique however, if I understood you correct, you believe that economics is a way for which society gauges what is important and unimportant. But I find this to be a dangerous way to go about doing things. And I think that is what she may have meant regarding intrinsic value. I'm sure Petro would raise the various social issues that follow suite, but for me, as a biologist, the first thing that comes to mind is the conservation ramifications of your statement. Conservation is already coming at a painfully slow rate. Its severely underfunded, few changes are ever made, and we're losing faster than we're gaining. This is simply because people deem it unimportant. And I think all of us in this discussion can agree that our natural resources, at minimum, are important for our long term survival (despite how the general consensus behaves). This is perhaps my biggest complaint with capitalism; it often neglects the long term outputs in favor of immediate gains.

It was exactly in this area that I thought my explanation was a bit lacking detail but let me give it a shot and try to expand on my original comment.

The one mechanism that is, at least to me, is clearly discernable throughtout the millenia is the organic way in which society's grow, evolve and how humanity's social systems are organised. This is mainly an organic mechanism where individuals or larger entities discern what they own (which they establish by force, as there is no other way to do so, unless the other parties involved agree that they can have it even under the absence of force. Which is rare and often only happens between individuals that are members of close knit families and/or small communities) and what they can gain by trading what they own with something that somebody else owns (or take it from them by force, whatever is the less costly option). It is also this mechanism that we can see in the way all human society's are organised. Utopian ideals aside, all human society's are structured more or less hierarchically, some formally so, others more organically, and even then, in a formalised hierarchical system this is often instituted by that very organic mechanic, it was just formalised by its winners at a later date. However, setting such hierarchies in stone in turn makes societies inflexible and more often than not leads to their inevitable downfall in the long run. Examples that come to mind are: The Catholic church, the Russian empire, etc... Even society's that claim to be equal and level without any sort of hierarchy will organically generate that hierarchy just by mere human interaction (the soviet union being a prime example of that). The world is run mainly by social status. This is one of the few constants that can be identified throughout human history. The only thing that differs between all of these groups is the behaviour/mindset that grants that social prestige. In case of the Catholic church it would be piety (or at the very least a very thourough knowledge of the bible and Catholic dictates) with a strong emphasis on the institutionalized "place in society" that the so called ancien regime had created (Clergy, Nobility, the rest...). In the case of the soviet union it would be conceptually the opposite in the sense that status would be granted to those who were well versed in Marxist doctrine, had a devotion for Lenin and supported worker democracy (something a catholic would never do). Yet throughout it all the base mechanism is the same. A dominant group establishes a doctrine and the individuals that are the most well versed in it (whether feined or real matters little as long as the ruse can be kept up) are propelled up the social ladder. Whether the existence of that social ladder is acknowledged or not matters equally as little (Catholics put great emphasis on it and barely deny it while most socialist states of the past would have vehemently denied its existence in their societies even though it was clearly there). As a sidenote, there is one similarity between these two entities that I always found amusing, the adherence to a limited number of texts that they hold (semi)sacred... Something to ponder about for supporters of both "sides" I think. Besides these more "nurture" elements there are also nature elements that always seem to come back, for instance: the one with the most charisma and who is the most noticable will domniate conversation and as such will often be at the forefront of deciding what the social norms will become (often undercutting true "collective" debate) But anyway, I'm digressing. The point is that this mechanism is quite universal and it is precisely this mechanism that lies at the basis of the concept of the "market". Things, people, ideas etc... are "valued" by individuals and evaluated according to nature, nurture and already established social values (who themselves were established by the same mechanism beforehand).

The market forms the basis of Capitalism and it is perhaps here that I have to correct something. In my last comment I iterated the term capitalism, using it as synonymous with the term "market". This is perhaps not nuanced enough and as such I'd like to seperate these terms here. The market being the general mechanism that I described above which as I somewhat mentioned in between the lines is mainly a natural phenomenon (which generates social structures) and Capitalism being more of a social phenomenen constructed by said market mechanism and as such mainly exists within the realm of nurture rather than nature.

To dive a little deeper into those concepts, I don't think the idea of "the market" needs any more explaining than I already did but the idea of capitalism as I use the term here does: Capitalism has at its core the concept of the market but built on top of that are social institutions that make up modern capitalism. A prime example of this is for instance a bank. A bank is an institution that does not have to exist for the market to function necessarilly. It's an idea that took form under the merchants of Italy which had to deal with a lot of currency and exchanged them at these institutions. They later grew into something greater than that. Institutions that could extend credit to investors and entrepeneurs etc... Nowhere in the core of the market mechanism is it predetermined that something like a "bank" should exist "naturally" as such this is an example of the social institutions that make up modern capitalism. Sure, it was the market that created the need for such instutions through organic probing of the actors withing the society but those same forces could just as easily destroy them again when they are nog longer needed (I personally for instance am not a big fan of bank loans and the fact that they may control my life if I ever take one out is frustrating to me. I'm also quite fiscally conservative in this sense and like to keep any debts to a minimum. This extends to my idea of government spending as well). Off course, the mechanism isn't always given as much free reign and economic power very easily extends into political power when left unchecked. This is why an economic system can never exist in a pure vaccuum as in the end it rigs itself and as it is a game is in need of an "arbiter", that arbiter being a collecitve entity representing the entire society (including those same corporations and their managers), in other words a 'state'. And I think the "ideal" state should use the market mechanism as a tool to reach the theoretical potential of capitalism. Namely a system where a more or less level playing field is maintained and where individuals can freely benefit form each others labour. To specify, I don't think social issues and economic issues are necessarily at odds, nor do I think environmental issues and economics are necessarilly at odds (in contrast to what is often claimed). I truly believe these things can be harmonised. Economics is just a tool not just a gauging tool as you mentioned, which it is and I do think it is a good gauging tool to discover what is important TO society and while it may not always be the best tool for discovering what is good FOR society in all cases, such as conservation efforts as you mentioned, I think we can agree that what is important TO society is also good/important FOR society (sorry for the caps, its done just to emphasize it so the distinction is clear). One can argue that the "state layer" of society could/should incorporate a few sections that are not necessarilly subject to the organic mechanism that is the market and as such conservation could be one of those things. The only question I ponder in a general sense is where the line should be drawn. When it comes down to it I think this is the baseline conversation that any political party has these days, where that line should be drawn. And the answer heavily depends on ones world view/view of humanity (actually any conversation does I've found, yet most people seem to insist on discussing surface level topics which in turn sparks a lot of misunderstandings but I'm digressing again...).

In the end I suppose my fascination with economics (and I am very fascinated by the topic) has mainly to do with the fact that economics is the branch of the sciences that is the most in tune with the (in my opinion naturally occuring) market mechanism that I described above. Sure, not all branches of economics are advocates of that market principle but those that are nonetheless are most in tune with the concept. And as such it's something that I think makes a good starting point if one wants to understand human behaviour. As a final point on this, I think Capitalism is as successfull as it is (and even if one can debate the ramifications of capitalism, I think we can all agree that Capitalism has on multiple levels been fairly successfull even if it is only because it kicked of the industrial revolution and as a result raised globaal gdp staggeringly and as such also generale living standards) because it is so well in tune with this natural market concept.

As for your comment on how Capitalism tends to short term, that is very much true, though I doubt this is a nurture thing and I think it is actually more indicative of general human nature. The market mechanism and capitalism just bring that aspect of humanity to the forefront quite aggressively. It is true that (especially in the US it seems) this short term mentality is fairly institutionalised but even so I believe human nature in the first place is what institutionalised it rather than the concept of the market or Capitalism "socialised" humans into being this way.

For the record, I don't defend this market idea because I like it. In the end I feel fairly neutral about it but it's not like I'm defending it because I personally benefit a whole lot from it. In fact, it's this reality that has caused me as a person to be undervalued by a lot of people over the years and my life hasn't really gone too smoothly because of it. Then again, any hardships that I may encounter because of it (though still fairly mild by global standards) does not discredit the validity of the concept (in fact, it may even enhance it...)

So Exae, did this make sense? (I am a bit tired so some areas may have seemed a bit like a ramble...) Did it alleviate your concern a bit? (or did it make it worse, though I sincerely hope not...) Let me know. In fact, if you have the time in the coming weeks and feel like it, I suppose we could try and discuss this face to face in a videocall as this topic feels like something that could fill a few hours of conversation.

Also, why is it that my brian suddenly jumps into action when it's around midnight? I was free today, I had a whole day to write this (or do anything else), yet my brain juices seem to refuse to allign well under normal daylight conditions. I have often wondered why this is. Perhaps it's the fact that society grinds to a halt and as such ceases to be a both conscious and unconscious distraction on me... I don't know... Something to ponder about.

Exaequatio wrote:

Since I literally study animal intelligence, I feel like I should comment on this.

The reality is, no animal matches us in "general intelligence". Whatever that means. A problem that has plagued the scientific world is of course anthropocentrism (frankly its plagued just about every profession to some degree or another). Animals have evolved to their environment and they do it extremely well. In many cases, their cognitive capacity in their specific skillsets that they evolved, far exceeds humans' ability to do that same skillset. For example, jackdaw memory on where they store their caches is much better than if we were to cache nuts. What humans have done is test animals on our own strong points in cognition and rate them on this criteria. Our abilities are important, whereas the things we're not good at is considered unimportant. But this reasoning is of course not true. And seeing the differences in focus of certain tasks over others makes the term "intelligence" break down. In fact, many experimental psychologists and behavioral ecologists are hesitant to even use the term "intelligence" because of how vague it is.

To bounce off of Petro's statement, I don't know it its necessarily "intelligence", not in the traditionally sense, but rather emotional intelligence. I don't know about organisms like reptiles/amph/inverts/fish, to which complex social bonds have never evolved, but with birds and mammals, where said bonds are common place, I think emotions and social intelligence are very high and possibly nearly as strong, in some cases as strong or stronger, as humans. It would be a species by species case. Actually, it would likely be an individual by individual case. But again, this isn't a good or bad thing. Each animal has its strengths, and comparing them to humans is actually extremely anthropocentric in its own right.

This reminds me of quote by Steve jobs where he said something about that in every single metric (endurance, speed, survivability etc...) humans trailed behind animals. But when the same analysis was made with a human on a bike we suddenly jumped to the top of the list. His conclusion was that humans are tool builders. As such I think it is clear to say that most animals seem to have evolved in very specific ways to handly very specific situations very well. To such an extend that a human could never hope to beat them. For instance: a woodpecker can penetrate a tree fairly easily with its beak, a human could not hope to do the same with the "natural" limbs he is provided. Yet his limbs allow him to create an axe and that even grants him the ability to destroy the entire tree if he wishes with relative ease. Which I suppose is basically the conclusion that you made. Humans trump basically all animals in "general intelligence" while animals have as sort of "niche intelligence" that beats humans in very specific ways. Is that something that you agree with? Or is that not nuanced enough?

The Grene Knyght wrote:

I'm going to like this post in 6 years and 79 days

If you do that I will give you $100 CAD, subject to inflation and exchange rate of course.