Will things ever get easier for the common man?

TruckerT

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. I think mankind is on the verge of the greatest century in it's history. I think the difference between the years 2100 and 2000 will be far greater than the difference between 2000 and 1900.

Genetic engineering - Humans / plants / animals
Fusion power
Commercialisation of space
AI

These are but a few of the possibilities that await us. All are possible and it would only take 1 of these to have the most profound impact across the world.

I respect the point which you make later in this thread about the Luddite movement, but a massive difference is that the Luddites knew the guy personally who had introduced the new machinery, they all lived in the same vicinity and they passed each other daily in the street

Bearing in mind the title of this thread, the common man has no understanding or connection with the technologies you describe, nor with the corporations which control them

The best the common man can hope for is regular updates to his electronic gadgetry so that he can continue to find better and better ways to insulate himself from reality

But wait... the rich also insulate themselves from reality by esconcing themselves in expensive yachts, controlled entirely by electronic gadgetry and low-paid lackies

Today I biked past a stray cow on the canal towpath, and called the police. I called into the nearby canalside pub to see if they knew how to contact the cow's owner, and they said there's no point, his cows are always getting loose and he won't repair his fences


For me, that is quite enough technology for today thankyou very much

TruckerT

Procrastinator333

TruckerT wrote: »

I respect the point which you make later in this thread about the Luddite movement, but a massive difference is that the Luddites knew the guy personally who had introduced the new machinery, they all lived in the same vicinity and they passed each other daily in the street

Bearing in mind the title of this thread, the common man has no understanding or connection with the technologies you describe, nor with the corporations which control them

The best the common man can hope for is regular updates to his electronic gadgetry so that he can continue to find better and better ways to insulate himself from reality

But wait... the rich also insulate themselves from reality by esconcing themselves in expensive yachts, controlled entirely by electronic gadgetry and low-paid lackies

Today I biked past a stray cow on the canal towpath, and called the police. I called into the nearby canalside pub to see if they knew how to contact the cow's owner, and they said there's no point, his cows are always getting loose and he won't repair his fences


For me, that is quite enough technology for today thankyou very much

TruckerT

I return to an earlier point I made (though to a different poster). you talk of the common man, but the man you refer to is anythign but common. Try telling the 2-3 Billion people who live on around a $1 a day that anyone in the uk is hard up and they will laugh. Those 2-3 billion people could only dream of owning a bike.

The common man you refer to are in the luckiest 5% of the worlds population. The only difference is that you see those richer than you, but don't see those less fortunate and so think you are at the bottom of the pecking order. But nothing could be further from the truth. Unless you support your policies of sharing the wealth globally (which will actually see you far worse off), I think of such views as either hypocritical or ignorant.

Yes we are not all born equal in the UK. Yes some are comparitively more fortunate than the others. Yes some get lucky breaks. Yes there are some who don't. But whever you sit in that scale, you have already won the lottery in comparison to most on this planet.

ruggedtoast

There is no reason for anyone to have to live on $1 a day. This is all neo-liberalism offers. Penury for most, want for a few, sufficiency for some, and incredible, vulgar surplus for a tiny minority.

TruckerT

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I return to an earlier point I made (though to a different poster). you talk of the common man, but the man you refer to is anythign but common. Try telling the 2-3 Billion people who live on around a $1 a day that anyone in the uk is hard up and they will laugh. Those 2-3 billion people could only dream of owning a bike.

The common man you refer to are in the luckiest 5% of the worlds population. The only difference is that you see those richer than you, but don't see those less fortunate and so think you are at the bottom of the pecking order. But nothing could be further from the truth. Unless you support your policies of sharing the wealth globally (which will actually see you far worse off), I think of such views as either hypocritical or ignorant.

Yes we are not all born equal in the UK. Yes some are comparitively more fortunate than the others. Yes some get lucky breaks. Yes there are some who don't. But whever you sit in that scale, you have already won the lottery in comparison to most on this planet.

I pretty well agree with everything you say, but I thought your earlier posts were intended to imply that super 21st century technology developments would represent some kind of 'advance'

TruckerT

Procrastinator333

ruggedtoast wrote: »

There is no reason for anyone to have to live on $1 a day. This is all neo-liberalism offers. Penury for most, want for a few, sufficiency for some, and incredible, vulgar surplus for a tiny minority.

Even eating at Mcdonalds (a weeks wages for some) would likely be regarded as "vulgar surplus" by those 2-3 billion.

If anyone can come up with another model that will actually work then I would wholehartedly support them. But nobody has and I don't believe anyone will. The current system is the only one that works to any degree, so with no other option I shall be grateful for the position I find myself in and work to better things for myself and my family.

I don't envy the few who have more than me as for every 1 with more there are probably several hundred with far less who would look at me in the same way. I really do think people just spend too much time moaning and not enough time getting on with things. But that is just my 2 pence. Good luck with your revolution.

StevieJ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

There is no reason for anyone to have to live on $1 a day. This is all neo-liberalism offers. Penury for most, want for a few, sufficiency for some, and incredible, vulgar surplus for a tiny minority.

Would you put yourself in the vulgar surplus box?

ruggedtoast

StevieJ wrote: »

Would you put yourself in the vulgar surplus box?

I would like to try it for a while.

Procrastinator333

TruckerT wrote: »

I pretty well agree with everything you say, but I thought your earlier posts were intended to imply that super 21st century technology developments would represent some kind of 'advance'

TruckerT

I think in the end they will and in the end they will for the majority of people.

The fair point that should be noted for the ludites is that there was no doubt, it was disatrous for them individually. But I just don't see the supression of technology which in the end will benefit the masses as the sensible option.

Take genetic engineering and farming. Long term, crops will be drought resistant, flood resistant, only need watering once a week, yield 1000% of their former output and will be farmed on vast automated plantations. Yes, very bad for those farmers who lose out on the way. But long term, those sort of advances are the only thing that can lead to the world being fed properly. There will be some farmers who never recover and that is truly sad, but it is not a reason to supress those technologies. Imo.

TruckerT

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I think in the end they will and in the end they will for the majority of people.

The fair point that should be noted for the ludites is that there was no doubt, it was disatrous for them individually. But I just don't see the supression of technology which in the end will benefit the masses as the sensible option.

Take genetic engineering and farming. Long term, crops will be drought resistant, flood resistant, only need watering once a week, yield 1000% of their former output and will be farmed on vast automated plantations. Yes, very bad for those farmers who lose out on the way. But long term, those sort of advances are the only thing that can lead to the world being fed properly. There will be some farmers who never recover and that is truly sad, but it is not a reason to supress those technologies. Imo.

I don't think technological advance should be suppressed, I think it should be closely monitored

And, sorry to bring this up on an inappropriate forum, the increasing problems of droughts and floods are (a) largely caused by unmonitered technological developments and (b) mainly suffered by the billions of people already suffering from poverty

TruckerT