papasquat's recent activity
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentI think that's the reason Deep Space Nine resonated with me and a lot of other people. It kind of deconstructs a lot of the lore in a way and drills down into the implications of a society as it's...I think that's the reason Deep Space Nine resonated with me and a lot of other people. It kind of deconstructs a lot of the lore in a way and drills down into the implications of a society as it's depicted in the other Star Trek shows.
One of the most iconic episodes, and my all time favorite is The Seige of AR-558, in the midst of brutal combat attrition, Quark lays down this gem:
Let me tell you something about humans, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time, and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces. Look in their eyes. You know I'm right, don't you?
It's Quark basically saying to the audience that maybe all that stuff Jean-Luc Picard said about how humans are better now and there's no such thing as crime or greed or racism anymore because humanity has fundementally evolved might be kind of bullshit. Maybe it's just because technology and military power have given humanity unprecedented peace and abundance in the 24th century, and if you take those things away, humans go back to their fundemental base instincts just like everyone else.
That may or may not be the case in the universe of the show, but it does kind of feel grounded and like an admission that the roadmap for how to get to the federation that the show lays out is kind of nonsensical.
A real political policy has to deal with real people with real desires, resource constraints and conflicts, not perfectly behaved unselfish enterprise bridge crews with access to magical machines that can do anything.
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentBut, as a contradiction, there are multiple times in TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY where "federation credits" are referenced in relation to buying and selling things. It's clear there's some form of...But, as a contradiction, there are multiple times in TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY where "federation credits" are referenced in relation to buying and selling things. It's clear there's some form of currency. It's not clear how you actually get that currency and what exactly it's used for. I think that's what @V17 was referring to.
It's one thing to just say "we don't have money" and then constantly contradict that. It's another to actually demonstrate how a society without money would plausibly work.
Star Trek does the former a lot more than the latter.
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentI'm not taking issue with it, I'm implying that there are wildly different interpretations of what post scarcity actually means. The most common definition is just that people's basic needs like...I'm not taking issue with it, I'm implying that there are wildly different interpretations of what post scarcity actually means. The most common definition is just that people's basic needs like housing, food, and healthcare are taken care of to a degree that it's no longer a concern. Operating under that definition, it doesn't seem to me that New York would significantly change in character or desirability.
Like yeah, you don't need money to have your government issued 3 meals a day of basic food, or live in a basic apartment somewhere, but you won't have access to world class restaurants serving authentic cuisine from everyone on earth like you do in New York City. There are a lot of reasons why people choose to live in New York City, and only a few of them are related to requiring their basic needs to be met. New york is a great place to both earn and spend money, and people like having and spending money even when they have their basic needs met.
However, if you're operating under a stronger definition of post scarcity, something more akin to "anything a person could want is freely available to everyone", then New York, and life as we know if would be unconceivably different.
More to the point, Star Trek depicts life under the first definition of post scarcity, not the second. We don't see people tooling around in their own personal starship enterprises, and we see lots of people working normal, boring jobs like waiters or freighter captains, conceivably because they get compensated for it some way. Not everyone has access to a house in downtown San Francisco next to Starfleet academy.
A universe where the second definition of post scarcity would require things that we consider impossible in our conception of reality, like multiple people existing in the same place at the same time to solve that inherit problem of real estate being scarce.
I'd argue that the main reason why Star Trek's federation is so different than real life doesn't actually have to do with the technology that enables the first definition of post scarcity, it's the fact that pretty much all humans simultaneously and universally decided to stop being greedy and selfish some time during the 22nd century, which strikes me as far less realistic than replicators.
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentI think "assuming post scarcity" is doing a lot of work here. There have always been places that are more desirable places to live than others. Better culture, more food options, more storied...I think "assuming post scarcity" is doing a lot of work here.
There have always been places that are more desirable places to live than others. Better culture, more food options, more storied history, more movies set there, whatever the reason, lots of people really really want to live in New York.
If there are other places whose main draw is "sorta like New York but less expensive", that basically implies that New York is still more desirable.
It doesn't have to be New York though. In 1000 years, maybe Kansas City becomes the new hot spot where all of the interactive holographic movies are set and everyone wants to live there. You have the same problem ultimately. Even though we have matter replicators that can create gold flaked wagyu beef in 2 seconds, there's only one Kansas City and it has limited space. Not everyone that wants to live in Kansas City can live there without the whole reason for it being unique and desirable going away. So how do you decide who gets to live there and who doesn't?
That's the problem that every economic system is trying to solve, "post scarcity" or not.
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentYeah, I mean, I'm not saying any of that to disparage Star Trek. I love Star Trek. I love it for what it is though. An interesting, semi cohesive setting in which to tell interesting and...Yeah, I mean, I'm not saying any of that to disparage Star Trek. I love Star Trek. I love it for what it is though. An interesting, semi cohesive setting in which to tell interesting and entertaining stories. Maybe an inspiring bit of media that shows the virtues of cooperation and scientific discovery over conflict and ignorance.
It's not a roadmap for how to build a society though. It's a Sci Fi tv franchise. We can come up with better ideas by postulating theories, modeling things, studying history and testing ideas, instead of watching TV.
-
Comment on The global fertility crisis is worse than you think in ~society
papasquat LinkI see so much worrying and pearl clutching and hand wringing about this online. I understand that we have economic systems that necissitate the young drive the economy for the old, and that a...I see so much worrying and pearl clutching and hand wringing about this online. I understand that we have economic systems that necissitate the young drive the economy for the old, and that a disruption of that would be very uncomfortable, but what truly is the long term concern? Are people concerned that this trend will continue forever, and our population will half, then half again, and so on until we have only a few thousand people left?
It seems to me that the problem is going to self correct after some time. I mean, when you look at most parts of the world, and just walk around, you're struck by how many fucking people there are everywhere.
That's gotta do something to your reproductive drive on a base, subconscious level. Like, if I compare how I feel when I think about living in a cramped city surrounded by millions of people versus how I feel when I think about living in a remote homestead cabin surrounded by thousands of acres of wilderness, one of them makes me want to have kids on a visceral level versus the other.
It seems to me that if you zoom out past women's rights, birth control, economic concerns, and so on, in just about every western country, we have more people around than ever before, and that may just blunt people's drive to contribute to more of it. I have a strong suspicion that once we start seeing fewer people around, that drive comes back and we eventually settle on an equilibrium.
It's much better than the alternative of endlessly breeding ourselves out of the possibility of a decent life.
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentI'd say the opposite really. I'll admit that I know almost nothing about solarpunk and have never read a solarpunk story. I have seen a ton of Star Trek though, and am a huge fan. From what I've...- Exemplary
Does aspiring to a Star Trek-esque post-scarcity utopia feel more realistic in some way?
I'd say the opposite really. I'll admit that I know almost nothing about solarpunk and have never read a solarpunk story. I have seen a ton of Star Trek though, and am a huge fan. From what I've seen of solarpunk, it just involves equitable distribution of resources and living sustainable using technology. Pretty doable.
Star Trek, on the other hand, is pretty much entirely nonsensical and contradictory when it comes to how their society works.
The post scarcity nature of their society hinges on the magical technology that is the replicator. It's so beyond our technological capabilities that it's basically just a magical spell. I think warp drives are probably more realistic.
Basically, the replicator makes it so no one ever has to worry about material needs because the replactor can make anything. Except... It can't. There are a bunch of random stuff replicators can't make.They can't make living things, they can't make dilithium (the crystals that enable warp travel), they cant make a liquid called lattinum which gets used as currency by a lot of races. It doesn't seem like they can replicate starships either for some reason, because we see ships being painstakingly built piece by piece, like we build large ships today.
In theory, the Federation has no money, because everyone has what they need whenever they want it. I think the writers eventually may have realize that they painted themselves in a corner, because sometimes they just ignore that fact and have characters mention things like "federation credits", because there are things like energy use or trade with alien species that require a form of currency.
The fact that credits exist sort of implies that some way to earn credits must also exist, along with an economy and so on.
There's a lot of detail missing, despite there being something approaching a thousand episodes of star trek and well over a dozen movies. For instance, if you want to have a beachfront house in Los Angeles, but someone else does too, how does that get resolved?
What do most people actually do all day? We see the crew of starships on the show, and they're mostly working their asses off, far away from their loved ones and families, and dying, or coming close to it constantly. People die, or experience fates worse than death a lot in Star Trek. In theory, they're doing this on a completely voluntary basis, without being paid at all. Like... Why?
Is life in all of the federation so painfully boring that facing likely death and isolation is a better option? If people are doing it for excitement, what about all of the tens of thousands of support staff that are scrubbing the plasma exhaust manifolds of starships or whatever (a real task which has to apparently be manually done).
It's also shown that replicators use energy, and a lot of it, because they're creating matter from energy. E=MC2 is very unfavorable towards the E side of the equation, so you need to basically extend the energy of a nuclear bomb to have your morning coffee. This is pretty wasteful and monumentally dangerous, but ignoring that, it's not actually unlimited. The energy has to be rationed in some way. You can't just have someone replicating full sized castles all day and using up the energy output of the sun to do it. How does that get decided?
None of this stuff is covered in Star Trek, so using it as a guide is kinda like the classic communist blueprint of "revolution, then something something something, dictatorship of the proletariat and utopia!"
It describes a fictional world which on paper is great (if you ignore the constant threats of all life on earth/the galaxy/the universe spontaneously ceasing to exist/being slaughtered by warlike aliens/being assimilated into grotesque zombie hiveminds/having their pasts rewritten. It doesn't show a roadmap of how to get there, or even if such a world is possible, or even desirable. It's a TV show written by people with wildly varying skill at writing realistic worlds.
-
Comment on Finland tears up nuclear weapons ban in NATO shift – decision clears way for Helsinki to receive, transport and facilitate movement of nuclear weapons on its territory in ~society
-
Comment on Finland tears up nuclear weapons ban in NATO shift – decision clears way for Helsinki to receive, transport and facilitate movement of nuclear weapons on its territory in ~society
papasquat Link ParentIt's possible, but US doctrine does not have an emphasis on land based mobile launchers for ballistic missiles. The US nuclear triad is based on 1. Ground based silos, 2. Aircraft launched bombs,...It's possible, but US doctrine does not have an emphasis on land based mobile launchers for ballistic missiles.
The US nuclear triad is based on 1. Ground based silos, 2. Aircraft launched bombs, and 3. Submarine launched SLBMs, of which #3 is by far the most survivable and important.
The US doesn't maintain transporter-erector-launchers for their long range missiles like Russia and some other nuclear powers do, so they have no real need or ability to move nuclear missiles through other NATO countries. In fact, the US has no nuclear missiles in Europe at all, just gravity bombs launched from bombers at air bases. There would be no need for the US to move nukes into Finland unless there were plans to move US bombers there, which wouldn't make much sense to do strategically, because it's very close to the front of where a war with Russia would be, and the bombers we're talking about are very long range.
It's much easier, and makes more sense strategically to use one of the many submarines stationed around the area, one of the many US bombers in Germany, Belgium, Italy and a few other places in Europe, or ICBMs from the Continental US to hit Russian targets. I suppose Finland allowing it gives tactical flexibility if required, but it doesn't make sense strategically with a US focused deterrence mindset. It does make sense to enable the use of shorter range tactical nuclear weapons by EU forces, but tactical nuclear weapons by the US are not a significant part of us doctrine, and are all bombs carried by airplanes, which again, have enough range to not need to put them in a vulnerable position so close to the front.
The fact is that increased nuclear proliferation is a direct result of a weakened NATO, but so is Russian audacity. Towards the end of the Cold war there was a reduction in arms because NATO was strong, and every country didn't feel a need to maintain their own stockpile, and it was recognized as much lower risk to have only a few nuclear enabled powers. The USSR was still extremely powerful back then, and still represented an existential threat, but arms reduction worked because there was trust. Now that that trust is gone, we're going to see more and more moves like this, even after the Ukraine war ends.
-
Comment on Finland tears up nuclear weapons ban in NATO shift – decision clears way for Helsinki to receive, transport and facilitate movement of nuclear weapons on its territory in ~society
papasquat Link ParentYes, but the whole reason why European countries feel the need to dramatically increase military spending, increase their domestic stockpiles, and rearm themselves is because they've lost faith in...Yes, but the whole reason why European countries feel the need to dramatically increase military spending, increase their domestic stockpiles, and rearm themselves is because they've lost faith in the US as an ally.
If the strong US support for Ukraine had continued, and if the perception was that NATO was a strong, unified front, it's very possible that there wouldn't be a Ukraine war going on still. The increased proliferation of nuclear arms we're starting to see has Russia as the catalyst, but the US as the real cause. Even without the Russian invasion, the US constantly toying with withdrawal from NATO would have had the same result eventually.
-
Comment on Leak exposes members of Peter Thiel’s secretive ‘dialog’ society in ~society
papasquat Link ParentThey don't control the globe though. There's not a single head of state on that list. Only 2% of the US Senate is on the list. Barely anyone from an EU govenrment is on the list, and no one from...They don't control the globe though. There's not a single head of state on that list. Only 2% of the US Senate is on the list. Barely anyone from an EU govenrment is on the list, and no one from the Russian or Chinese governments.
How could you make the argument that the people in that room control the globe?
Are they influential? Sure, but there are lots of rooms where lots of influential people gather. Most of them aren't public.
"A bunch of influential people regularly meet privately" is a much different claim than "a group of people control the entire world and are in cahoots".
-
Comment on Leak exposes members of Peter Thiel’s secretive ‘dialog’ society in ~society
papasquat Link ParentI mean, this isn't a secret society. There are secret societies, that's a pretty well documented fact, and they have various levels of influence. The whole illuminati thing isn't the same thing as...I mean, this isn't a secret society. There are secret societies, that's a pretty well documented fact, and they have various levels of influence. The whole illuminati thing isn't the same thing as "there are powerful groups of people who don't publically disclose themselves" though.
It's that they control everything. That's the kooky part that is the forrest that a lot of people mistake for the trees when they get into conspiracy theories.
Like yes, there are powerful groups of people that meet in secret and have aligned interests. There are also other powerful groups of people that meet that also have different aligned interests though, and many of those interests are in direct conflict with the first group.
There's no single group that's been pulling the strings behind all governments and corporations of the world, which is what the illuminati conspiracy theory is.
A lot of times people point to the Epstein case or Camp David or Bohemian grove or whatever as proof that there's a secret cabal of elites that all conspire together to engineer world events, and yeah, there truly is some conspiring going on, but there's also a lot of conflict.
Unless you really want to go off the rails and frame every economic and wartime conflict as an eleborate, expensive stage performance for the general public, the illuminati claim falls on its face.
-
Comment on Finland tears up nuclear weapons ban in NATO shift – decision clears way for Helsinki to receive, transport and facilitate movement of nuclear weapons on its territory in ~society
papasquat LinkIt's pretty wild to watch in real time how quickly and directly a single US president can so dramatically increase the likelihood of global nuclear war, but somehow still maintain strong support...It's pretty wild to watch in real time how quickly and directly a single US president can so dramatically increase the likelihood of global nuclear war, but somehow still maintain strong support from his base.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentOne of the things I've learned time and time again is that cool is many times, and maybe even mostly the opposite of good. I love the cyberpunk aesthetic, it's cool as hell. It's not good though,...One of the things I've learned time and time again is that cool is many times, and maybe even mostly the opposite of good. I love the cyberpunk aesthetic, it's cool as hell. It's not good though, as in, it would not be a good asthetic to have in a real life city.
I think some of the big Chinese cities come close, and I've always wanted to visit to test that theory out in real life.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentIt kinda makes me wonder if it's just the time that I grew up, or if we all collectively just started becoming more cynical and distrustful of technology as time went on. In the first half of the...It kinda makes me wonder if it's just the time that I grew up, or if we all collectively just started becoming more cynical and distrustful of technology as time went on.
In the first half of the 20th century, all of the sci-fi I'm familiar with was pretty optimistic about the future. Buck rogers and destination moon and all that stuff. The further along we got, the more cynical our media about the future seems to become.
I honestly cannot think of a movie or tv show released in the past 20 years that depicts the future as a good place to live. Even Star Trek shows released recently depict a future filled with war and distrust and hatred. Maybe it's just rose tinted glasses and there really was always a lot of dystopian sci fi, but it definitely doesn't seem that way to me when I think about it.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentAt this point, I really wish creative people would stop making interesting dystopian sci fi stories. The people in charge of the economy seem way too eager to use them as a roadmap. I love all of...At this point, I really wish creative people would stop making interesting dystopian sci fi stories. The people in charge of the economy seem way too eager to use them as a roadmap.
I love all of the movies you listed, but every tech billionaire does too, and they all apparently missed the fact that they were all cautionary tales, not how-to guides.
Just keep making more Star Trek: The Next Generation please. I don't think I can handle another torment nexus.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentNah, the aesthetic sucks too. It's cool to look at and watch movies about and play games in, but living in any cyberpunk world would monumentally blow, even on just a superficial level. The...Nah, the aesthetic sucks too. It's cool to look at and watch movies about and play games in, but living in any cyberpunk world would monumentally blow, even on just a superficial level. The constant dreary rain, the small hermetically sealed apartments, the bright, loud advertising at all hours of the night, which it somehow always is.
Literally none of that would be appealing to me to live in at all. It would probably make me mentally ill within a few months.
I think flying cars are the only thing from cyberpunk I think would be cool to have in real life, but only if people weren't allowed to manually fly them, because otherwise I'm sure one would crash into my house.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentIS that the tradeoff though? I go outside all the time and see my friends in person at least two or three times a week. I can't imagine how not having a phone would affect that, other than maybe...Would a peasant from the middle ages want a mobile phone if the trade off was rarely ever going outside and seeing your friends in person?
IS that the tradeoff though? I go outside all the time and see my friends in person at least two or three times a week. I can't imagine how not having a phone would affect that, other than maybe making it more difficult to make plans with said friends. I guess you could just choose to not see other people and stay inside on your phone all day, but that's a choice you're making, not something the phone is making you do.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentMost human societies in most places are able to adapt to their circumstances no matter what and be generally happy. People find happiness in the middle of wars, in concentration camps, in famines...Most human societies in most places are able to adapt to their circumstances no matter what and be generally happy. People find happiness in the middle of wars, in concentration camps, in famines and all sorts of objectively horrible situations. I'm sure that the people that built Stonehenge weren't miserable, but that's not really a good measure of their actual quality of life.
All things the same, I'd much rather live in a time and place where if I get an infection, I can go to a doctor who tells me exactly what's wrong with me, what the cause is, and then gives me the drugs I need to fix it versus praying to sky god and hoping I don't die.
Yeah, I have to work a job that I don't particularly enjoy, but I only have to do it 8 hours a day, I get to do it in air conditioning sitting down, and I don't have to worry about megafauna deciding that I look like a delicious lunch. I don't really get scared of anything on a day to day basis, in fact, which is pretty damn rare for most of human history.
Not only did they own a big farm, Robert Picard had farmhands working for him.
If you could do anything in the world, have anything you wanted, and had zero obligation to have a job, is there even a modicum of a chance that you'd sign up to pick grapes in the middle of a field during summertime in France all day? On someone else's land???