Compatiblism: for when determinism gives you a big sad and you don't like it.

Unrelated, but here's my favorite ML joke.

Scientist: If all of your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it too?

Machine Learning algorithm: Yes.

Compatiblism always just smacks me of "but that (determinism) makes me uncomfortable so I'm going to contort my mind into a pretzel so I feel better again.

We didn't need them with you shooting shots like that.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels that way. I straight up just posted under the (current as of writing) top post that it sounded like a Jordan Petersen level bad take by an incel with a dictionary. These comments reek of offended "men" desperate to be right.

This reads like Jordan Petersen meets basement dwelling incel with a fine veneer of having read a dictionary.

They (Dems) are less overtly hostile and insane, yes. Guess we take what we can get.

Not that the Dems are fighting that hard for us, either.

And this isn't whataboutism, before some dingus that saw that word somewhere once comes along, nor am I trying to be the enlightened centrist here. It's just a fact.

Neither party gives the slightest shit about anything other than power and making money.

Oh that money? No, it didn't just fapl out of my pocket.You must have dropped that.

walks away whistling

"We're sorry."

We have in essence the exact same problem that existed in the USSR, just with a much more effective propaganda machine.

Some "Murca!" dipshit is going to come along and deliberately misunderstand my point in 3.... 2.....

What a long winded way to say that you've read some scifi/speculative fiction over the last few decades.

Can this author possibly think these are new questions and issues?

Hint: getting a new flagship smartphone that requires some actually fairly scarce material isn't a human need.

Yes, I'm discussing something that would have to be done hand in hand with reworking what we consider valuable or necessary to some degree.

But runaway crony capitalism and the TV/radio/internet screaming that you "need" the latest and greatest Thing are poisons that will continue to keep humanity from moving beyond primitive "competition" and into a more sustainable cooperative.

It's about a realignment of values, and the value we assign to things. But the idea that "competition" in the modern world is some natural state that isn't the direct result of propaganda and manipulation is ridiculous.

The obvious counter to that argument is that we compete because we perceive resources as scarce, and therefore something over which to compete. As we grow closer to (and in some ways have already far surpassed) the vagaries of actual scarcity, we must be willing to make conscious change to accept that reality.

Put another way, we only have to compete today because of massive inequality and the enforcement of a scarcity mentality by power structures that benefit from the status quo.

Anyone telling you otherwise is profiting from how things are.

Which one of Cletus's cousins' "totally real companies" will be pocketing the money and doing nothing this time?

Fair, but as you note, if that's the case, the original writing doesn't contain enough to indicate or support it.

Excellently stated.

My most immediate issue is with

> ... Jean-Paul Sartre sees freedom as something humans are born into, and is the effect of one’s ability to choose. With this description of freedom, we are entirely responsible for our situation and the meaning that we give it. >

Satre proposes, according to this writing, that we are born into a vacuum lacking any external influences. Part of where Camus is so prescient on this issue IMO is that he accounts for externalities very directly, speaking on the very real situations that humans have created for ourselves with regard to drudgery and pointlessness, whereas (at least from this article) Sartre pretends that they don't exist. On the other hand, Camus directly speaks to the absurdity of the modern life.

> We are born into a world of choices such that we have sole control over what we choose.

In a word: poppycock.

Salient points. It's not the tech or even really resources holding us back. It's power (the desire to attain and retain), greed, and tribalism.

I love the smell of whataboutism in the morning.

Solid points, for sure. Like I said, I'm sure way more educated-on-the-matter people than me clearly work on this. Just seems like a problem begging for a better solution than "guess it'll just get covered indust and die." And I'm certain they're working on it

Don't mistake idle conversation on an interesting subject for a formal debate. You'll enjoy life more. :)

I came here to ask the same thing. I'm clearly not any kind of expert on the topic, but it sure seems like you could equip a small blower and run a tube out to the end of it's arm. I know that space and weight are everything with regards to launch and so forth, but it almost seems like they're engineered to fail.

Edit: heck, reduce the complexity required by adding a blower and just give the good good spacey boi a feather duster.