Recent comments in /f/collapse

Tequila_Wolf OP wrote

"Tbh the fact that shit like this just continues coming out every few months and people are just living their day to day lives with exactly zero concern for the impending death of all of humanity is a society wide pathology that I don't think can be explained by anything other than fatigue and stress from overwork and poverty and the highly wasteful consumer nature of "Post Modern" era capitalism.

I would say that even the student marches, sit ins, and clamoring for a Green New Deal are an underreaction.

The mass corporate contributors to climate genocide should be forcibly ripped from their positions of power and tried for crimes against humanity imo. Anything short of that is just putting a bandaid on a terminal disease."


Reply to comment by manc in There's No Tomorrow by ziq

manc wrote

This also explains the unfortunate crossover between 'anarchists' and badshit conspiracy theorists I've encountered IRL. Fortunately, this isn't really a problem on this platform


Reply to There's No Tomorrow by ziq

heckthepolice2 wrote

Does a really good job of just systematically dismantling all possibiliteies for "sustainable growth". Might have to start showing this to people when they think I'm just a paranoid conspiracy theorist (I mean, not that I'm not a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but that's kind of unrelated)


earfuck70 wrote

Thank you for your response, and just as a disclaimer; what follows is my response to yours on this issue. But I'm not an expert within the industry or wanting to foster any malaise by disagreeing or opposing the ideological points you make. This is purely theoretical for dialectical purposes with some interest towards resolution or conclusion and how it may come about.

With that being said, yes. I have paid attention to the problems associated with A.I. learning as well as the alarm calls being sounded off by many CEO's and leaders over the great evil it represents; but an issue with this, is that A.I. is being taught to think like "humans" from people who may have developed no humanitarian modes of thinking themselves to begin (case in point: social media). Also the formal hierarchies developing A.I. are probably doing it behind the scenes with no transparencies in work or organic contributions from the trying collective- it would eventually be "serving". So there should not be much surprise that is being weaponized in a limited and destructive fashion (if it is).

A better specialized process for these hierarchies to develop would be something like an autonomous medical A.I. system that could mitigate diseases within the general populace, but their hearts may not be in the right place for something like that...

Anyway, your approach to a problem inevitably defines its results, so if and this is a big "IF"; we could resist against the fundamental evils of our machinas (within our own design), then there is a chance at having positive results depending on the evolved approach and attitudes translated into our projects. Therefore, I do think it would be desirable for a proper A.I. to not have similar same toxic attitudes or biases and to work efficiently at solving problems depending on the proper methodologies employed. But the solution for it (again) lies within the nuts and bolts of its design, as well as the attitudes of its designers, the techniques they employ and simulations of its executive parameters in actions etc. Tried and Tested, is a word that comes to mind.

Anyway, technological fetishism isn't really the goal or the motivation here, it does exist within many groups and sub sets for their own agenda; but my only concern would be problem solving on a fundamental level. I don't really care for technology or anything else pertaining to its marketing; other than the efficacy on which it could deliver with long term autonomous results on fostering net benefits.

This is also a problem that people in general- whether anarchists, socialists, statists, religious or any other groups have to failed to solve and have been given a very long time period of trial and error to do so- the fundamental problem of co-existence without being physically destructive to themselves or the next generations. The answer to it may lie within that which we haven't yet explored. But it would be folly to not try harder or do it correctly I think. If it means going back to the drawing board and starting over very many times, then it is a process of life- is it not? The next generations could use a little more protection or material security away from such existential risks? And also to not repeat the same mistakes that we made...

And to answer your one point specifically:

What if we questioned the nature of power itself, and sought to build social arrangements which built power together, rather than power apart from others; which valued both individual freedom and collective association.

In reality, we already have tried that and have failed many times. There were very many tribal entities spanning very many civilizations seeking to do exactly this imperfectly! Then a larger power broker from an isolated corner of the world entered in and disrupted every element of their collective power to conglomerate and exploit their surpluses to no one's benefit down the road. The real reason for this is basically, that the power principle is inherent! And will always exercise full control when left to its own devices, so the autonomous solution that I have proposed above; is further meant to be an antidote to the issue that keeps appearing over time, if it can be crafted correctly by the people well to do.

Venom and Anti-venom are not so different, except within the doses and how they are administered. One can save lives while the other kills instantly. Its your time to interpret all of this either as venom or to work to it as anti-venom but history would seek to evolve differently.


celebratedrecluse wrote

But I meant state planning as something more futuristic through an updated version of organizational matrices guided entirely by autonomous intelligence sets capable of self-organizing, expanded problem solving and precise execution independent of human guidance. Something far independent of individuals or people altogether because that (in my opinion) has usually been the cog leading to fascism, socialism, authoritarianism etc.

So to this end, I would like to point you to the ways in which machine learning has resulted in AI which inherit human social limitations, including racism, bigotry, logical fallacies, and other...quirks.

I think that it is well-intentioned, but entirely misguided, to think that digitization will bring a panacea to our problems and lay the groundwork for a more just society. The only thing that will really increase the chances of that happening are material arrays of networks, rhizomes of revolutionary activity-- the development of technology itself does not necessarily predict how the technology will be used. And right now, AI is growing up to be used by some of the most powerful, corrupted people in society-- corporations, police agencies, entertainment conglomerates. And it's inheriting many of our worst, most regressive tendencies as a species as a result.

So what do you think? Is it possible?

Perhaps a better question is, would this be desirable? Abdicating powers from human hierarchies to...algorithms? What if we questioned the nature of power itself, and sought to build social arrangements which built power together, rather than power apart from others; which valued both individual freedom and collective association. This is the anarchist project, and it is nothing if not opposed to the sort of technocracy which decides the autonomy of human beings are the variable to excise from the "equation" of our growing social malaise

Technology can be part of the revolutionary process, and almost certainly will be. But technological fetishism is a subset of commodity fetishism, a long-running and insidious array of ideological weapons which have been deployed on all of us.


earfuck70 wrote (edited )

Thanks for your reply! This is still the same person you were speaking to prior, but I needed to renew my account and start over. To continue this conversation just a little, I did not mean to infer redeeming hierarchical organizational planning in the traditional sense of group thinking with individuals and job titles etc. Nobody really needs more bureaucrats...

And I apologize for the vagueness or unclear language, english just happens to be a second one for me so I may lack some proficiency in articulating finer points.

But I meant state planning as something more futuristic through an updated version of organizational matrices guided entirely by autonomous intelligence sets capable of self-organizing, expanded problem solving and precise execution independent of human guidance. Something far independent of individuals or people altogether because that (in my opinion) has usually been the cog leading to fascism, socialism, authoritarianism etc.

I mention all of this "radicalness", because there is some urgency to make it happen in some way, through the contextual environment we are in with the history involved. Basically people have always been in charge of the state and over time, they have learned to misuse that power by avoiding responsibilities and consequences. The best thing to do (if possible) is to outsource state maintenance functions to autonomous intelligence systems that can practice and execute self-sustaining capabilities without interfering with any individualized units in the eco-system negatively. Newer information processing capabilities allow for this type of intelligence development and could "liberate" people from "governance" in the traditional sense and may even redeem ecological phenomenon from human destruction, if correctly programmed to do so.

I do value anarchist principles, but the most practical way of achieving them is if individuals are just no longer burdened with the job of "maintaining" the state. If you meant keeping anarchism alive as a counter opposing force in action, then it depends consistently on the existence of a tyrannical larger state manipulated by some monstrous entity like greed, or power etc. but how long does one stay an anarchist in this traditional sense and keep the fight alive? Till the counter opposed monstrous state becomes a threat to the entire planet and its eco-systems? Like right now....?

Hence forth, I think cutting a clear path away from many of these governing concepts is the best way to achieve something of real fundamental value and actually help people by outsourcing these things away from the domain of human manipulation. Let people practice real freedom and self sustenance, by letting the best tools we can build to maintain everything independently.

The only real challenge is to do all of this correctly without failing miserably as we have probably so done in the past over these types of initiatives.

So what do you think? Is it possible?


celebratedrecluse wrote

Management is very distinct from attention. The process of managing or engineering, as opposed to creating or hacking, are basically counteropposed to each other. One requires a distant sort of general dispersal of attention, a maintenance of a precarious mechanical status quo. While the latter's associated psychological states are dynamic and sometimes undefinable, ranging widely based on the particular activity and engaging the full stimulation of the human mind.

The idea that a new type of management could perfect society and conduct our lives according to ideal forms is not new. It is as old as Plato's Republic, and it has always driven towards fascistic and authoritarian politics. Technological innovation will not change the fundamental nature of this libidinal desire to create ideal management, which is actually a sociocultural phenomenon that has to do with power relationships in a society, and it is not directly tied to the technologies that it fetishizes in a given historical moment.

If you are not willing to abegnate long term state planning, you are not yet an anarchist. This isn't an attack on you as a person, but I will continue to disagree with your analysis if you express that there is something redeemable about hierarchical organizational planning. And if what you are articulating isn't definable as such, then it is something distinct from "long term state planning" as you said, and we need to get more particular about our terminology to understand the other's point.


earfuck69 wrote

I respect your opinion but I am not sure if I can follow the voluntary abegnation of long term state planning. It will rear its ugly head in some form over time, so wouldn't it be wise to establish an edifice- highly sophisticated, balanced and multi-capable in perhaps autonomous form parallel with conscious information processing?

If the managerial aspect of statism is built on anxiety. Than why does authoritarism cause so much anxiety around here? To me it seems to just require a nuanced approach so both anxieties could be eliminated at their root.

Of course, the archetypal textbook authoritarian approach should absolutely be rejected. In favor, of an updated edifice that is truly a servant, rather than a master. Newer tools give us a window into that, do they not?


celebratedrecluse wrote

I think it is potentially quite authoritarian to continue trying to manage the teleologies of future generations. This is not your intention, but it has been the result of similarly well-intentioned efforts in the past. There is something inherent to the managerial aspects of statism, where it inculcates itself in the human psychology, and motivates one to control and stabilize that which is inherently dynamic and unpredictable. The major cause-thread of this anxiety is time and history.

I would prefer to simply respond to the situation at hand, which is more than overwhelming enough already. Future generations will have to do the same, we cannot and should not take that from them.


earfuck69 wrote (edited )

I agree with you and I think your points are valid on an individual and practical level. But you have not spoken on the level of corrections away from this, case in point: how do we stop this from happening again? In any post disaster landscape; communities will rebuild and transform the cesspool of their destructions into a tenable livelihood using sticks and stones or cow poop if need be.

I conjecture that it has happened very many times over and very many lifetimes ago. A lot of our civilizations were built after the imminent destructions of their ecosystems- that took place prior. Yet nothing stopped the death machine from over expanding its structures and resource consumption globally once again to bring us further to this point of destruction.

That is why there needs to be a more futuristic solution that seeks to harmonize away from this repetitive flow of rise and fall, and cut away the primitive and obsolete happenstance of destructive civilizational inevitability! I would like you to think more along this theoretical level as well (not for the purposes of moralizing) but to facilitate a greater course of action away from the trivial and suffering revolutions of history that has bogged us down for perhaps an eon.


celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

There is definitely still hope for the future. Despite the death knells around us, we could still make a dramatically different society in our lifetimes. It just depends on what that hope is articulating, and whether it is materially possible. If it is, then the hope is useful. But if the object of hope is not materially possible, then it is a religion, and must be replaced with something useful to us before it saps all our energy and love from us.

so For sure, I agree with you, and I admire your fighting spirit. but here's how I would apply what I said to your examples. The reasons why we fight are important, and determine logistical concerns like morale, stamina, resources and coalitions available, etc.

If you are fighting a broad, huge thing like ecological collapse, the telologics of civilization, I think the strategic resources I mentioned would be less, compared to if you are thinking of yourself as fighting for a specific place, against specific forces. For example, fighting the military-industrial complex is an intimidating prospect, and is not something that many people have an interest in sacrificing their real life shit for, but resisting a particular base of operations and pushing the military out of it, that is much more doable, and is something that you could potentially motivate a very large coalition of people connected with the area that base is harming, depending on context of course.

If you want to burn down a factory, doing so on really heady metanarrative stuff like opposition to civ may be difficult to find allies around. But if you are expressing and thinking of your action as a way to reduce air pollution for a low income/latinx neighborhood, or to improve the water quality of a nearby river which farmers rely on, then you have set yourself up for success.

So my point is not to dismiss or refute the importance of resisting this awful civilizing force. And for some of us, it can be really useful to think of things that way: since joining the site, I have come around to the idea that anarchist/nihilist individualism is tenable and useful, and can solve problems that collective organization cannot or does not. So i do believe that small groups or individual anarchists can do important things, and in those contexts it is usually not really a liability to openly focus on the broad stuff. But regardless of those situations, it can also be very important to have the flexibility to be able to communicate and conceive of your actions in ways that make sense to other people, who are not yet radicalized. This is how you get them to support, and even participate, in radical actions. This is how you can destabilize the social relationships that reproduce capitalism, domestication, the social "peace", etc.

And ultimately, you can have broader conversations with people about these big problems of civilization/capitalism, once you have created a sense of rapport through shared struggle. So these approaches are not at all counteropposed, is my argument. But, it is really important to remember that it can be useful to narrow your scope of focus if you want to accomplish something with others, joining your forces together around shared material reality, especially at first. Anarchists like us can often get trapped in our heads, focus on language or theoretics and ignore material reality, which is a COINTELPRO tactic designed to subculturize and separate us from the other cogs of society, minimizing the harm we can do to the machine of death.


plast wrote

Your plans dont work

Has no plan

There is no revolution. There is no progress. There is no gets better. There is no gets worse. For me personally, anarchy is simply about surival. As well as maintaining my humanity in a world that seeks to erode. Whether or not that means planting a garden or something else, is up to the world.


celebratedrecluse wrote

how could anything have succeeded in preventing the mass extinction cycle? genuinely, it's hard for me to imagine. Certainly, at this juncture, it seems nearly impossible regardless of the efficacy or scale of action.

I think we are all, myself included, expecting too much from finite human actions. Is this an outgrowth of religion, this tendency toward internalizing and externalizing anger and grief over the slow-motion loss of our home? I don't know, but it feels that way to me.

So the planet is becoming a furnace, and there isn't much to be done about it overall, due to the sheer difficulty of logistically taking action to correct this, let alone the power differentials and structures that incentivize this. Even the killing of people who have disproportionate power, still wouldnt stop the overall structure, which treats even the most privileged people as disposable and replaceable parts-- certainly not as disposable in degree as the less privileged, but ultimately the same principle applies, because when you replace the president or an MP or an executive, the system remains.

At this point, I think it is time to expect that there is no "fixing" this. We are going to live in an ecocide, and I don't think I'm alone on this forum in thinking that this is unpreventable at this point. In fact, it is likely that humanity will not really make it past another century or so, not in its current form of society anyway. While this is depressing, it's also the reality as i see it.

Now, what can we do in our lives once we have accepted this as reality? One possibility is that we can let go of these grand metanarratives, which imprison us in a sense of doom, brutal moralizing, and ultimately a disempowerment or feeling of hopelessness. By letting go of these metanarratives, and focusing more on the human scale of our own lives, we may have a better chance to actually transform things around us. No one is saying that this is the "only way", that would be highly ironic, but this is the only way that makes sense to me, and i'm comfortable standing by that for now.