Grant Morrison @ Disinfocon

[Brotep]

This is the problem with Other theory: taken to its logical conclusion, it is the annihilation of all values.

If we really have to be like that about things, let's at least take the Kabbalistic line and "unite above, but divide below". I'm all for equanimity of thought, but I'm still going to defend myself from an attacker. And/or Rush Limbaugh.

[Doktor Howl]

This is the problem with Other theory: taken to its logical conclusion, it is the annihilation of all values.

In a sense, it reminds me of Orwell's 1984, only done for our own good.

I still don't like it.

[Cramulus]

morrison comes off a bit starry eyed and optimistic, but you have to remember - he's coming up on drugs as he's giving the speech.  I do wonder what he thinks about this talk ten years later.

at points, it sounds like he thinks we've seen the last of the big world wars. I doubt that humanity is really ready for that, but I love the notion that we get to choose, right now, what the next phase of humanity will be like. We came through the Enlightenment, we came through Manifest Destiny, we put a man on the moon, we stood at the brink of nuclear apocalypse and we came out alive. So he thinks we need to make up new narratives. Is this going to be another century defined by 500 year old goals and ideologies? Or are we going to look beyond these myths about Empire and Enlightenment and build something new?


Regarding individuality:
Grant suggests that if you look at your identity not as a static entity, but as an ongoing process, things begin to break down. My sixteen year old self swore he'd never work in an office.  My twenty eight year old self is way more conservative than my eighteen year old self. Presently, I am not a vegan, in fact I think veganism is stupid, and I resist the idea that I might be a vegan one day. But things could change! If, one day, I get it into my head that I want to be a vegan, I don't want my identity politics to prevent that type of growth.

as an aside, I am about to leave for a camping trip with my 7th grade arch nemesis.

to be individual means that there is "self" and "not self".

and there's weird sort of power we give to the "not self"
because in being not-newt-gingrich, I've given newt gingrich the power to define me

it underscores how interconnected all of us are, especially the people and things we hate.


The movie I Heart Huckabees handles this really well - the more the main character [albert] focuses on his nemesis [brad], the more he loses focus on how he and brad are part of the same energy field. Any anger or bitterness he feels towards Brad is more negativity and drama he's releasing into the universe -- and into himself.


^
the elevator is the universe, albert and brad are the self and the other, and all the innocent bystanders look horrified


Bernard Jaffe: There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

[Doktor Howl]

at points, it sounds like he thinks we've seen the last of the big world wars.

I think he's going to be very disappointed, as the population increases, and resources don't.

If, one day, I get it into my head that I want to be a vegan, I don't want my identity politics to prevent that type of growth.

Do you define that as growth?

[Cramulus]

hard to say from where I'm sitting. I view all the identity shifts I've experienced so far as growth, why not future ones?

[Doktor Howl]

hard to say from where I'm sitting. I view all the identity shifts I've experienced so far as growth, why not future ones?

Past performance does not guarantee future results.  Just saying.

[Elder Iptuous]

hard to say from where I'm sitting. I view all the identity shifts I've experienced so far as growth, why not future ones?

all of them?
you've never looked back at any changes that you once considered growth, but now think of as ...um.... not decay, but at least some negative change?  doesn't is seem entirely possible that anything that you consider 'growth' could be later seen that way?

[Doktor Howl]

hard to say from where I'm sitting. I view all the identity shifts I've experienced so far as growth, why not future ones?

all of them?
you've never looked back at any changes that you once considered growth, but now think of as ...um.... not decay, but at least some negative change?  doesn't is seem entirely possible that anything that you consider 'growth' could be later seen that way?

My initial break up with Maria, followed by a desk job, led to "growth" in a manner that I don't consider positive.

[hooplala]

I think he's going to be very disappointed, as the population increases, and resources don't.

The overpopulation myth has been thoroughly debunked.


I am a big proponent of individuality, but I can get behind what Morrison is going on about here... he explained it well with the 2 Dimension model of the hand going through the second dimension... four finger sure seem like separate individuals in the second dimension but are all part of the same hand.  Reminds me of the Blanket Theory from I Heart Huckabees.

I can get behind this.  Thanks for posting it Cram.

[Doktor Howl]

The overpopulation myth has been thoroughly debunked.

Which is why Central/South Africa and China are turning into deserts.

[hooplala]

The overpopulation myth has been thoroughly debunked.

Which is why Central/South Africa and China are turning into deserts.

There's more to that than what you are suggesting.  Just because areas of the world are overpopulated does not mean that the entire planet is overpopulated.

[Doktor Howl]

The overpopulation myth has been thoroughly debunked.

Which is why Central/South Africa and China are turning into deserts.

There's more to that than what you are suggesting.  Just because areas of the world are overpopulated does not mean that the entire planet is overpopulated.

The beauty is, it doesn't matter.  As areas become non-arable, populations migrate.  You think 1.5 Bn people are going to starve in China?  Hell no.  They're going to move, in large numbers, to places like Vietnam, Cambodia, Siberia, etc.  Like locusts.  The chaos engendered by that movement will multiply the effect of the number of hungry mouths.

Fact is, the sustainable population of the Earth is about 1/3rd of what it is now.

[Doktor Howl]

As already proven in another thread, China has about 900 square meters of farmland per person.  The methods they use, and the land they're on, only generates 222 days worth of food per person per year.  They're compensating by overfishing, etc, and when the fish stocks are wiped out (as they have been on the Grand Banks), then the fun begins.

ETA:  Africa isn't much different.  Land is nice.  Arable land is better.  And population density is more important than absolute numbers.

[hooplala]

As already proven in another thread, China has about 900 square meters of farmland per person.  The methods they use, and the land they're on, only generates 222 days worth of food per person per year.  They're compensating by overfishing, etc, and when the fish stocks are wiped out (as they have been on the Grand Banks), then the fun begins.

ETA:  Africa isn't much different.  Land is nice.  Arable land is better.  And population density is more important than absolute numbers.

You can blame PETA for a lot of that shit.  They convince people in these cultures to reject modified food that would feed more people, and then these people starve because they are afraid of "Frankenstein Food".

I've got two words to answer the question of too many people, not enough food:  Norman Borlaug.


However, we are getting sort of off topic here.

[Cramulus]

"growth" in of itself does not imply positive or negative change

it implies building on something. The incorporation of new input.


I am unfinished, and always will be.

The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. It saves on introductions and goodbyes.

re: overpopulation

I think Wilson talks about the overpopulation myth quite a bit.. he insists that it's more of a problem of distribution than actual scarcity.

it's not like there's not enough food in the world to feed those people in africa..  it's that those guys can't afford it. and isn't that whack? It is a "necessary evil" of capitalism: haves and have nots.

The amount of food we can produce has always been related to technology. And that's one of the good things about capitalism, as demand goes up, tech funding goes up. I think eventually we will grow food in giant vats and we'll be fat on xylobread or something.