Grant Morrison @ Disinfocon

[hooplala]

Hoopla, you were asking why farming practices have been or could be implemented anything less than ideally or scientifically.  So yeah, the fact that we can make mistakes comes into effect in the answer to such a question.  Farming is fucked up right now, and it's because we have a limited understanding of what works and what doesn't furthered by it being driven for profit and also genuine error.

So my question is, since it seems to be floating between the two, are you asking whether or not you think it's possible to successfully implement proper farming techniques in the future, or are you asking if we've done it already?  Because obviously the former is possible, if we have the means to do it (which I'm not sure we do), and the latter is just plain false.

Sorry of this is all over the place, this is the third goddamn time I've responded in half an hour and I keep getting it deleted and an error.

My only point was that I haven't seen credible proof that overpopulation is a problem, as simple as that.  Obviously there are places that are overpopulated now, but I don't see why its useless to think its possible that that might be able to be worked out in the future.  Despite what a lot of people want to believe, for whatever reason, the world has been generally getting better for a long time, not worse.  Which I think flies in the face of the "people are monkeys" argument, which is why I think its lazy and stupid.  

I would say this is where it got off track.  Dok gave you farmland as an example of overpopulation issues, and you came back with Norman Burlaug, both of which brought farming into the issue.  We have fucked up a lot of farming, and it has caused a lot of issues, and the "people are monkeys" was being given as a reason to why we fucked that up and how it's possible to continue to do so.  I don't really see it as an argument that it will absolutely prevent us from averting overpopulation issues.

True.  I may have misunderstood and overreacted.  There's always a first time.

[Triple Zero]

In case you haven't seen it, here's Grant Morrison's heady talk at Disinfocon: (circa 2000)

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1391124753

I haven't watched the entire clip yet, but he totally reminds me of P3NT4GR4M

Of course the Scottish accent accounts for a lot, but still

[Faust]

In case you haven't seen it, here's Grant Morrison's heady talk at Disinfocon: (circa 2000)

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1391124753

I haven't watched the entire clip yet, but he totally reminds me of P3NT4GR4M

Of course the Scottish accent accounts for a lot, but still

What is it about the scottish and being crazy bastards.

[LMNO]

I read "humans are irrational monkeys" as "we're fucked up, and we will always fuck up, so why bother trying."

Am I reading it properly?

Nope.  You should read it as "humans tend to be irrational monkeys, in large groups, so be sure to take that into account when developing solutions to large problems."

Otherwise, you get solutions that sound very similar to, "we could end wars if everyone were nice to each other."

Not that you've ever said such a thing.  But I think you get the idea.  Systems that are based around the idea of large amounts humans voluntarily behaving in a certain way that runs counter to typical primate behavior take either a huge amount of conditioning (and still remain fragile), or they collapse.

Systems that take this into account and add checks and balances to counter such trends tend to be more stable.

[Triple Zero]

Okay, this pisses me the fuck off.

what does?

Good conversation going.  One side flounces the thread when faced with an inconvenient fact.  Usually seems to be the same side.

I am never debating with a libertarian again, except in the rawest form of trolling.  Period.

You call this good conversation???

You jacked the entire thread into a discussion about crops and overpopulation, picking on one single thing that is only somewhat related to a part of the OP, exactly the thing that you hate so much when it happens to your own threads.

And so, not. It's not always the same side. The other time it was you in the (first?) unvarnished truth thread. The other other time it was Cain in the pedantry thread. And now it is Hoops, at first quietly suggesting it might be getting a bit off topic.



And then, this confuses me when it comes from you. You are always telling people they should have FUN and SLACK and be serious about having a Good Time. Which is pretty much what Grant Morrison was talking about in that video--did you watch it, btw, or did you just nitpick on the quotes Cram wrote up? Because you surely didn't seem to want to give up until you had the thread jacked and well. Exactly in the way you always hate so much when someone else does it to you. At first #6 individuality, but that didn't get enough bites. Then #7 doomsday, which turned out to be a hit, but not before you had to pick on #8 personal growth, just to be sure.

I mean really, how is this not the same as what happened to you in the first unvarnished truth thread (or was it another thread, you know what I'm talking about I'm sure)? Ignoring the general basic message, in favour of attacking the small point until constructive conversation about the actual topic of the thread becomes hopeless.


Great conversation.


Who said it that PD was sick? It's not yet better, not by a long shot.

[Eater of Clowns]

Or we could just do what normally gets done when threads get derailed ALL THE FUCKING TIME and split the irrelevant parts.  Derailment happens, that's why splitting is so handy.  I don't think the conversation that resulted from the overpopulation/farming tangent was worthless, it just wasn't on topic.  I actually learned a few things about farming with Hoopla's Norman Burlaug example.  Maybe if there wasn't so much crying about the monkey argument both sides might have continued.  You'll notice Hoopla and Dok's original conversation about overpopulation was not only informative, but downright civil.

So can we split the derail and move on with the topic, or should we, well, FLING POOP LIKE MONKEYS OOK OOK MOTHERFUCKERS.

[hooplala]

I guess its Cram's call.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hoopla, you were asking why farming practices have been or could be implemented anything less than ideally or scientifically.  So yeah, the fact that we can make mistakes comes into effect in the answer to such a question.  Farming is fucked up right now, and it's because we have a limited understanding of what works and what doesn't furthered by it being driven for profit and also genuine error.

So my question is, since it seems to be floating between the two, are you asking whether or not you think it's possible to successfully implement proper farming techniques in the future, or are you asking if we've done it already?  Because obviously the former is possible, if we have the means to do it (which I'm not sure we do), and the latter is just plain false.

Sorry of this is all over the place, this is the third goddamn time I've responded in half an hour and I keep getting it deleted and an error.

My only point was that I haven't seen credible proof that overpopulation is a problem, as simple as that.  Obviously there are places that are overpopulated now, but I don't see why its useless to think its possible that that might be able to be worked out in the future.  Despite what a lot of people want to believe, for whatever reason, the world has been generally getting better for a long time, not worse.  Which I think flies in the face of the "people are monkeys" argument, which is why I think its lazy and stupid.  

The world has been getting better, but it is sheer hubris to imagine it can't tip the balance into getting worse again, as it has many times before. Countries like China or India, which actually have overpopulation issues, show us that overpopulation is not a desirable condition. Being able to feed an overabundance of people is not necessarily a hallmark of species success. We are coded to perceive size and numbers as a hallmark of success, and I think that, as a species, it's time to step above that and view sustainability, education, and quality of life as our primary hallmarks of species success.

[Iason Ouabache]

I read "humans are irrational monkeys" as "we're fucked up, and we will always fuck up, so why bother trying."

Am I reading it properly?

Nope.  You should read it as "humans tend to be irrational monkeys, in large groups, so be sure to take that into account when developing solutions to large problems."

Otherwise, you get solutions that sound very similar to, "we could end wars if everyone were nice to each other."

Not that you've ever said such a thing.  But I think you get the idea.  Systems that are based around the idea of large amounts humans voluntarily behaving in a certain way that runs counter to typical primate behavior take either a huge amount of conditioning (and still remain fragile), or they collapse.

Systems that take this into account and add checks and balances to counter such trends tend to be more stable.

They even have a specific name for it in this instance: The Tragedy of the Commons.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rdeyoung/tragedy.html

Hardin's parable involves a pasture "open to all." He asks us to imagine the grazing of animals on a common ground. Individuals are motivated to add to their flocks to increase personal wealth. Yet, every animal added to the total degrades the commons a small amount. Although the degradation for each additional animal is small relative to the gain in wealth for the owner, if all owners follow this pattern the commons will ultimately be destroyed. And, being rational actors, each owner ads to their flock:

Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit - in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. (Hardin, 1968)

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I read "humans are irrational monkeys" as "we're fucked up, and we will always fuck up, so why bother trying."

Am I reading it properly?

Nope.  You should read it as "humans tend to be irrational monkeys, in large groups, so be sure to take that into account when developing solutions to large problems."

Otherwise, you get solutions that sound very similar to, "we could end wars if everyone were nice to each other."

Not that you've ever said such a thing.  But I think you get the idea.  Systems that are based around the idea of large amounts humans voluntarily behaving in a certain way that runs counter to typical primate behavior take either a huge amount of conditioning (and still remain fragile), or they collapse.

Systems that take this into account and add checks and balances to counter such trends tend to be more stable.

One reason Hoopla may feel this is a copout and conversation killer is because it's a very vague criticism that doesn't take into account the specifics of the issue.

If it were articulated in a way that demonstrates it's relevance and application to the issue at hand I don't think he'd blink twice and the conversation would continue. I agree that it seems like a shorthand way of saying, "give up, we're irreversibly fucked."

It doesn't say to what degree groups are irrational.
It doesn't say what kind of groups or circumstances it is more pronounced in or less pronounced in.
It doesn't say what size groups it applies to.
It doesn't remotely say what kind of irrationality is likely to occur.
It doesn't seem to predict anything in particular, besides an extremely general pessimistic point of view, "Something is sure to go wrong."
It doesn't have any contraindications, since any argument can be perceived as requiring too many people to behave rationally.

How do you know a proposed solution requires "too many people to behave rationally"? How many is that?
How do you know you've sufficiently taken into account irrational behavior?
How many checks and balances does an idea need before the "OOK OOK" argument can be brushed aside?

[LMNO]

Actually, that was addressed in the original point, which was to disagree with Morrison that there would be no more world wars.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Actually, that was addressed in the original point, which was to disagree with Morrison that there would be no more world wars.

What in particular was addressed where and by whom?

[hooplala]

I read "humans are irrational monkeys" as "we're fucked up, and we will always fuck up, so why bother trying."

Am I reading it properly?

Nope.  You should read it as "humans tend to be irrational monkeys, in large groups, so be sure to take that into account when developing solutions to large problems."

Otherwise, you get solutions that sound very similar to, "we could end wars if everyone were nice to each other."

Not that you've ever said such a thing.  But I think you get the idea.  Systems that are based around the idea of large amounts humans voluntarily behaving in a certain way that runs counter to typical primate behavior take either a huge amount of conditioning (and still remain fragile), or they collapse.

Systems that take this into account and add checks and balances to counter such trends tend to be more stable.

One reason Hoopla may feel this is a copout and conversation killer is because it's a very vague criticism that doesn't take into account the specifics of the issue.

If it were articulated in a way that demonstrates it's relevance and application to the issue at hand I don't think he'd blink twice and the conversation would continue. I agree that it seems like a shorthand way of saying, "give up, we're irreversibly fucked."

It doesn't say to what degree groups are irrational.
It doesn't say what kind of groups or circumstances it is more pronounced in or less pronounced in.
It doesn't say what size groups it applies to.
It doesn't remotely say what kind of irrationality is likely to occur.
It doesn't seem to predict anything in particular, besides an extremely general pessimistic point of view, "Something is sure to go wrong."
It doesn't have any contraindications, since any argument can be perceived as requiring too many people to behave rationally.

How do you know a proposed solution requires "too many people to behave rationally"? How many is that?
How do you know you've sufficiently taken into account irrational behavior?
How many checks and balances does an idea need before the "OOK OOK" argument can be brushed aside?

Oh christ, thank you Net.  I sat for almost 20 minutes last night trying to put into words why I didn't like the argument and could not formulate a sentence that expressed it well.  You said it so much better than I could.  And I call myself a goddam writer... I should have been a plumber.

[hooplala]

That is exactly my problem with the argument.  I want details, I want variables, and conditions... not some shorthand answer which amounts to "fuck you".  I mean, I love Kai, he is one of my favourite posters here and we had a good time when we met up in Toronto, but that "humans = irrational monkeys" post was possibly the most insulting thing I've had addressed to me in my time on this board.  Which, as a lot of you probably know, is saying a lot.

[Doktor Howl]

You call this good conversation???

No, I guess it wasn't.  I won't be participating in any more of these.

Thanks for the wake up call, Trip.