Grant Morrison @ Disinfocon

[Requia ☣]

There are seriously people on PD left who think Humans are rational?

[Doktor Howl]

There are seriously people on PD left who think Humans are rational?

It's the flaw that libertarians and other utopians can't get around.  Humans are perverse and do not always act in their own best interests.  The more humans you jam together, the more irrational they are.  Hell, the more MAMMALS you jam together, the weirder they act.  We experimented on this with mice in the 50s, and now we're observing it with people today.

[Eater of Clowns]

While it doesn't need to be applied to every argument, I still don't see why it needs to be some trigger for no longer participating in an active and interesting discussion.  So much for a good thread.

[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?

[Kai]

In the case of the overpopulation argument, read it as "humans are irrational, therefore what would otherwise not be a problem if humans acted rationally (population growth) is actually a problem (overpopulation).

In the case of farming, "humans are irrational, therefore crop practices that would make sense and would be in the best interest of people over the long term are shelved for short term profit leading to long term losses".

[hooplala]

In the case of the overpopulation argument, read it as "humans are irrational, therefore what would otherwise not be a problem if humans acted rationally (population growth) is actually a problem (overpopulation).

In the case of farming, "humans are irrational, therefore crop practices that would make sense and would be in the best interest of people over the long term are shelved for short term profit leading to long term losses".

Kai, it amounts to the same.  I guess I should just give up and join y'all and adopt it as my new mantra.  I'll get a t-shirt made up, so I don't need to keep repeating myself, since I know that it gets, well, a little annoying.

We're fucked up little shits, so don't bother trying.  Ever.

You've converted me. 

[Kai]

I didn't say that.

It just means that you have to alter your methods to include human irrationality in the development of solutions.

[Brotep]

I didn't say that.

It just means that you have to alter your methods to include human irrationality in the development of solutions.

This.

Our irrationality is fairly predictable, after all.

[Eater of Clowns]

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.

[Doktor Howl]

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?

No.

If that's what I meant, that's what I would have said. 

[Doktor Howl]

You know what?  Fuck this.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I didn't say that.

It just means that you have to alter your methods to include human irrationality in the development of solutions.

Exactly.

It is irrational to disregard our own irrationality. Solutions MUST take this into consideration, or they will repeatedly run into the brick wall of short-term gain winning out over long-term survival.

[Doktor Howl]

I didn't say that.

It just means that you have to alter your methods to include human irrationality in the development of solutions.

Exactly.

It is irrational to disregard our own irrationality. Solutions MUST take this into consideration, or they will repeatedly run into the brick wall of short-term gain winning out over long-term survival.

NO.  ARGUMENTS CAN ONLY BE USED ONCE.  NO MATTER WHAT.

OTHERWISE THE LIBERTARIANS GET ALL WEEPY.

[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.  

[Eater of Clowns]

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.