Principia Discordia

(http://img.youtube.com/vi/SKhSqPrPVcs/0.jpg)

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


it's a little bit rambling because he's coming up on drugs.  :evil:

topics covered in the talk:

(1) are wilson, mckenna, crowley, all those psychonauts full of shit? Morrison talks about the experiences he had while testing out their propositions and the revelation that humanity is still in its larvae form.

(2) sigil magic - "it totally works". Morrison relates his experiences with the hypersigil called the Invisibles, and how King Mob reached into reality and changed his life. He explains how to create and charge a sigil, and reccommends that the disbelievers actually try it out to see if it works.

(3) interconnectivity and the nature of the individual

(4) One of my favorite quotes of all time ---

Quote"We made this idea [ego] that we are somehow separated from nature .. bullshit. I read this thing in New Scientist about how we've got to control nature. Bullshit! We are nature. There is nothing on this planet which is not nature. Radio stations are nature.  Atom bombs are nature. Because nature made us to make those things. Either you trust nature or you don't trust nature, and I trust nature."

(5) We're living in an "Apocalypse Culture" which is obsessed with destruction. We created cops to protect us from our own nature, and we venerate terrible figures like John Wayne Gacy. What could be outside of that apocalyptic theater?

(6) Abandon individuality, it's only baggage. It was useful for the last 2000 years of history, but now we have to move into something more meaningful than becoming islands. Upgrade and patch your personality - become a guy who likes hip hop (or whatever), become a guy who you wouldn't even recognize.

(7) Let's think of history as if we're in the victory lap. We survived two world wars and guess what - there was no apocalypse, there was no second coming, no rapture, none of that stuff we've been worrying about, and now we're here together at the dawn after a very long dark age. So now what?

(8 ) Do we want to change things? Do we want to transcend individuality? The first step is to transcend the self. If you like world music, and I think it's shit, I can tap into your love of world music and I can love it now too. Let us become complex creatures, able to take in new personality traits and new ideas, able to adapt and extend our boundaries into what we thought was enemy territory, until there is no Other.

Seems characteristic of turn of the millenium optimism.  I'd like to see if he maintains that perspective after a decade nearly unanimously regarded as totally shitty.  It'd be interesting if his ideas remained similar, but with a distinctly 2010 feel.  I mean, not every ten years is a long time, but these ten years were a god damned eternity.

Not sure I like #6.

Goddamn I love Morrison, even with the crackpot stuff.
Everyone with a Messiah complex should be forced to write comics.

Also, #7 ignores the very real possibility that we will choke on our own shit in the next 20-50 years.

Heh just noticed grant quoting The Prisoner, I assume cram deliberately labelled the loss of individuality  #6 for the contradiction.

Quote from: Faust on April 28, 2010, 06:25:57 PM
Heh just noticed grant quoting The Prisoner, I assume cram deliberately labelled the loss of individuality  #6 for the contradiction.

I like my individuality.  What it looks like from #6 & #8  is that it would be a desirable thing to become an homogenous blob.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 06:21:24 PM
Also, #7 ignores the very real possibility that we will choke on our own shit in the next 20-50 years.

This was back in 1999, it didn't really become obvious to most that we were approaching the last stages of fucking up the place until mid 2005. That or he is saying you should keep a positive attitude because if the world does choke on its own shit theres not much we can do to stop it.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 06:27:52 PM

Quote from: Faust on April 28, 2010, 06:25:57 PM
Heh just noticed grant quoting The Prisoner, I assume cram deliberately labelled the loss of individuality  #6 for the contradiction.

I like my individuality.  What it looks like from #6 & #8  is that it would be a desirable thing to become an homogenous blob.

Grant morrison was/is an ego mainiac, he insterts himself into most of his work, hell he wrote batman as bald guy when he was going it, for him it IS a good goal to examine because of what he would learn about humility.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 06:27:52 PM

Quote from: Faust on April 28, 2010, 06:25:57 PM
Heh just noticed grant quoting The Prisoner, I assume cram deliberately labelled the loss of individuality  #6 for the contradiction.

I like my individuality.  What it looks like from #6 & #8  is that it would be a desirable thing to become an homogenous blob.

grant's not proposing that we become homogenous blobs, he's proposing that we learn to be comfortable with things which are outside what we consider the self.

When one assembles an identity out of rigid terms, it creates the Other. The existence of categories like "us" and "them" begets the tribalism which will prevent us from really realizing our collective potential.

Grant talks about how it's a shame that he feels a strong kinship with everybody in the room, but that kinship ends when you look at a blowhard like Rush Limbaugh. The Enemy. He wants to make the border fuzzier, to get people to accept that even assholes like limbaugh are people who have a valid reason for their point of view.

Individuality, as it becomes more and more commidified, becomes a limiting factor. I mean, you can develop and refine the list of bands you like, or what kinds of politics you prefer, but all these decisions are pushing us deeper into a niche, a personal rut.


In a way, he's talking about Ego Sickness (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/bip/18.php).

Quote from: Cramulus on April 28, 2010, 06:49:11 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 06:27:52 PM

Quote from: Faust on April 28, 2010, 06:25:57 PM
Heh just noticed grant quoting The Prisoner, I assume cram deliberately labelled the loss of individuality  #6 for the contradiction.

I like my individuality.  What it looks like from #6 & #8  is that it would be a desirable thing to become an homogenous blob.

grant's not proposing that we become homogenous blobs, he's proposing that we learn to be comfortable with things which are outside what we consider the self.

When one assembles an identity out of rigid terms, it creates the Other. The existence of categories like "us" and "them" begets the tribalism which will prevent us from really realizing our collective potential.

Grant talks about how it's a shame that he feels a strong kinship with everybody in the room, but that kinship ends when you look at a blowhard like Rush Limbaugh. The Enemy. He wants to make the border fuzzier, to get people to accept that even assholes like limbaugh are people who have a valid reason for their point of view.

Individuality, as it becomes more and more commidified, becomes a limiting factor. I mean, you can develop and refine the list of bands you like, or what kinds of politics you prefer, but all these decisions are pushing us deeper into a niche, a personal rut.


In a way, he's talking about Ego Sickness (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/bip/18.php).

Okay, I can understand what he's saying.  I am in complete disagreement, however.  Surrendering my likes and dislikes, my love and my hate, simply to break down barriers is a bad thing, IMO, because I view that there is a real reason for those barriers.

Perhaps he is suggesting that every so often you go out and test those barriers.


A wall with no purpose is a barrier going both ways.

Quote from: LMNO on April 28, 2010, 06:55:39 PM
Perhaps he is suggesting that every so often you go out and test those barriers.


A wall with no purpose is a barrier going both ways.

Sure.  But there are valid purposes for many of those walls.  The example of Rush Limbaugh was brought up, above...I have examined his "opinions" and found them to be so ridiculously mutable (based on which party is in power, etc), that it has become obvious that he is paid to divide the country (along with Beck, Hannity, and a few others on both sides of the aisle). 

As such, he has no validity for his blathering, and attempting to assign validity to his point of view is a waste of time.  Since I only have a certain amount of time on this planet, I don't plan to waste it trying to find non-existent meaning behind his words.

i agree with Dok.
i'm keeping my individuality, thankyouverymuch.

further, i think it is good for the gander
there is robustness in diversity, and you can't have diversity without divisions.

that is to say, some utopians talk about our 'full potential' by which i would assume they mean that we most efficiently use our resources, and achieve the greatest control over our environment, and achieve some unity of society.
i believe that efficiency generally comes at the expense of robustness, and on the vector that we are headed, we need all of that we can get.

Quote from: Iptuous on April 28, 2010, 07:06:32 PM
that is to say, some utopians talk about our 'full potential' by which i would assume they mean that we most efficiently use our resources, and achieve the greatest control over our environment, and achieve some unity of society.

Ugh.

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.

Quote from: Brotep on April 28, 2010, 07:19:16 PM
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.

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.  :p 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.

Quote from: Morrisonto 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.

(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTMwMjMyMDMxMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNDgwMjg2._V1._SX485_SY322_.jpg)
^
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.

Quote from: Cramulus on April 28, 2010, 07:35:20 PM
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.

Quote from: Cramulus on April 28, 2010, 07:35:20 PM
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?

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?

Quote from: Cramulus on April 28, 2010, 07:45:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Cramulus on April 28, 2010, 07:45:23 PM
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?

Quote from: Iptuous on April 28, 2010, 07:47:52 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on April 28, 2010, 07:45:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 07:41:53 PM

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.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 07:53:32 PM


The overpopulation myth has been thoroughly debunked.

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

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 07:55:30 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 07:53:32 PM


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.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 07:56:38 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 07:55:30 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 07:53:32 PM


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.

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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:01:26 PM
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.

"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.

Quote from: Waking LifeThe 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.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:04:17 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:01:26 PM
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.

I'm sorry Hoopla, but I've got to call you out on this. It sounds as crazywrong as economists who talk about infinite growth.

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 08:21:11 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:04:17 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:01:26 PM
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.

I'm sorry Hoopla, but I've got to call you out on this. It sounds as crazywrong as economists who talk about infinite growth.

Which part? 

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:26:01 PM

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 08:21:11 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:04:17 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:01:26 PM
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.

I'm sorry Hoopla, but I've got to call you out on this. It sounds as crazywrong as economists who talk about infinite growth.

Which part? 

"overpopulation is thoroughly debunked"

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 08:33:41 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:26:01 PM

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 08:21:11 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:04:17 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:01:26 PM
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.

I'm sorry Hoopla, but I've got to call you out on this. It sounds as crazywrong as economists who talk about infinite growth.

Which part? 

"overpopulation is thoroughly debunked"

This video explains it well, and gives a link to the science backing it up:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM)

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:04:17 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:01:26 PM
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.

Actually, this IS topical.  It concerns Morrison's predictions.

Also, PETA has very little to do with it.  China and Africa aren't exactly picky about what they eat, and they don't have the money for Monsanto's brigandry.  

And it doesn't matter how much food you can grow, if you're trashing your farmland.  TOO MANY MONKEYS.  It's not just farmland, it's deforestation for fuel (the Congo is nothing but wood smoke nowdays, it's like a permanent fog), excessive waste (garbage, sewage...which reacts with itself when pooled in large quantities, becoming incredibly toxic), etc.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:35:52 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:04:17 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:01:26 PM
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.

Actually, this IS topical.  It concerns Morrison's predictions.

Also, PETA has very little to do with it.  China and Africa aren't exactly picky about what they eat, and they don't have the money for Monsanto's brigandry.  

And it doesn't matter how much food you can grow, if you're trashing your farmland.  TOO MANY MONKEYS.  It's not just farmland, it's deforestation for fuel (the Congo is nothing but wood smoke nowdays, it's like a permanent fog), excessive waste (garbage, sewage...which reacts with itself when pooled in large quantities, becoming incredibly toxic), etc.

I would suggest you research Norman Borlaug.  It can be done.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:38:54 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:35:52 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:04:17 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:01:26 PM
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.

Actually, this IS topical.  It concerns Morrison's predictions.

Also, PETA has very little to do with it.  China and Africa aren't exactly picky about what they eat, and they don't have the money for Monsanto's brigandry.  

And it doesn't matter how much food you can grow, if you're trashing your farmland.  TOO MANY MONKEYS.  It's not just farmland, it's deforestation for fuel (the Congo is nothing but wood smoke nowdays, it's like a permanent fog), excessive waste (garbage, sewage...which reacts with itself when pooled in large quantities, becoming incredibly toxic), etc.

I would suggest you research Norman Borlaug.  It can be done.

I'll look into it tonight.  But evidence suggests that it ISN'T being done.  Poor farming techniques, deforestation, etc...I do hope Mr Borlaug isn't suggesting that these things can all be fixed if everyone, all together, acts rationally.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:41:11 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:38:54 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:35:52 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 08:04:17 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:01:26 PM
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.

Actually, this IS topical.  It concerns Morrison's predictions.

Also, PETA has very little to do with it.  China and Africa aren't exactly picky about what they eat, and they don't have the money for Monsanto's brigandry.  

And it doesn't matter how much food you can grow, if you're trashing your farmland.  TOO MANY MONKEYS.  It's not just farmland, it's deforestation for fuel (the Congo is nothing but wood smoke nowdays, it's like a permanent fog), excessive waste (garbage, sewage...which reacts with itself when pooled in large quantities, becoming incredibly toxic), etc.

I would suggest you research Norman Borlaug.  It can be done.

I'll look into it tonight.  But evidence suggests that it ISN'T being done.  Poor farming techniques, deforestation, etc...I do hope Mr Borlaug isn't suggesting that these things can all be fixed if everyone, all together, acts rationally.

He died last year, so he's no longer suggesting anything, but his methods live on.  At least I sure as fuck hope they do.

Here's a little blurb from the introductory section of his Wiki article, to whet your appetite:

"During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations.[4] These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation.[5] He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply."

(emphasis is mine, wiki rarely uses bold, which is something of a shame)

Hmmm...Borlaug did interesting work in India, and it's still working.  However, India's population is still growing.  At what point does the model fail, will it work in all situations, and most importantly, what happens when you lose all your topsoil from fuel-based deforestation?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 08:49:00 PM
Hmmm...Borlaug did interesting work in India, and it's still working.  However, India's population is still growing.  At what point does the model fail, will it work in all situations, and most importantly, what happens when you lose all your topsoil from fuel-based deforestation?

That, admittedly, I do not know.  I can look into it tonight though and see what I find.

I'll have to do some digging, but I was reading recently that Monsanto's claims of higher yields are being disputed.

Borlaug's work was a successful aspect of the Green Revolution, but there are some consequences to it that weren't foreseen that we're just dealing with today.  Blanketing soil with nitrogen based fertlizers, factory farming leading to soil depletion, vast monocultures, etc.  Creating high yield disease resistant crops was obviously a great thing, but how long until a disease mutates to bypass those defenses and wipes out everything planted with only that one breed?

Quote from: EoC on April 28, 2010, 09:05:00 PM
Borlaug's work was a successful aspect of the Green Revolution, but there are some consequences to it that weren't foreseen that we're just dealing with today.  Blanketing soil with nitrogen based fertlizers, factory farming leading to soil depletion, vast monocultures, etc.  Creating high yield disease resistant crops was obviously a great thing, but how long until a disease mutates to bypass those defenses and wipes out everything planted with only that one breed?

THEN WE BUILD IT BACK STRONGER, FASTER, HARDER....

lol coevolutionary arms races.

Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:24:14 PM
Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

people = irrational monkeys.

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 09:25:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:24:14 PM
Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

people = irrational monkeys.

That argument holds no water with me, and being that you are a scientist I find it very disappointing that you would choose to hold it when it comes to scientific matters.

Check out the potato famine.

We didn't learn anything from it, at all.

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 28, 2010, 09:33:03 PM
Check out the potato famine.

We didn't learn anything from it, at all.

Who is we?

And, it would seem to me that a statement like that should be backed up in some manner.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:31:59 PM

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 09:25:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:24:14 PM
Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

people = irrational monkeys.

That argument holds no water with me, and being that you are a scientist I find it very disappointing that you would choose to hold it when it comes to scientific matters.

It holds plenty of water with me. Consider this: CO2 is a clear thermoinsulator, as can be seen from the atmosphere of Venus. Human activities are pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere now than has been in a very long time. Fact: we could mitigate the effects by developing technology to clean up excess CO2 and regulate use of carbon-oxidizing fuels. Or at least turn this boat around at some point.

Are people doing this? NOOOOOOOOOOO. Despite all evidence to support above scientifically rational moves.

Science is great but application often breaks down because humans are irrational monkeys. Just because something can work, doesn't mean it will.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:34:15 PM

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 28, 2010, 09:33:03 PM
Check out the potato famine.

We didn't learn anything from it, at all.

Who is we?

And, it would seem to me that a statement like that should be backed up in some manner.

Here,

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=monoculture

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=potato+famine

This is kind of elementary stuff.

You can also learn more about the risks of monoculture by looking up "coffee rust disease" and "banana extinction".

These, of course, are separate issues from soil-stripping farming methods.

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 09:39:59 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:31:59 PM

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 09:25:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:24:14 PM
Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

people = irrational monkeys.

That argument holds no water with me, and being that you are a scientist I find it very disappointing that you would choose to hold it when it comes to scientific matters.

It holds plenty of water with me. Consider this: CO2 is a clear thermoinsulator, as can be seen from the atmosphere of Venus. Human activities are pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere now than has been in a very long time. Fact: we could mitigate the effects by developing technology to clean up excess CO2 and regulate use of carbon-oxidizing fuels. Or at least turn this boat around at some point.

Are people doing this? NOOOOOOOOOOO. Despite all evidence to support above scientifically rational moves.

Science is great but application often breaks down because humans are irrational monkeys. Just because something can work, doesn't mean it will.

So one example proves that we are irrational monkeys?  Very scientific.

OK, I'm dropping out of this conversation at this point.  And I think I will drop out of all conversations in the future once I see any variation of the "Humans are irrational monkeys" argument.  Apparently everyone here now believes it is the perfect trump card.

How about "Humans do irrational things with little respect for damaging long-term consequences when faced with short-term personal profit"?

That's pretty much the short story behind monoculture, as well as a lot of other really stupid moves in human history.

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 28, 2010, 09:49:13 PM
How about "Humans do irrational things with little respect for damaging long-term consequences when faced with short-term personal profit"?

That's pretty much the short story behind monoculture, as well as a lot of other really stupid moves in human history.

Bing-o.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:24:14 PM
Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

No, it's incredibly short sighted and stupid.

Farming science is pretty limited.  There are too many variables and not enough time to accurately test them (once per year - the planting season).  Taking into account soil loss, soil nutrients, weather patterns, pest activity, etc, all of which is only predictable on a limited basis.  This isn't even mentioning previous patterns of weather that are now changing due to global warming/climate change/global weirding whatever you want to call it.  What works once isn't guaranteed to work again.

Farming is also a business.  What makes sense and is responsible is disregarded in favor of what's profitable - vast monocultures of corn in the US, etc. 

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:24:14 PM
Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

How many strains of Roundup Ready soybeans does Monsanto offer?

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:31:59 PM

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 09:25:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:24:14 PM
Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

people = irrational monkeys.

That argument holds no water with me, and being that you are a scientist I find it very disappointing that you would choose to hold it when it comes to scientific matters.

There is nothing unscientific about the fact that people in groups are irrational.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:46:41 PM

OK, I'm dropping out of this conversation at this point.  

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 10:39:31 PM
Okay, this pisses me the fuck off.

:?
what does?

Quote from: Iptuous on April 28, 2010, 10:40:56 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 10:39:31 PM
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.

First Ratatosk runs off because we aren't smart enough for him or some shit, then Hoops does this.

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

Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 28, 2010, 10:57:05 PM
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.

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.

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?

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".

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 11:44:55 PM
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. 

I didn't say that.

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

Quote from: Kai on April 29, 2010, 12:00:58 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 11:35:55 PM
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. 

You know what?  Fuck this.

Quote from: Kai on April 29, 2010, 12:00:58 AM
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.

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 01:48:19 AM

Quote from: Kai on April 29, 2010, 12:00:58 AM
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.

Quote from: EoC on April 29, 2010, 12:26:41 AM
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.  

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 03:07:58 AM

Quote from: EoC on April 29, 2010, 12:26:41 AM
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.

Quote from: EoC on April 29, 2010, 03:49:27 AM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 03:07:58 AM

Quote from: EoC on April 29, 2010, 12:26:41 AM
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.

Quote from: Cramulus on April 28, 2010, 04:41:52 PM
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/SKhSqPrPVcs/0.jpg)

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 :D

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

Quote from: Triple Zero on April 29, 2010, 09:35:59 AM

Quote from: Cramulus on April 28, 2010, 04:41:52 PM
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/SKhSqPrPVcs/0.jpg)

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 :D

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

What is it about the scottish and being crazy bastards.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 11:35:55 PM
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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 10:42:25 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on April 28, 2010, 10:40:56 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 28, 2010, 10:39:31 PM
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.

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.

I guess its Cram's call.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 03:07:58 AM

Quote from: EoC on April 29, 2010, 12:26:41 AM
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.

Quote from: LMNO on April 29, 2010, 01:51:53 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 11:35:55 PM
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

QuoteHardin'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:

QuoteTherein 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)

Quote from: LMNO on April 29, 2010, 01:51:53 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 11:35:55 PM
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?

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

Quote from: LMNO on April 29, 2010, 08:05:17 PM
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?

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 29, 2010, 08:01:15 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 29, 2010, 01:51:53 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 11:35:55 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Triple Zero on April 29, 2010, 02:40:37 PM

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.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 08:11:23 PM
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.

Why not just read up on agriculture, then?

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 08:30:18 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 08:11:23 PM
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.

Why not just read up on agriculture, then?

I am not referring simply to the conversation about agriculture at this point Nigel... this is about the "humans = irrational monkeys" argument.

I'm actually not much interested in discussing agriculture... I came into this thread to discuss Morrison's ideas, which devolved into a discussion about agriculture because people are obsessed with believing the world is going to hell in a hand basket.  Which I simply don't agree with.

HERE.

Quote from: EoC on April 28, 2010, 09:05:00 PM
Borlaug's work was a successful aspect of the Green Revolution, but there are some consequences to it that weren't foreseen that we're just dealing with today.  Blanketing soil with nitrogen based fertlizers, factory farming leading to soil depletion, vast monocultures, etc.  Creating high yield disease resistant crops was obviously a great thing, but how long until a disease mutates to bypass those defenses and wipes out everything planted with only that one breed?

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:24:14 PM
Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 09:25:02 PM
people = irrational monkeys.

EoC directly spoke to unintended consequences of Borlaug's work, when those ideas moved from the lab to the marketplace.

You made a flippant comment regarding the irrationality of the way Borlaug's ideas were used, and Kai answered you, straight up.


EoC: Borlaug had good ideas, but the results kind of fucked things up.
Hoops: Why would people fuck up Borlaug's ideas?
Kai: Because humans are irrational.


SEE?

Quote from: LMNO on April 29, 2010, 08:52:57 PM
HERE.

Quote from: EoC on April 28, 2010, 09:05:00 PM
Borlaug's work was a successful aspect of the Green Revolution, but there are some consequences to it that weren't foreseen that we're just dealing with today.  Blanketing soil with nitrogen based fertlizers, factory farming leading to soil depletion, vast monocultures, etc.  Creating high yield disease resistant crops was obviously a great thing, but how long until a disease mutates to bypass those defenses and wipes out everything planted with only that one breed?

Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2010, 09:24:14 PM
Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

Quote from: Kai on April 28, 2010, 09:25:02 PM
people = irrational monkeys.

EoC directly spoke to unintended consequences of Borlaug's work, when those ideas moved from the lab to the marketplace.

You made a flippant comment regarding the irrationality of the way Borlaug's ideas were used, and Kai answered you, straight up.


EoC: Borlaug had good ideas, but the results kind of fucked things up.
Hoops: Why would people fuck up Borlaug's ideas?
Kai: Because humans are irrational.


SEE?

But the problem is, Borlaug's ideas haven't fucked up.  At least not yet.  People in Mexico and India that would have been starving are eating... this was all based around the concept that the ideas probably would fuck up.  

But I suppose its inevitable since humans are irrational monkeys.  What more proof do I need other than the fact that I keep coming back to check this goddam thread?  I am one hell of an irrational monkey.  Ook ook.

But it's not Borlaugh's farming principles that spurred this argument; it was a combination of the risks of monoculture and a discussion on overpopulation, neither of which actually have jack shit to do with Borlaugh.

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 09:05:27 PM
But it's not Borlaugh's farming principles that spurred this argument; it was a combination of the risks of monoculture and a discussion on overpopulation, neither of which actually have jack shit to do with Borlaugh.

Well, I believe monoculture was brought up after I mentioned Borlaug, and I think he does have something to do with the problem of overpopulation, since the problem with overpopulation is rarely space.  Its mostly food.

I will admit I don't know enough about monoculture to argue it well, I'm no expert in agriculture.  But I think there is enough reason at the present to be optimistic about the food problem.  If you think I am wrong, that's fine.

Until I learn more about monoculture I really can't present anything else useful to this conversation, consider me beaten, and I believe I will withdraw provided there are no objections and nobody will decide to claim Ayn Rand compelled me to opt out.

I guess what I am wondering is what your basis is for optimism, and what is desirable about sustaining a higher population than the one we presently have?

What are the benefits, as a species and as individuals?

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 09:10:21 PM

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 09:05:27 PM
But it's not Borlaugh's farming principles that spurred this argument; it was a combination of the risks of monoculture and a discussion on overpopulation, neither of which actually have jack shit to do with Borlaugh.

Well, I believe monoculture was brought up after I mentioned Borlaug, and I think he does have something to do with the problem of overpopulation, since the problem with overpopulation is rarely space.  Its mostly food.

I will admit I don't know enough about monoculture to argue it well, I'm no expert in agriculture.  But I think there is enough reason at the present to be optimistic about the food problem.  If you think I am wrong, that's fine.

Until I learn more about monoculture I really can't present anything else useful to this conversation, consider me beaten, and I believe I will withdraw provided there are no objections and nobody will decide to claim Ayn Rand compelled me to opt out.

Hoopla, I wan't specifically talking about monoculture as a result of Borlaug.  It was a side effect of the Green Revolution that he helped jump start.  Other results of the Green Revolution have led us to farming practices that were immediately successful but the long term consequences of which we are just now learning about and dealing with.  You're absolutely right about him stopping widespread starvation.  What I intended with my response was that like many things, it came at a price, and one that we have yet to discover how to appropriately deal with.

Monoculture was a bit of a leap, so here's how my thinking went.  He crossbred wheat plants that are more resistant to diseases because of their combined immunities.  Now we've taken that, and massively planted wheat and corn with those immunities.  But if bacteria or pests adapt to overcome said immunities, here we have enormous fields of crops that will succumb to the same disease - creating famine, examples of which were given by Nigel.

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 09:35:57 PM
I guess what I am wondering is what your basis is for optimism, and what is desirable about sustaining a higher population than the one we presently have?

What are the benefits, as a species and as individuals?

Oh, I don't think there are really any benefits.  I'm not a pro-population person, and I apologize if thats the impression I gave.  I simply don't think overpopulation is the problem that a lot of people do.  But I could be completely wrong, I won't deny that.

The basis for my optimism is that neither optimism or pessimism really gets anyone anywhere... they're just mindsets.  If neither get you anywhere, I don't see  the point in choosing pessimism.   I should qualify that by stating that I don't propose mindless optimism.  One should always consider negative ramifications of actions.

Quote from: EoC on April 29, 2010, 09:37:26 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 09:10:21 PM

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 09:05:27 PM
But it's not Borlaugh's farming principles that spurred this argument; it was a combination of the risks of monoculture and a discussion on overpopulation, neither of which actually have jack shit to do with Borlaugh.

Well, I believe monoculture was brought up after I mentioned Borlaug, and I think he does have something to do with the problem of overpopulation, since the problem with overpopulation is rarely space.  Its mostly food.

I will admit I don't know enough about monoculture to argue it well, I'm no expert in agriculture.  But I think there is enough reason at the present to be optimistic about the food problem.  If you think I am wrong, that's fine.

Until I learn more about monoculture I really can't present anything else useful to this conversation, consider me beaten, and I believe I will withdraw provided there are no objections and nobody will decide to claim Ayn Rand compelled me to opt out.

Hoopla, I wan't specifically talking about monoculture as a result of Borlaug.  It was a side effect of the Green Revolution that he helped jump start.  Other results of the Green Revolution have led us to farming practices that were immediately successful but the long term consequences of which we are just now learning about and dealing with.  You're absolutely right about him stopping widespread starvation.  What I intended with my response was that like many things, it came at a price, and one that we have yet to discover how to appropriately deal with.

Monoculture was a bit of a leap, so here's how my thinking went.  He crossbred wheat plants that are more resistant to diseases because of their combined immunities.  Now we've taken that, and massively planted wheat and corn with those immunities.  But if bacteria or pests adapt to overcome said immunities, here we have enormous fields of crops that will succumb to the same disease - creating famine, examples of which were given by Nigel.

You make a very good point.  I will need to look into monoculture and its problems more, I would certainly hope that scientists are aware of this and figuring it into future plans for combating starvation.  Bananas may be the key, they are very popular in North America and if they suddenly disappear it may (may!) be the wake-up call that people need to see that these issues are much more serious than people may have thought.

If I might use a slightly different example of how this may work I would point to the recycling movement.  30 years ago nobody really recycled, but word got out that things were fucking up and it slowly caught on... now its practically ubiquitous in our culture.  Perfect?  Certainly not, but it is positive step in the right direction isn't it?  Isn't that reason enough for an optimistic view of the future?  Or am I sucking on exhaust pipes?

It's okay Hoopla, in moments of weakness I've been known to be an optimist myself. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=22666.0)  :wink:

Quote from: EoC on April 29, 2010, 09:48:51 PM
It's okay Hoopla, in moments of weakness I've been known to be an optimist myself. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=22666.0)  :wink:

Someone once asked me if I considered myself an optimist or a pessimist.   I answered "An optimist... unfortunately."

That about sums it up.

Bananas aren't the key. It's happened before, with another strain of bananas and with coffee and with potatoes as well as with other crops. It's a very well-known and well-documented problem, and "scientists" know all about it. The thing is, "scientists" aren't the ones practicing agriculture, and until farmers and farm corporations can be compelled to abandon immediately greater profits in favor of long-term sustainable farming practices and diversity, they will continue fostering an agriculture that invites these problems.

Recognizing the problem is crucial to resolving it.

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 09:54:33 PM
Bananas aren't the key. It's happened before, with another strain of bananas and with coffee and with potatoes as well as with other crops.

Granted, but when those blights happened we didn't have mass media, which would figure into the problem.  People would not ignore the extinction of the banana.

I think it might be the key to the recognizing of the problem, as you point out.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 10:00:48 PM

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 09:54:33 PM
Bananas aren't the key. It's happened before, with another strain of bananas and with coffee and with potatoes as well as with other crops.

Granted, but when those blights happened we didn't have mass media, which would figure into the problem.  People would not ignore the extinction of the banana.

I think it might be the key to the recognizing of the problem, as you point out.

We totally had mass media in the 1950's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 10:03:04 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 10:00:48 PM

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 09:54:33 PM
Bananas aren't the key. It's happened before, with another strain of bananas and with coffee and with potatoes as well as with other crops.

Granted, but when those blights happened we didn't have mass media, which would figure into the problem.  People would not ignore the extinction of the banana.

I think it might be the key to the recognizing of the problem, as you point out.

We totally had mass media in the 1950's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana

Yes, I read about the Gros Michel banana problem earlier today... but you can't compare the media of the 1950s with what we have today.  Its completely different. 

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 10:05:22 PM

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 10:03:04 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 10:00:48 PM

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 09:54:33 PM
Bananas aren't the key. It's happened before, with another strain of bananas and with coffee and with potatoes as well as with other crops.

Granted, but when those blights happened we didn't have mass media, which would figure into the problem.  People would not ignore the extinction of the banana.

I think it might be the key to the recognizing of the problem, as you point out.

We totally had mass media in the 1950's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana

Yes, I read about the Gros Michel banana problem earlier today... but you can't compare the media of the 1950s with what we have today.  Its completely different. 

I guess fewer people read newspapers now, and people watch more TV.

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 10:06:11 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 10:05:22 PM

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 10:03:04 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 10:00:48 PM

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 09:54:33 PM
Bananas aren't the key. It's happened before, with another strain of bananas and with coffee and with potatoes as well as with other crops.

Granted, but when those blights happened we didn't have mass media, which would figure into the problem.  People would not ignore the extinction of the banana.

I think it might be the key to the recognizing of the problem, as you point out.

We totally had mass media in the 1950's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana

Yes, I read about the Gros Michel banana problem earlier today... but you can't compare the media of the 1950s with what we have today.  Its completely different. 

I guess fewer people read newspapers now, and people watch more TV.

Facebook, MySpace, email, CNN, Fox News (well, probably not them actually), ticker tape newscrawls, iPhone aps, plus more to come.  If you believe some people information is supposed to double every second in a few years...

As far as I can tell, it creates more redundancy in exposure to popular items than an actual increase in diversity of exposure to news topics.

Basically, a whole lot of repost.

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 10:16:13 PM
As far as I can tell, it creates more redundancy in exposure to popular items than an actual increase in diversity of exposure to news topics.

Basically, a whole lot of repost.

Brought to you by a whole lot of cocks.

Quote from: EoC on April 29, 2010, 10:17:14 PM

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 10:16:13 PM
As far as I can tell, it creates more redundancy in exposure to popular items than an actual increase in diversity of exposure to news topics.

Basically, a whole lot of repost.

Brought to you by a whole lot of cocks.

:mittens:

 :lol:

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 08:11:23 PM
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.

I'm sorry you felt it was insulting. I didn't intend it as an insult.

Quote from: Kai on April 29, 2010, 10:28:35 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 29, 2010, 08:11:23 PM
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.

I'm sorry you felt it was insulting. I didn't intend it as an insult.

Yeah, I know that... I was feeling especially fragile yesterday I guess.  You know me, a delicate flower.

ON THE TOPIC OF THE OP,

I don't know for sure how certain Morrison was of the future at the time of this talk of his, but I think it's entirely possible that his intent was to cast some kind of spell to make the world a better place and change the counterculture into something more effective. This was a guy who believed in magic with a k, hardcore. He'd already used a comic book as a hypersigil; where (imagining for one second that mahgjickque is legit and real, as it evidently is in Morrison's mind) is the line between public speaking and incantation? Saving the world with magic sounds exactly like something a guy with a messiah complex would try.

Obviously, it didn't work.

And on the issue of individuality:
I think what he was talking about was more people going out of their way to define themselves as individuals than existing as distinct, diverse beings. I can tell you from experience that I've had a great deal more self-respect and appreciation for differences since I stopped making an active effort to stand out. I no longer judge people by which clique or culture in particular they associate themselves with so much as by their personalities. It's actually very liberating, and I think that I'm more of an interesting, unique, and well-developed person now than I ever was when I was striving towards the goal of individuality for its own sake. It's a shallow goal. Of course, this doesn't mean you should surrender your views, opinions and tastes to satisfy the majority. In fact, I'd say it means the opposite. It means that you should apply critical thought rather than arbitrary self-definition. This is no problem at all for you, Howl.

Sorry, man, I'm done with this thread, after Trip's outburst.

In fact, I'm done talking politics or philosophy at all, ever.

Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 30, 2010, 03:31:23 AM
Sorry, man, I'm done with this thread, after Trip's outburst.

In fact, I'm done talking politics or philosophy at all, ever.

Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

Suit yourself, then. It'll be a shame, though.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 29, 2010, 08:27:22 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on April 29, 2010, 02:40:37 PM

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.

You're actually letting someone tell you what you do and do not like?

OK

There is something very THIS IS A FALSE STATEMENT about saying something like humans are irrational monkeys. It would take a rational monkey to deduce that all monkeys are irrational. It's very attractive to judge and sentence the planet to doom, but I find that behaviour to be self-serving, unproductive and way off topic of talking about Grant Morrison's disinfo drug magick lecture which I think affected his personality and writing after the fact in a positive way.

*maybe factually incorrect yet apt analogy warning*
Beavers need to chew wood to grind down their teeth (which constantly grow outwards.) Sometimes, they maybe don't take proper care or they don't notice that one tooth isn't being ground down. This tooth continues to grow outwards over a period of months or weeks (I'm not sure exactly since I haven't studied beavers or dentistry extensively) and it begins to curve towards their skull. Eventually, over an extended period, the tooth bores through skin, bone and ultimately the brain- killing the beaver in question. Over a period of weeks the beaver will be in horrendous pain while the tooth makes it's way through his or her head. Imagine spending weeks in pain when all you had to do was bash the tooth against a rock until it snapped off, or any other solution available to an animal without thumbs. A solution is obvious to a higher order species but this tooth situation in beavers is a genetic blind spot. Beavers never figure out a solution and this mistake ultimately kills them.

All animals have this same problem, and it has many different forms. In humans, our version of this dilemma takes on a more meta angle and is capable of spilling over into the lives of other species wrecking havoc in the process yet we are just as incapable of perceiving our own broken robot syndrome, or whatever you want to call it, as beavers are. The difference however is an awareness of this problem in other animals and ourselves. Unlike beavers, or irrational monkeys, we know that we are broken and we are searching for the figurative bad tooth in our minds so we may ultimately rip it out forever, or maybe just file it down for now.  This gives me hope for the future, and I don't necessarily blame ourselves since our destructive behaviour is only natural.

I suppose I must point out that the phrase "Humans Are Irrational Monkeys" is a shorthand symbol for a much more subtle and complex idea, in the same manner as "You Cannot Escape the Black Iron Prison".

Due to the development of the frontal cortex, and the ability to form complex meta thoughts (thoughts about thinking), humans are capable of analyzing their behavior.  As such, they are able to make decisions regarding their actions, if they choose to do so.

A large number of humans (I may even go out on a limb and say all humans, at one time or another) have acted, will act, or even tend to act instinctively-- whether socially pre-programmed, or from more basic, limbic-system origins. 

When a person acts in a manner that shows a lack of comprehension, consideration, compassion, forethought, or rationality, you can generally say that they are not using their frontal cortex completely.  As such, you can (unchairitably) say that they are behaving like primates, i.e. "Monkeys".

Social psychologists and animal behaviorists have shown that in large groups, this tendency in unthinking primate reactionism increases.  Which is why the phrase is not, "a human is an irrational monkey", it's "HUMANS are irrational monkeys."

The point, as always, comes down to self-awareness and Think For Yourself, Schmuck!  We all have the potential to become howling, shit-throwing monkeys.  BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO WALK ON TWO LEGS.



The choice is yours.

Quote from: LMNO on April 30, 2010, 02:23:30 PM
I suppose I must point out that the phrase "Humans Are Irrational Monkeys" is a shorthand symbol for a much more subtle and complex idea, in the same manner as "You Cannot Escape the Black Iron Prison".

Due to the development of the frontal cortex, and the ability to form complex meta thoughts (thoughts about thinking), humans are capable of analyzing their behavior.  As such, they are able to make decisions regarding their actions, if they choose to do so.

A large number of humans (I may even go out on a limb and say all humans, at one time or another) have acted, will act, or even tend to act instinctively-- whether socially pre-programmed, or from more basic, limbic-system origins. 

When a person acts in a manner that shows a lack of comprehension, consideration, compassion, forethought, or rationality, you can generally say that they are not using their frontal cortex completely.  As such, you can (unchairitably) say that they are behaving like primates, i.e. "Monkeys".

Social psychologists and animal behaviorists have shown that in large groups, this tendency in unthinking primate reactionism increases.  Which is why the phrase is not, "a human is an irrational monkey", it's "HUMANS are irrational monkeys."

The point, as always, comes down to self-awareness and Think For Yourself, Schmuck!  We all have the potential to become howling, shit-throwing monkeys.  BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO WALK ON TWO LEGS.



The choice is yours.

:mittens:

Quote from: LMNO on April 30, 2010, 02:23:30 PM
I suppose I must point out that the phrase "Humans Are Irrational Monkeys" is a shorthand symbol for a much more subtle and complex idea, in the same manner as "You Cannot Escape the Black Iron Prison".

Due to the development of the frontal cortex, and the ability to form complex meta thoughts (thoughts about thinking), humans are capable of analyzing their behavior.  As such, they are able to make decisions regarding their actions, if they choose to do so.

A large number of humans (I may even go out on a limb and say all humans, at one time or another) have acted, will act, or even tend to act instinctively-- whether socially pre-programmed, or from more basic, limbic-system origins.  

When a person acts in a manner that shows a lack of comprehension, consideration, compassion, forethought, or rationality, you can generally say that they are not using their frontal cortex completely.  As such, you can (unchairitably) say that they are behaving like primates, i.e. "Monkeys".

Social psychologists and animal behaviorists have shown that in large groups, this tendency in unthinking primate reactionism increases.  Which is why the phrase is not, "a human is an irrational monkey", it's "HUMANS are irrational monkeys."

The point, as always, comes down to self-awareness and Think For Yourself, Schmuck!  We all have the potential to become howling, shit-throwing monkeys.  BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO WALK ON TWO LEGS.



The choice is yours.

Granted, completely, but if you actually watch the Morrison video... THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS!

Did anyone arguing against it ACTUALLY watch the video?



And, the context that the "humans = irrational monkeys" was used here did not seem to imply that the choice was ours to be better, to me it certainly seemed to be a shorthand for a barstool.  It won't work because people are irrational monkeys, which is not the way you just explained it.  You can't have it both ways.

Quote from: Template on April 30, 2010, 05:11:32 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 29, 2010, 08:27:22 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on April 29, 2010, 02:40:37 PM

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.

You're actually letting someone tell you what you do and do not like?

OK

No, I'm just refusing to be the on-call bad guy.  Find another sucker.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 30, 2010, 02:58:41 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 30, 2010, 02:23:30 PM
I suppose I must point out that the phrase "Humans Are Irrational Monkeys" is a shorthand symbol for a much more subtle and complex idea, in the same manner as "You Cannot Escape the Black Iron Prison".

Due to the development of the frontal cortex, and the ability to form complex meta thoughts (thoughts about thinking), humans are capable of analyzing their behavior.  As such, they are able to make decisions regarding their actions, if they choose to do so.

A large number of humans (I may even go out on a limb and say all humans, at one time or another) have acted, will act, or even tend to act instinctively-- whether socially pre-programmed, or from more basic, limbic-system origins. 

When a person acts in a manner that shows a lack of comprehension, consideration, compassion, forethought, or rationality, you can generally say that they are not using their frontal cortex completely.  As such, you can (unchairitably) say that they are behaving like primates, i.e. "Monkeys".

Social psychologists and animal behaviorists have shown that in large groups, this tendency in unthinking primate reactionism increases.  Which is why the phrase is not, "a human is an irrational monkey", it's "HUMANS are irrational monkeys."

The point, as always, comes down to self-awareness and Think For Yourself, Schmuck!  We all have the potential to become howling, shit-throwing monkeys.  BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO WALK ON TWO LEGS.



The choice is yours.

Granted, completely, but if you actually watch the Morrison video... THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS!

Did anyone arguing against it ACTUALLY watch the video?



And, the context that the "humans = irrational monkeys" was used here did not seem to imply that the choice was ours to be better, to me it certainly seemed to be a shorthand for a barstool.  It won't work because people are irrational monkeys, which is not the way you just explained it.  You can't have it both ways.

We're now talking about three different things.


We're gonna need to untangle the various threadjacks before we can proceed, otherwise we'll be shouting past each other.

I'm a bit busy at work right now; I'll see if I can clarify things in a bit.  However, my previous post was a response to h-town, and had little to do directly with the OP, if that clears things up.

OK.  I don't actually have time to get into this today either, so I don't know why I responded.  Actually I don't know why I responded in this thread at all.  Must.  Stick.  To.  Apple.  Talk.

"Let my frontal cortex go,
ya damned stinkin apes"
                \
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/07/arts/Heston2190.jpg)

Quote from: h-town on April 30, 2010, 03:55:45 PM
"Let my frontal cortex go,
ya damned stinkin apes"
                \
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/07/arts/Heston2190.jpg)

:mittens:

(http://s3-llnw-screenshots.wegame.com/5-6882076268134497/6882076268134497_l.jpg)

nonmyspace version
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6148569602584070911#

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 29, 2010, 10:16:13 PM
As far as I can tell, it creates more redundancy in exposure to popular items than an actual increase in diversity of exposure to news topics.

Basically, a whole lot of repost.

This is something I would like to study and get actual numbers on. I will post about it somewhere, but this thread doesn't need more jacks (I just read the whole thing).

I think that perhaps studying it properly would be an AI-complete problem, though. It's easy enough to run the text of news stories through a script and give the net information content of the word choice and phrasing then compare it to a projection, but for semantics we need to do better parsing. Alternately, a naiive form could translate declarative headlines into question-answer pairs and we could run information content analysis on the pairs (which is quite easy).

My guess, though, is that you are probably right -- lots of articles and most of them are saying the same things in different words, rather than saying a significantly bigger variety of things.

Quote from: Faust on April 29, 2010, 11:24:45 AM

Quote from: Triple Zero on April 29, 2010, 09:35:59 AM

Quote from: Cramulus on April 28, 2010, 04:41:52 PM
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/SKhSqPrPVcs/0.jpg)

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 :D

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

What is it about the scottish and being crazy bastards.

You try living your whole life in scotland. Going crazy is the only sensible option.