I think so but it's going to take centuries of serious dedicated work by millions of patient, sophisticated and persistent non-violent pro-social volunteers.
This is the path in my view:
1. Mutual cooperatives become the dominant form of labor organization over corporations (definitely possible)
And
2. Mutual Aid Communities become the dominant form of social organization over Churches and Families (harder but I think still possible)
Great ideas!! Especially the concept of mutual aid communities, I bet they could be implemented right now. If only we could get a bunch of engineers to build a worldwide, decentralized, nonprofit platform to organize them...
As a society, we need to grieve. We need time to grieve, yes, but we also need a process. We need permission to grieve: we need to let ourselves grieve.
Not just for the dead, but for the shocking loss of this or that imagined future.
And this process is going to be weird, and we'll hardly recognize ourselves, but of course nothing fundamental will have changed.
> It should be noted that, empirically, all other economic systems that have been tried are even worse than capitalism as far as people's perceptions of their existence.
That's patently false. Socialist implementations like the USSR's lifted people from mud huts and being barefood to apartments and space age within the same generation. The only reason that it ran out of steam was because the US, who controlled 75% of world's resources at the time, started an all encompassing economic warfare and arms race to starve it of GDP by forcing it to allocate all to defense. Which is not something hypothetical or anything interpreted by historians - we have the Kennedy administration' internal memos and planning that envisaged this plan and implemented it. If ANYone did even a fraction of that to the US, the US would initiate a nuclear war as can be seen from the various examples during the Cold War. That the Soviets were way too less aggressive and they let themselves to be starved out of GDP has been a fortune for the human civilization for averting nuclear war.
> Socialist countries have border guards to keep their own people from escaping.
That's also a flat out lie that the system propagates to protect itself: Castro opened the doors of Cuba and told anyone who didnt want to stay to f... off in mid 1980. Yet the Cubans are there, except from a few who still think that the Muriel boatlift law is still in effect and they will be getting tens of thousands of dollars in US taxpayer money if they step into US soil from a boat. Otherwise they could just fly in. All the immigration from Cuba has been a few hundred thousand people, most of them people who had a good time during Batista and their relatives. Thanks to US taxpayer money, of course.
You could also leave the USSR at any time by paying back the free education and other services that the state, therefore the society, has given you for free. Which is not even an option in the US, for example - if you are born poor you just stay poor instead of someone giving you anything free.
> Capitalism does not enforce behavior patterns. You are free to opt out and be poor and not compete with others, if you want. You can be homeless, or subsist on minimum wage, or go on welfare benefits, and many do.
First, welfare benefits dont exist in capitalism. They are part of social democracy, first advocated by the socialists in the First Socialist International. So that's not the argument you want.
Second, all that you said do sound like enforcing of behavior. "You dont have to participate - you can just starve". Sounds utterly sociopathic.
> "Being unemployed" is a felony that gets you ten years in a forced labor camp.
There is no such thing anywhere. Don't make up falsities for argument. Doing the same in any country during wartime gets you the same kind of repercussion, including the 'democratic' ones who have all those written in as 'emergency laws'. If any rando like you ever knew what the 'emergency laws' in the most democratic countries involve, you would swiftly lose all the farcical illusions that you had about 'democracy'. Unfortunately such knowledge requires either special interest, or doing service in any NATO country's military or paramilitary tasked with enforcement of such laws. So that the masses like you can remain in blissful ignorance about the legal system that they live in...
...
So basically capitalism is the best system solely because people like you believe in a lot of falsities and lies. Which is of course the only way to sustain a system that kills people when they cant pay for healthcare etc...
GenZ here. 95% of my life so far has been spent alone lol. Prices for everything are crazy, a 1-BR apt cost 2-3K a month, and jobs barely pay enough to cover that while taking up half my waking hours. I've totally burned out
I'm 22, going through something similar. Been a tech nerd since I was a kid. I don't mind programming, but I can't do it outside my day job anymore. I basically spend all my free time writing, sketching, and going outside. Connecting with life in this way strengthens my mental battery for the challenge of coding.
I agree with the sentiment, but tbh a lot of people suffer alone on this planet and designing societal structures to serve absolutely everyone's emotional needs would be impossible. An AI would be perfect for all the misfits, elderly, loners, disabled, "ugly," outcasts, etc, right?
Think about what you're saying a bit. Why are the "others" you're describing destined to be alone? At the very least, couldn't they have each other?
It's easier and more rewarding to just be more compassionate to others, and I don't think it's impossible to design social structures that at least make some attempt to serve everyone's emotional needs. Whether they'll be successful is circumstantial, and I don't think it's possible to make everyone perfectly content and with the perfect companions all the time, but we can encourage a culture of genuine curiosity and care for others that tries to move in that direction.
Giving is only draining to those who are still in an insecure and narcissistic phase of emotional development. It's extremely rewarding to give to others and help meet their needs and encourage growth, regardless of status difference.
I support your optimism and believe we can move in that direction. However I still believe you severely underestimate the scale of misery, solitude, and unmet desires amongst humanity. Also, you mention it won't be possible to make everyone perfectly content, implying some will be more content than others. How is that fair? Why must some have fewer friends, lovers, positive experiences, adventures, achievements etc? This is a fundamental psychological inequality in the world that could only be balanced by AI.
I’ve seen the horror of abuse and know the wrecked people that come out of mental institutions. I know the hopelessness of those without skills surrounded by predatory people. I understand the brutality of caste systems and the superficial rejection of good people for stupid fleeting status games. I understand the history of the world and current and past slavery and all the brutality we inflict on each other. But I think we can try to do just a bit better than yesterday, and make our little part of the world better if we’re proper stewards. I’d rather die trying to do that and teach others than to roll over and allow the world to degenerate without any kind of fight, or give an opiate to a person to whom I could instead give a cure.
I think focusing on inequality is an egregious mistake, and is a consequence of a perspective where comparison to others is paramount. Worth and contentment should not be viewed as related to the circumstances of others, it should be something each of us compares to our own prior circumstances.
If we are doing better than we were yesterday, that is immensely positive. And I believe that is possible for everyone. I believe everyone can find a friend out there that enriches them, and we can get the world to think and value compassion and social bonds just a tiny bit more than the day before.
If AI can supplement people when they’re in dire straights, and it works, then sure. But it won’t ever equalize the experience of everyone, because everyone is coming from a different place, and I don’t think it will ever substitute true human connection. The goal should be enrichment, and trying to increase positivity without taking from others. Social interaction is mutually beneficial when done correctly and can accomplish that.
The key and the challenge is to pair and train people in such a way that people are incrementally uplifted and not torn down. I think if AI has a place, it is best used to figure out optimal pairings that encourage that growth.
Backdoors such as Intel Management Engine are unacceptable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine