• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Lightyearsaway

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Jonathan Shockley
  • Relationship status
  • Looking or Not Looking
  1. Here's a paper
  2. I edited a video presenting some of the evidence for the notion that our self-esteem is an unconscious death anxiety reflex & cultural Illusion, as well as an interpretation of human history from this perspective. Definitely puts the work of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden in a different light:
  3. ARPANET was the founding technology of the internet. The fact that DARPA was a larger umbrella tells us nothing about the amount of capitalist investment (which was $0), so i don't know why you bring it up, as if it was relevant to your case. All the knowledge and technologies, coming from various agencies and universities, was inter-disciplinary and was government funded, sometimes for decades. I repeat: a free market capitalist society would have never created the internet, as no capitalist would have invested without returns for that long. As for the efficiency of capitalism, it has massive externalities that make it inefficient and even more ecocidal than other forms of industrialism. The species being brought to extinction have more value than humanity itself, so of course that an economic system that destroys more value than it produces cannot be efficient. And the idea of capitalism without government is only abstract. Government is, and has always been mainly a tool for capitalists to socialize risk and privatize profit, and protect or expand their stolen property through violence (police, military imperialism). The public can have some democratic say (more than they do in corporations, which are purely capitalist-run), but as my documentary shows, parties in elections are generally groups of capitalist investors who compete to control the state. Wage labor itself, generally entails money confiscated by virtue of a "work for a boss or else" social environment collectively imposed by capitalists, which allows them to exploit others and brainwash the masses into thinking that their activities are worth huge amounts of money. And thus their "risks"are always with other people's money. And of course, the risk of workers who risk life and limb is much greater, and yet they get paid less. Slave owners also took risks btw (their expensive slave could have gotten sick, died etc). That doesn't mean that the slave owner deserved profit. Some slaves could even buy their own freedom and become slave owners themselves. That social mobility didn't justify slavery. With more democratic governments, in which the public has some say to compete with capitalist control, some of that money confiscated by capitalists can be redistributed, achieving a fairer society. Of course, capitalists love to form unions (chambers of commerce) but hate when workers form unions, and use the power of the state to prevent it. A more fair arrangement, would be for people to earn money according to effort and sacrifice toward a socially useful task, to be determined in a participatory manner by worker and consumer councils. Anarchist catalonia in the 1930s, was probably the best model that one could follow within an industrial system, and the least bureaucratic. So-called libertarian capitalism is far more bureaucratic, even in theory. The word "libertarian" was always used for libertarian communism aka anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism or council communism. Some jokers in the US later stole the term "libertarian"and started using it in relation to capitalism. Just ridiculous. Capitalism needs a government and thus will always need government bureaucracies. Although corporations themselves form bureaucracies at least as bad as those of government. State capitalist societies like the US are far more efficient than more free market societies. And every country has tended to need a period of protectionism and government investment to build up their industry before they could compete in a more open market. But in any case, as i already said, all industrial systems, from soviet style communism, to western style capitalism, to even anarcho-syndicalism are illegitimate for a simple reason: they cause ecocide to different degrees. Only a massive reduction of population/production (which seems to be consistent only with preindustrial society) reduces ecocide enough to be worthy of contemplation.
  4. The internet took decades of government investment and loss in R & D to develop. No capitalist would have taken that loss. Capitalism, without a massive government, would have never developed the internet. it was mostly based on military technology.
  5. Slight correction unrelated to the main theme of the thread: The internet was originally developed in the state sector, at places like MIT and the Pentagon. Nothing to do with capitalism, especially as idealized by "free market libertarians"
  6. well, I'd want it for myself too - I believe cosmic heroism provides maximum happiness. Unfortunately, I just don't believe we're cosmically more important than a cockroach or a cucumber.
  7. Don't believe in it, unfortunately haha, well I never said that the moral virtuosity attainable by a vasectomy was insufficient - or devoid of side benefits ;) 15 football fields of saved wildlife per child, that's some serious morality though p.s. what stickers? is that spam or something?
  8. Unless you explain how, you'll just be stating so by fiat or wishful assumptions; under the vaguely articulated pretense of some unstated inconsistency. It is a common bad habit I see in many forums by those too focused on winning instead of honesty dealing with arguments involving various complexities. The more dimensions, complexities or subtleties an argument or position has, the easier it is for someone to willfully misrepresent it - especially with what Reinhold Niebuhr called ''emotionally potent oversimplifications".
  9. It would indeed be hypocritical if I had advocated that people go back to living like the Bushmen before a massive population reduction took place. Or if I hadn't proposed having vasectomies to go completely extinct as a better option. That's why you must assume these things I didn't say - to be able to call me hypocrite. Let's not resort to such tactics. As for the Bushmen, my point was their admirably low footprint. The information we have does not support the notion that they lived an "awful life". Even today, with much of their former lifestyle undermined, those still maintaining a hunter-gatherer lifestyle show some incredible qualities. And the illusion of cosmic heroism described by Ernest Becker, which they posses and we lack, may be the most important requirement for maximizing life enjoyment.
  10. There is no exemption at all. Read what I wrote again. Slowly and with good will. Because 1) if everyone does what I did, within a 100 years, the human species will go extinct. I never said I aspired to more than that, and I already did my part (by having a vasectomy) 2) a hunter-gatherer society requires low population densities. Hence I don't advocate (as a 2nd best option to total human extinction) that 7.4 billion humans go back to living like the bushmen. A great population reduction would need to take place 1st, as already stated. Other creatures enjoy the world. Kinda hard to miss.
  11. Haha, that was the 2nd most ethical option (and only "once the population has greatly been reduced"). But since I already fulfilled the 1st most ethical option (non-breeding), I need not pursue the 2nd. Gotcha ;)
  12. Oh, I didn't. I already got a vasectomy, which saves several football fields worth of wildlife per avoided child. One of the most moral acts any human can perform. May we live long and die out.