|Maggot Brain |
They also had Ipads in 2001.
|Jet Bin Fever |
I love Neil, but I think he's being a little too nice to us here. I think we have utterly failed in so many of the advancements shown in 2001. For example, we can't take sleek luxury liners into outer space, even if Richard Branson is working on it. HAL also wasn't just a computer, he was AI, and we haven't achieved AI yet (to my knowledge). We haven't got a moonbase, yes, but we also haven't even been back to the moon in over 40 years. There are others that I won't go into here, but long story short, I think he should be a little less forgiving of our achievements. I know its just a science fiction story, but all those things (except the monolith, starbaby, aliens on Jupiter, etc) could be possible with a little human ingenuity.
Most of those things seem like it's more a matter of profitability than actual technical feasibility though. Like, I don't doubt we'd be taking luxury liners into space if someone could figure out a way to see a large return on the investment.
We've failed culturally more than technologically in this arena, being driven by the profit motive rather than the awesomeness motive.
Yeah, I posted the Flying Cars lecture. I think both guys have a point.
We're living through a time that makes me think of the Chinese treasure ships of the 15th century. They had the technology and resources to field a fleet of ships that traveled around the world, and if inclined could have beaten the Europeans to the whole colonial game. They ended up dismantling the fleet and turning inwards instead.
My point isn't that colonialism was good or the right path for China. It's that our technological capacity is being directed in a largely unnaccountable way, and maybe a market economy mixed with a plutocracy isn't the best way to channel our collective energy during this specific historical moment. In other words, perhaps the problem is that our modes of social organization haven't kept up with technological progress.
"Open the pod bay doors, please Cleverbot."
"I am not a robot, you are a robot."
"Open the pod bay doors, please Cleverbot?"
"The pod bay doors is not a real band."
"Daisy daisy I can't believe it's true."
No, Hal actually exists I think.
This made me think of the exact same thing you're talking about baleen. Here's a lecture of him talking about it: http://youtu.be/-QgSJkk1tng
I just wish Graeber was a better speaker.
Interestingly, he's really articulate and likeable when interacting in a less formal setting. I think a lot of it is the anarchist in him not liking the hierarchical format of a lecture.
I can't take David Graeber completely seriously because his name makes me think of GraBear.
I do wish he was a better public speaker if only because it would get more people reading him. I forgive what is obviously a kind of Asperger's in poor DG. His writing is so immaculately cited and well-crafted that I can't help but like the guy.
I also love asking free market drones if they can argue against anything he's written on the fallacy of free markets. He's almost the perfect silver bullet, and makes them extremely angry in general.
A "PhD in economics" recently told me that capitalism existed far before Adam Smith (duh) and that he didn't need the government telling him that he can freely exchange products with his neighbor. He said that modern markets were just the free exchange of neighborly exchanges scaled upwards. I cannot actually believe that a PhD in economics believes this, but there you have it, the mass fallacy of expertise that has determined whether or not we have jobs for hundreds of years.
He finally told me that "I needed to use a source other than David Graeber," so it must have been obvious where I was coming from. When asked if he could point me to some more accurate sources on the history of debt and markets, he either could not be bothered or he ran away from the conversation.
While it's nice to have goals, we have too many actual problems that won't be solved here on Earth until we reinstate the guillotine.
Maybe it'll be some sort of awesomely futuristic mega-guillotine that transforms into a robot that fights crime, but the problem will be actually getting the political will to do what clearly needs to be done.
We lived up to 80's sci fi just fine.
I've always wondered what the Stormfront crowd thinks about Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I am rather lukewarm about Tyson, he's gone to the "overly florid language about the majesty and WONDER of THE COSMOS" well too many times for me to take him seriously but watching the usual nerds and redditors who are all a bunch of XKCD loving FUCK YEAH SCIENCE FOR THE WIN dilletantes with only the shallowest grasps on science spooge over him can be hilarious.
Then again, it's hardly Tyson's fault he's become a patron saint of the turbo-sperglords.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|