Treading Carefully: As far as I can see the core problem of the U/Acc - R/Acc debate is unfortunately due to free floating definitions. With this said, let's define:
-
-
- fully utilize the finite resources we have. Otherwise capital will simply continue its runaway expansion without considering its fuels finitude. L/Acc is simply Marxism, and its becoming adheres to the same traditional constraints as before.
Show this thread -
U/Acc is undoubtedly going to become or, always already is, but without conditions or a divergent endgame it's allowing capital free-rein of resources which it won't use as well as it _could_ in terms of an end.
Show this thread -
R/Acc as capital becoming teleological super-AI cannot happen without conditions because the means of intellectual propulsion are being squandered on trinkets for dumb apes.
Show this thread -
This is why R and Rx are often mistaken for one another, because R often sees Rx as a means to stop and redirect the squandering of resources back towards capital's self-fulfillment.
Show this thread -
Z/Acc comes in as that which is the pessimistic form of the above - it is too fucking late - no amount of Rx could redirect the current appropriation of capital, doing so would be to try stop Cthulhu.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
this confirms my thesis that r/acc thinks humanity needs to be a nanny to capital.
-
In your view, did capital 'exist' prior to man?
-
as a transcendental process of temporal compression, yes. manifested throughout universal history as ever faster communication topologies, the latest of which is the internet.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.