So Arran tells me I’m reading ‘lock in’ and inevitability into Marx, you tell me he is the lock in king and all about inevitability, but somehow I’m still wrong? Must me inherently mistaken at an ontological level... ha.
-
-
And no one sees how “embrace, and take the brakes off, because they won’t work anyway” makes you complicit the capitalist processes?
-
I'm ok with complicity, as I generally see the horror that is to come is better than the alternative horror that could come.
-
At least you are honest about that. Which is appreciated. What do you see as the horror to come? And what is this worse fate you would like to avoid?
-
Well we are wandering into speculative territory here but... For example, technological advancement is the best path to solve the ecological crisis but such development can only occur through experimentation unguided by political concerns.
-
Why must it only happen through means unguided by political concerns? Why the must?
-
You can't imagine how politics or morality will interfere in the development of technology? CRISPR? AI? For these two, it is not difficult imagining a left/right coalition standing against it.
-
This is one of the chief reasons Land says that China is the future. Confucianism is more flexible on this tech than Christianity (in its left or right variant).
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.