I think I made the differences between the two (now) clear, U/Acc members believe that U will take us elsewhere... It confuses things.
-
*Head close to implosion* Nukes don't grow on fucking trees - yet - there *HAD* to be humans to make nukes a possibility.
I don't see the point of this questions? What is the cash out? Why does it matter that humans "made nukes"?
-
-
The point of the question is that - and this isn't some form of humanism - humans undoubtedly play a key role in acceleration so it'd be silly to just denounce them into the motion as such. This doesn't mean one has to give them agency though.
-
If they don't have agency then you might as well say this piece of the steel made the nukes. Your question presupposes human agency for the question to be meaningful. But this gets at the basic criticism of r/acc: it's a humanism. So, not that different from l/acc.
-
It doesn't presuppose agency at all, humans without free will could make nukes, no? I'm saying, even if we're just a determinate part to a process, we are, at this stage, an important part. And it's interesting to see how the human 'part' might or did go wrong.
-
it's not like human production isn't a competitive system. even if a part of it goes awry, they get eliminated for their dysfunctionality.
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.