Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47

Thread: Future of FARTS and bull****, yeah right

  1. #1

    Default Future of FARTS and bull****, yeah right

    5 Reasons The Future Will Be Ruled By B.S.
    By David Wong | Oct 18, 2010 | 204,506 views

    Picture your ideal future. OK, not your ideal future, where you're the last man on earth fighting the zombie horde, but society's ideal future: Energy is clean and limitless, goods are plentiful and machines take care of all the dirty work. So everybody's happy, right?

    But in many ways, that future is already here, and it can be described in five letters:

    FARTS.

    I should probably explain.

    #5. A Star Trek-Style Utopia is Already Here ... Sort Of

    Let's talk about porn and dead babies for a moment.

    If I gave you a budget of zero dollars and said, "Get me as much Internet porn as you can for that amount of money," how much porn would you come back with?

    I'm thinking the answer is, "All of the porn."

    Which brings me to an amusing story. In the last few decades, thousands of babies in Third World countries have died from contaminated baby formula. Wait, did I say amusing? I typed the wrong word there. Anyway, what happens is the mothers mix the baby formula with contaminated water, because sanitation is poor. So why the hell do the mothers feed their infants poison formula when they can just produce milk, for free, from their own bodies? The answer is that they do it because the manufacturer of the formula, Nestle, ran lots of ads telling them to.

    If you want to know what the future looks like, there it is. The future is going to hang on whether or not businesses will be able to convince you to pay money for things you can otherwise get for free.

    Some of you think I'm about to talk about file sharing and DRM and the evil record labels. But that's just a teaser of what's coming. The world has changed. All the rules we were trained to believe about society from birth until now are about to go out the window.

    Futurists and sci-fi writers talk about a "post-scarcity" society, meaning it's like Star Trek, where matter replicators and fusion reactors have ended all shortages. On one hand, that now looks like a ridiculous pipe dream, but in a lot of areas of our life, we're already there. Think about the porn. There's more porn than air now. Literally -- air is limited, but we have machines that can convert energy into .jpegs of titties from now until the heat death of the universe. Titties are post-scarcity.

    Now think about how many people you know who live in apartments or trailers barely big enough to host a game of Twister but who don't care because they spend every waking moment at home either playing World of Warcraft or surfing the Internet. They're not looking for a two-story house with a swimming pool and a white picket fence. With a $300 netbook and a $20-a-month Internet connection they can connect with friends, meet girls, get their entertainment, pursue their hobbies and stay in contact with family or co-workers. They may even work from home.

    Look at how many of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs they're getting digitally:
    http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/ar.../33568.jpg?v=1

    Everything from that second tier to the capstone, they can get at a cost that rounds down to zero, if they so choose.

    We Internet types are so busy haggling over video games with DRM that we're not grasping the scale of this. We're like a dog who's been cooped up behind a fence his whole life, and now a storm has knocked down the gate. The dog looks out and thinks, "Wow, out there is the front yard!"

    No, Fluffy. Out there is the whole world

    #4. To Stay Afloat, Businesses Have to Pretend Unlimited Goods are Limited

    Well, shit, Utopia's here! Mankind won! Let's just stop reading the article here and go celebrate!

    Wait -- did you forget the thing about the baby formula?

    Because this is where shit gets absurd. For instance:

    Public libraries have been lending out books to people, for free, for the last 500 years or so. Publishers are OK with it because the library is paying for the book, and if it's a popular book, they'll buy multiple copies so multiple people can check it out at once. Then they'll replace those every couple of years, because if you read a book too much it falls apart at the binding.

    But then the publisher invented a better book. An indestructible book called an ebook that could be read 10 billion times without ever falling apart. How much does it cost to manufacture this marvel? Not a goddamned penny. The readers have the ability to "manufacture" copies of their own, on their computer, at no cost to the publisher. It's a post-scarcity book.

    So for the publishers, the next step was clear: Make the book destroy itself.

    An ebook sold to a library will thus delete itself out of existence after a year, or after X number of times it had been lent out. This is a big source of controversy between publishers and public libraries, maybe because both of them know they've found the loose thread that can unravel all of society. After all:

    A. Why can't the library just buy as many digital copies as are needed for the customers, and keep them forever, if they don't naturally degrade?

    B. Wait a second. It's just a digital file. Why not just buy one copy, and just copy and paste it for every customer who wants to read it?

    C. Wait a second. Why do you need the library at all? Why can't a customer just buy a copy from the publisher and "lend" copies to all of his friends?

    D. Wait a second. If no printing and binding needs to be done, why do you need the publisher? Just buy it directly from the author.

    E. Waaaaait a second. Why buy it? Once the author makes one copy available, why can't everyone just grab it for free?

    Stop and think about everything that just vanished there. Skyscrapers full of publishing company employees, warehouses full of books, book stores, libraries, factories full of printing presses, paper mills, all the stuff the author bought with his writing money. Gone.

    To keep all that stuff up and running, the publisher is resorting to what experts call FARTS--Forced ARTificial Scarcity. Or they would call it that, if they were as awesome at naming things as I am.

    Mark my words: The future will be ruled by FARTS.

    Remember the debut of Sony's futuristic Matrix-style virtual world, PlayStation Home? There was a striking moment when the guys at Penny Arcade logged in and found themselves in a virtual bowling alley... standing in line. Waiting for a lane to open up. In a virtual world where the bowling alley didn't actually exist. It's all just ones and zeros on a server--the bowling lanes should be effectively infinite, but where there should have been thousands of lanes for anybody who wanted one, there was only FARTS.

    Get used to it.

    #3. Arbitrary Restriction of Goods Is the Future

    It works the same way with all digital goods -- from entertainment to communication to the software you use to do your job. A significant chunk of our economy runs on FARTS now. And as time goes on, more and more of what we use and rely on day to day will be enveloped by that invisible cloud.

    Awesome, right? After all, you're not going to do what the Man tells you to do. You're not going to tolerate a future where corporations try to slap a price tag on readily available goods. It'd be like -- I don't know -- making a woman pay huge amounts of money for something that could be accomplished with her own bodily fluids.

    That's what I thought, too. I'm savvy. I'm savvy as balls. But then I looked around my desk.

    Sitting next to me is a bottle of Aquafina water. It's there because in the 1990s, both Pepsi and Coke noticed cola sales were flat, so they bought tap water -- the same stuff I have an effectively infinite supply of -- stuck it in bottles, put a picture of a mountain on the label and upped the price by 20,000 percent. Then I paid for it

    Next to the water is a green bottle of Excedrin. Sure, the generic store brand is identical right down to the molecule, but I paid twice as much for the name brand because this is Excedrin here. The Headache Medicine. It's sitting on top of a statement from the bank showing where they automatically deducted my mortgage payment... for a $5.00 "transaction fee."

    And man, don't even look at my PC. I have on it a copy of Windows 7 -- a $200 full copy, because I was installing it on a new hard drive. The upgrade version is only $100, and by the way, they're the exact same product -- all the data is on both disks. The cheap one just has a thing that detects whether you have a previous version of Windows on the drive and refuses to install if you don't.

    When I go to upgrade this computer, maybe I'll wind up with that new processor Intel is test-marketing, which ships with software that intentionally disables some of the chip's features. Why? Because along with it they sell a $50 "upgrade card" that does nothing but unlock the capabilities the processor had all along.
    They've been training us to pay for nothing, and we're all going along with it. Tell me I won't find any FARTS at your desk.

    #2. The Future Will Turn Us All Into Lars Ulrich
    I picked the example with the ebooks earlier for a reason. As I mention every chance I get, I have a book on store shelves, a novel about monsters and dongs. It's in paperback now at the reasonable price of $10 or so. It took me five years to write it. But let's face it: If you want a digital copy of it for free, you can get it. The scarcity that would require you to pay money is purely a product of our collective imagination. John Dies at the End is 350 pages of FARTS.

    This is the basis of that huge fight between Amazon.com and the largest book publisher about ebook prices. Nobody knows what to charge. We just kind of have to arbitrarily decide, because after the first copy, it costs nothing to make them.

    Meanwhile me, my family, the bank what owns my mortgage and car loan, the IRS, the grocery store where I buy my food, all are hoping the same thing -- that you won't notice that free copies of my book are floating all around you. Soon, the whole world will be nursing the same hope.

    That's what ACTA is about. This massive worldwide treaty would bring the hammer down on anyone violating intellectual property laws. Everyone on the Internet hates it because we know it 1) would have to be incredibly invasive, to the point of basically peering into everyone's hard drive at any moment for signs of contraband, and 2) is futile. It's a leaking ship trying to stay afloat by threatening the ocean with its cannons.

    And for what? To protect the profits of huge corporations and record labels and freaking Activision? So Metallica's irritating anti-piracy crusader Lars Ulrich can buy a plane made of platinum instead of gold? So some hack writer can buy a monkey and train him to ride a tiny motorcycle? Fuck you!

    But remember the dog and the fence. The world has changed. For everyone. I'm in the same boat as Lars Ulrich. But so are you.

    Lars makes money selling his music. You make money selling your labor. At some point down the line, like his music, your skill as a human being can and will be converted to an electronic format for a fraction of the cost, rendering your skill worthless.

    Work at a GameStop or some other video game store at the mall? The next consoles will download their games directly, no store needed. Work at a video store? Same thing -- Blu-ray is probably the last physical media we'll ever see. Work as a cashier? Forget self-checkout lanes taking your job -- soon they'll have RFID systems where customers can pile groceries into a cart and wheel it out the door, and sensors will bill their debit card on the fly.

    Work at Starbucks? What are you doing that a machine couldn't do? Work for the post office? You're just a human spambot at this point -- more than half of all mail is now unwanted junk that goes directly into the trash, because in a world with email, direct mailers are the only profitable customers the Postal Service has left.

    Note that I'm intentionally listing service jobs here, because almost none of you work in manufacturing. Those jobs have already been outsourced, often to robots.

    Thanks to technology, much of the labor is about to become to employers what Internet porn is to you now. Post-scarcity. And it gives them just as much of an erection.

    So hate ACTA all you want, along with the MPAA and the RIAA. But you, like them, are getting paid in FARTS.
    #1. Only Bullshit Will Save Civilization

    And so, here we are. We're celebrating that we don't need to pay greedy corporations because technology means we can get more and more of what we want for free, but at the same time, we're moving toward an era when corporations won't need to pay [i]us[i]. Both of us are hoping that in the future people will, for no tangible reason, simply choose to pay. If you work at Gamestop, both you and corporate are hoping for the same thing: that people will just 1) arbitrarily choose to pay for their games, and 2) choose to get them from a human.

    And no, don't give me that old line about, "If you do good work, society will always be happy to pay for it!" I live on the Internet. I've seen how that works. I've seen too many of my favorite websites go under because they were so popular that the traffic crashed the server, but PayPal fundraising drives brought in nothing but the sound of crickets. If people got paid according to the inherent value of their work as measured by the satisfaction of the consumers, Achewood wouldn't have to beg for donations.
    No, a "pay what you choose" system eventually becomes charity, and we humans only hand out charity when we're in certain moods, or have extra money. It's no substitute for commerce.

    But I'm not just talking about a paycheck here. Human society only exists because we need the things other humans produce. Mutual need is what made us gather and share resources and form the first villages. We need things, and we need other people to need the things we make so they'll be willing to give us the things we need. It's a cycle that has been running for thousands of years, and it's about to stop.

    And so, to save society, we're going to have to rely on our old friend, the invisible force that has saved humanity again and again. It's a little thing I like to call bullshit.

    Bullshit is the next growth industry. People who deal in it are going to be more valuable than surgeons -- yes, the same people who convinced us that bottled water comes from an enchanted mountain spring and made uneducated mothers believe that contaminated baby formula was a life-giving health potion. Only they can save us.

    As civilization advances, these heroic protectors of FARTS will build a culture where we will pay for things we can get for nothing, based purely on a vague superstition that it makes us better people. You know, the way an Apple logo will hypnotize people into paying twice as much for a product when cheaper alternatives litter the landscape.

    And if someday we do perfect cold-fusion reactors or nanotech manufacturing and everyone has 100 GB/second Wi-Fi connections downloading data into a computerized contact lens, the bullshitters will be the guardians of the Old Way, convincing you that you shouldn't use those shoes that your replicator spits out for three cents a pair. You need to buy their shoes, for $80. Because they're handmade.
    Maybe they'll build the concept of "paying just to be paying" into a new morality. Or a new religion -- one based entirely around FARTS.

    Well, unless we figure out something else.
    The article is silly and some of the reasoning is pure bull-shit (it's cracked dot com, what did you expect?), but it's a fun thought experiment.

    The author mistakenly assumes we are in, or anywhere near, a materials post-scarcity world. The WoW-playing basement dwellers are supported by a vast, global network of human labour (albeit very much machine-assisted), which is going to creak and break at the seams as we work out a non-fossil-fuel-energy economy.

    The role of manufacturing is reduced in the Western world because it's just cheaper to use slave labour to assemble shoes and shirts than hiring unionized Western workers. But we do manufacture even in the civilized world. And the "service industries" as a broad category include things that cannot be easily roboticized, such as health care. And as Loki delights in pointing out, Western artisans and maintenance personnel can earn high wages; their skills are valuable in a society so dependent on machinery and especially automated machinery.

    But the labour market is changing, and not everyone wants to change old people diapers for a living. Can the uneducated slob do anything but exist on government subsidies in a society where any valuable work requires an extensive education? (After cash registers become automatic and inhuman, as per the article)

    What I find intriguing is the idea of a kind of semi-Communist revolution happening now, or say 30 years in the future. It'd be interesting to see (probably not as a participant, though!) what shape society would assume, when the phase of Stalinist rapid industrialization and attempts at consolidating farming on a national scale through brutality, slavery and mass murder would be replaced by a mad dash to automatize all levels of production, supply and maintenance. Human "labour" in the most classical sense would be abolished. What would humanity actually do with its new-found idle time? Force people into participating in an endless façade of manufactured need driving supply and demand, sink into pointless hedonism followed by a collapse of society, or would we turn our attention to the stars? I suspect civilization-suicide via hedonism as the winning choice, but that may just be my inability to escape the current main-stream culture, which is doing the exact same thing.

    Anyway, enough rambling from me, what do you guys get out of this stupid blog post?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  2. #2
    hehe, I passed this around work yesterday. Some of the librarians weren't to happy to find #4 on their keyboards as they were coming back from lunch.

    Our digital book offerings are a complete bitch to use; software thats not user friendly, random restrictions, expiration dates, items that retire out of the catalog. None of it makes sense from a patron's point of view, and thus from a librarian thats trying to help the patron. Until you make the connection that this is the beginning of the end for most of them.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-19-2010 at 11:41 PM.

  3. #3
    The article's crap because it ignores that most things we use don't work like electronic media. In fact, his big non-media complaint was total BS - women use formula because then it's easier for them to work, not because some company told them it was a good idea (and before you talk about pumping, it takes hours of time every day, and necessitates frequent breaks from work). In reality, we're very much in a world of scarcity - whether it's things we consider 'infinite' like tap water, or energy, or raw materials (rare earths, anyone? how about copper prices? cobalt? etc.), or food. All of these things are quite scarce and cost a lot.

    Furthermore, even media is fundamentally scarce since it's based on a whole lot of labor (often expensive labor, at that). If we didn't enforce some form of IP laws, the media wouldn't get made by and large - people wouldn't spend the time and effort making something for which they aren't compensated. Things like open source software are the exception, not the rule.

  4. #4
    The breast feeding part is actually a pretty well documented case of a Nestle created catastrophe, their heavy and misleading campaigning and shady deals killed a lot of babies.

    http://multinationalmonitor.org/hype...4/formula.html
    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/business...1/branded.html

  5. #5
    Bullshit. The article said 'the last few decades' - Nestle hasn't been marketing formula in the 3rd world for 25 years. Oh, sure, of course the formula companies advertised their product in the 70s and didn't push breastfeeding (though it was hardly limited to the 3rd world; breastfeeding was fairly uncommon in the US decades ago), but that doesn't mean they 'killed a lot of babies', and certainly not in the last few decades. Formula is expensive, and 3rd world mothers would almost certainly not have spent the money if there wasn't a serious economic advantage to not breastfeeding - nominally, they could work.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Bullshit. The article said 'the last few decades' - Nestle hasn't been marketing formula in the 3rd world for 25 years.
    This is Cracked, being on the mark isn't exactly their strong point. Its always been laughs over facts.
    Doesn't make what actually happened, not have happened. Cracked was off on the date, doesn't white wash the tactics that Nestle used. Unregulated advertising and mis-intentioned outreach goes a long way towards knocking down the perception of something being expensive. Just look at the fashion, makeup, acne, or large parts of the medication industry.

    WIC provides allowances for formula. Nestle only formula.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-20-2010 at 01:22 AM.

  7. #7
    WIC has been trying to push breastfeeding the last few years. The allowance they give is minimal at best. It's a huge complaint amongst my fellow forumites on Babycenter.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    This is Cracked, being on the mark isn't exactly their strong point. Its always been laughs over facts.
    Doesn't make what actually happened, not have happened. Cracked was off on the date, doesn't white wash the tactics that Nestle used. Unregulated advertising and mis-intentioned outreach goes a long way towards knocking down the perception of something being expensive. Just look at the fashion, makeup, acne, or large parts of the medication industry.

    WIC provides allowances for formula. Nestle only formula.
    *yawns* Not impressed with that reasoning. The whole point of the article was that we're currently in a 'brave new world' of post-scarcity economics where we have to convince people to spend more money for things they don't need. Yet I counter that their one non-media example was (a) decades old, evidencing there's no recent trend and (b) assuming mothers had no reason for avoiding breastfeeding other than advertising, which is an obvious inaccuracy given how hard poor women work in the 3rd world.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Catgrrl View Post
    WIC has been trying to push breastfeeding the last few years. The allowance they give is minimal at best. It's a huge complaint amongst my fellow forumites on Babycenter.
    Yeah, the hospitals push breastfeeding real hard too, but I don't know about the formula allowance being minimal. Brandy was getting 12 cans at one point, and it only dropped down to 8 towards the end. Thats hundreds of dollars a month in formula.
    If thats not enough (Brandy was also breastfeeding) it just turns into a gateway drug for moms.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    (b) assuming mothers had no reason for avoiding breastfeeding other than advertising, which is an obvious inaccuracy given how hard poor women work in the 3rd world.
    We're speaking of 3rd world countries here. Advertising thats targeting largely uneducated and illiterate mothers. Doctors and centers that are funding by Nestle pushing formula in a do it or else atmosphere. Large samples of a population that can't tell the difference between magic and science.
    Advertising and outreach is big business when your market doesn't know any better.

  10. #10
    The "article" also really misunderstands the media industry to say that porn is free. It may be effectively free for many users, but it's still advertising supported. And there is still a huge base of people who subscribe to porn sites and actually buy physical porn. Billions of dollars worth. The products that are being advertised and the porn that's paid for effectively supports the free stuff.

    And this model is very much in flux. The daily availability of free porn doesn't mean new porn will be free forever, or even economical to make for anyone who joins the industry. Same with news, online videos, etc. There's a whole business behind all of this, it's not just free shit on a screen.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Yeah, the hospitals push breastfeeding real hard too, but I don't know about the formula allowance being minimal. Brandy was getting 12 cans at one point, and it only dropped down to 8 towards the end. Thats hundreds of dollars a month in formula.
    If thats not enough (Brandy was also breastfeeding) it just turns into a gateway drug for moms.
    Wow, that is alot for someone who is breastfeeding....

    It's probably a state-by-state difference I guess. I have no idea personally since I don't qualify for it.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    The "article" also really misunderstands the media industry to say that porn is free. It may be effectively free for many users, but it's still advertising supported. And there is still a huge base of people who subscribe to porn sites and actually buy physical porn. Billions of dollars worth. The products that are being advertised and the porn that's paid for effectively supports the free stuff.

    And this model is very much in flux. The daily availability of free porn doesn't mean new porn will be free forever, or even economical to make for anyone who joins the industry. Same with news, online videos, etc. There's a whole business behind all of this, it's not just free shit on a screen.
    I think you're missing something the article is trying to beat around without advocating. The increasing influence of piracy.
    Porn has some of the highest piracy rates of any industry, and its not all advertising supported. I could hit up some private trackers for anything from amateur videos to full DVD rips. They load into utorrent and I end up seeing less advertising than I would with a youtube video (if any at all). Its not crippling yet, but its not getting better. Some of the publishing houses have even resigned to RIAA style lawsuits because the profits aren't there to cover the free and leaked stuff. Even if I am watching advertising, that revenue isn't going to the same locations as if I purchased the porn. The most popular video sites, like Youporn, don't have any licensing deals.
    Yes there are models that work around this, some of them extreme, one company has a subscription model that allows you participate in group meetups .

    The best part of porn, and even literature, is that there is always going to be a supply of it, even if it doesn't remain a directly profitable business. Sure the quality will change, but you're still beating the age old "you get what you pay for."
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-20-2010 at 03:13 AM.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Anyway, enough rambling from me, what do you guys get out of this stupid blog post?
    From my conversations on this topic I already know that Loki and Lewk seem to assume that widespread automation to the point that there are no new jobs for humans to occupy and the jobs that humans can do are few and far between compared to the number of humans that need jobs, and somehow believe that capitalism can survive forever...

    ...either that or they'll be long dead before it happens so why should they care or worry about it...?

    ...I find the first part of the above doubtful. Like I've said in the past, unless there is some plateau to AI and robotics technology that we are currently unaware of, we will eventually develop automated machines that are as capable and more-so than humans in a vast majority of fields (excluding fields that would require sentience/sapience as then we'd be in machine slave labor territory). There will be no economic incentive to employ humans as you only have to pay the purchase price plus maintenance fees, which will likely be less than the cost to employ a person for their lifetime. Plus you can run a machine 24/7 without incurring a lawsuit.
    . . .

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Furthermore, even media is fundamentally scarce since it's based on a whole lot of labor (often expensive labor, at that). If we didn't enforce some form of IP laws, the media wouldn't get made by and large - people wouldn't spend the time and effort making something for which they aren't compensated. Things like open source software are the exception, not the rule.
    The author thinks fanfiction is the future, basically. And he'll respond to complaints that most of it is crap by saying that most of what is "professionally" generated now is crap and any difference is one of degree, not kind. Continuing with the assumption that his book *$10 for a paperback? I can only assume it's not mass-market. And it took him five years to write? Christ* is representative of the industry as a whole.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    I think you're missing something the article is trying to beat around without advocating. The increasing influence of piracy.
    Porn has some of the highest piracy rates of any industry, and its not all advertising supported. I could hit up some private trackers for anything from amateur videos to full DVD rips. They load into utorrent and I end up seeing less advertising than I would with a youtube video (if any at all). Its not crippling yet, but its not getting better. Some of the publishing houses have even resigned to RIAA style lawsuits because the profits aren't there to cover the free and leaked stuff. Even if I am watching advertising, that revenue isn't going to the same locations as if I purchased the porn. The most popular video sites, like Youporn, don't have any licensing deals.
    Yes there are models that work around this, some of them extreme, one company has a subscription model that allows you participate in group meetups .

    The best part of porn, and even literature, is that there is always going to be a supply of it, even if it doesn't remain a directly profitable business. Sure the quality will change, but you're still beating the age old "you get what you pay for."
    Oh I recognize that. This is why I say the model is in flux and may not sustain itself in the future. What I mean is there is a model out there (even if it's breaking down), so porn is not strictly "free" at this point. That's mainly the author's perception, which ignores the possibility that the quality/quantity of porn he can get for free could evaporate. Or at least in terms of new stuff. I guess in theory the existing stuff being pirated out there could circulate forever.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Oh I recognize that. This is why I say the model is in flux and may not sustain itself in the future. What I mean is there is a model out there (even if it's breaking down), so porn is not strictly "free" at this point. That's mainly the author's perception, which ignores the possibility that the quality/quantity of porn he can get for free could evaporate. Or at least in terms of new stuff. I guess in theory the existing stuff being pirated out there could circulate forever.
    It doesn't have to circulate forever. We've got plenty of hollywood media seekers, camwhores, and home videos being produced on a seemingly daily basis. None of that was made with the intention of profiting from it directly.
    LittleFuzzy already stole my fan fiction line

    -----

    On a different note, to show just how far digital piracy has reached. The military is flying (and aiming) their predator drones thanks to pirated code.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-20-2010 at 11:22 AM.

  17. #17
    wiggin, the baby formula example is a stupid one (African mothers might conceivably have less inane motives for using formula), but Western society has a lot of fabricated need. Those WoW slobs who're contributing to the trillion-dollar US consumer debt have taken that debt so they can have three computers with a fruit emblazoned on them, a plasma tee-vee and a phone that could solve all the ballistics problems of WW2. While living in their parents' basement. I understand that this is another stupid and exaggerated example because it's so Manichean, but maybe you can see the point. Mindless consumption and possession of material goods is glorified and underlined to a ridiculous degree by the majority (and minority) cultures; income and buying power keep on growing, but wealth isn't actually accumulating to the lower (and middle) classes. They just rake up credit card debt in the increasingly bizarre 21st century version of keeping up with the Joneses. The culture of manufactured material desire isn't the sole reason for irresponsible financial behaviour, of course, but it isn't helping, either. And if we agree that advertising generates revenue, we have to implicitly agree that it manipulates people to varying degrees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    ...I find the first part of the above doubtful. Like I've said in the past, unless there is some plateau to AI and robotics technology that we are currently unaware of, we will eventually develop automated machines that are as capable and more-so than humans in a vast majority of fields (excluding fields that would require sentience/sapience as then we'd be in machine slave labor territory). There will be no economic incentive to employ humans as you only have to pay the purchase price plus maintenance fees, which will likely be less than the cost to employ a person for their lifetime. Plus you can run a machine 24/7 without incurring a lawsuit.
    Unlike Asimov, I'd think it would be easier to make large, automated and self-repairing facilities that produced and packaged all those sneakers and body sprays society so desperately needs (with human check-ups, natch) than making humanoid robots that could be used as armies of 'slaves'. The question is which is cheaper, making automatons capable of using the industrial apparatus humanity has made for itself (humanoid all-purpose robots) or roboticizing each phase of production, transportation and waste disposal with an individually suited machine. The humanoid automaton probably seemed like a more convenient solution back in the '30s when the world was still struggling to rid itself of agrarian-dominated society, but it wasn't the path we chose in designing robotics over the past 60 years. That said, I think large holistic systems like these would require some form of AI, but it's not exactly my field so I won't try and hypothesize on whether these could be enslaved in any meaningful sense of the word. Wraithy has told me they could be designed to avoid that, but I may be misremembering him.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  18. #18
    Nessie, I don't think consumption is 'mindless'. It may be unnecessary from the 'basic needs' standpoint (other than food and shelter, what's really necessary, though?), but consumption decisions are driven by reasons. People don't just buy something because someone tells them they should; to argue such is to infantilize the consumer. They might be influenced by society at large and advertising in particular, but people buy stuff because it makes their lives better. Sure, they don't need a huge television, but they like it. The cost/benefit analysis is either skewed for them (e.g. they can't afford it but they don't have a good understanding of finance so they ignore the reality) or they have incentives to spend (e.g. cheap credit) - but they don't buy something just because they think they should have it.

    You could make the argument that most of what we produce nowadays isn't absolutely necessary by some absurd definition - for example, who needs dialysis machines when people have already reproduced and are generally out of the workforce? Who needs entertainment or media when people can amuse themselves and don't really need to be informed about the world? Etc, etc. Outside the basic necessities of propagation of the species, it's hard to prove we really need much of anything. In that context, I quantify a useful product as something that makes lives better - from toilet paper to nuclear reactors to, yes, smartphones. Generally, you don't get much in the way of consumption that's not driven by this rubric (the wonders of the market) unless you have something odd distorting demand (e.g. a government paving roads that don't need to be paved).

    Also,
    And if we agree that advertising generates revenue, we have to implicitly agree that it manipulates people to varying degrees.
    I'm not sure I agree with that. There's contradictory data on this point, but some have argued that advertising just splits up a finite chunk of the pie differently, but doesn't really stimulate fundamental demand for an object. Thus, advertising for Apple might mean they get a bigger chunk of the smartphone market, but it doesn't increase demand for smartphones. The only reason, then, that firms advertise is because if they don't while their market competitors do, they'll lose out market share. (I think there are some exceptions to this rule, particularly for fundamentally new products - then, advertising is to an extent educating the consumer about the utility of the new market. But in general I don't think that, say, McDonald's ads really increase the demand for fast food; it just takes away business from Burger King.)

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    That said, I think large holistic systems like these would require some form of AI, but it's not exactly my field so I won't try and hypothesize on whether these could be enslaved in any meaningful sense of the word. Wraithy has told me they could be designed to avoid that, but I may be misremembering him.
    I heard my name and came running!

    It's more that they'd have to be designed to be enslaved in any meaningful sense; in any sense that anyone should feel concerned about. By default there will be no resentment or robot civil rights movement (except for the one inevitably started by idiotic humans). I think this is going off in a weird tangent, though.

    More on topic, I agree with the others above me that we're not post-scarcity and won't be any time soon. I'm more concerned about the illusion of being post-scarcity, one that the author seems to be falling for. This could easily lead to large problems, not just the more obvious economic ones, but it'd be greatly retarding our continued development.

    I don't think I'd be happy in a future where the only books I can read are on the quality level of fanfics.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    wiggin, the baby formula example is a stupid one (African mothers might conceivably have less inane motives for using formula), but Western society has a lot of fabricated need. Those WoW slobs who're contributing to the trillion-dollar US consumer debt have taken that debt so they can have three computers with a fruit emblazoned on them, a plasma tee-vee and a phone that could solve all the ballistics problems of WW2. While living in their parents' basement. I understand that this is another stupid and exaggerated example because it's so Manichean, but maybe you can see the point. Mindless consumption and possession of material goods is glorified and underlined to a ridiculous degree by the majority (and minority) cultures; income and buying power keep on growing, but wealth isn't actually accumulating to the lower (and middle) classes. They just rake up credit card debt in the increasingly bizarre 21st century version of keeping up with the Joneses. The culture of manufactured material desire isn't the sole reason for irresponsible financial behaviour, of course, but it isn't helping, either. And if we agree that advertising generates revenue, we have to implicitly agree that it manipulates people to varying degrees....
    Consumption and possessions being glorified is an ages-old cultural phenomenon. Marketing uses propaganda to reinforce or guide that, going beyond mere utility or convenience. Being popular/accepted fits nicely within hedonism. Maslow could probably add "fitting in" somewhere now. That's why those who can least afford them, will buy expensive sneakers or trick-out cars --- status symbols people can readily see --- instead of feeding a savings account. (That's part of our Home Ownership Society that encouraged buying houses instead of renting.)

    I don't think forced scarcity will be a problem, since planned obsolescence is baked in there, too. Manufacturers don't really want to make a 100-yr road, or a lifetime computer. If they can't sell the service at profit (like cell phone plans), they'll sell the physical thing instead (new phone models) and design them to break or wear out. Not much of a "middle" there, that's the problem; unskilled labor to put the physical stuff together or maintain it, highly skilled engineers or scientists creating the content and innovating. Robotics/computer repair may one day be what janitorial services are now....

    Not sure how intellectual property rights will evolve, but I suspect even authors will find a way to write one book, and get royalties on the replications somehow. Instead of a publishing house contract, maybe they'll have one with Amazon or an e-reader manufacturer, or just directly with the marketer that sells ad space, or the advertising company itself. Sort of like those old "Hallmark Presentations" or "Disney Presents" kind of tv movies or mini-series. Who knows.

  21. #21
    Addendum tangent: There will always be a value for an Original anything. We can all have a perfect reproduction of art in our home, but the original (oil on canvass or computer replicated, bronze statue or amalgam composite repro, real film or digitally enhanced) will have a higher value, to someone, and only one person can have it. As things change and move forward, when one thing becomes obsolete it also becomes a collector's item. Even mass-produced ordinary items become "antiques" with value to someone. *Like my old heavy rotary dial phone with its curly cord*

    Sometimes a value isn't recognized until it becomes rare, anyway. Hand-written manuscripts, hand-thrown pottery, that kind of thing. I heard an MIT pointy head professor claim that paper books will be dead in five years. Libraries will be e-books only, because it's faster and cheaper that way, and can reach millions of people better than paper. Whether in printing, distribution, transportation or storage costs for paper....that e-books and digital inventory will be better all around. Newspapers lead the way that way. That just means paper books, newspaper editions, manuscripts etc will become more valuable.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Nessie, I don't think consumption is 'mindless'. It may be unnecessary from the 'basic needs' standpoint (other than food and shelter, what's really necessary, though?), but consumption decisions are driven by reasons. People don't just buy something because someone tells them they should; to argue such is to infantilize the consumer. They might be influenced by society at large and advertising in particular, but people buy stuff because it makes their lives better. Sure, they don't need a huge television, but they like it. The cost/benefit analysis is either skewed for them (e.g. they can't afford it but they don't have a good understanding of finance so they ignore the reality) or they have incentives to spend (e.g. cheap credit) - but they don't buy something just because they think they should have it.

    You could make the argument that most of what we produce nowadays isn't absolutely necessary by some absurd definition - for example, who needs dialysis machines when people have already reproduced and are generally out of the workforce? Who needs entertainment or media when people can amuse themselves and don't really need to be informed about the world? Etc, etc. Outside the basic necessities of propagation of the species, it's hard to prove we really need much of anything. In that context, I quantify a useful product as something that makes lives better - from toilet paper to nuclear reactors to, yes, smartphones. Generally, you don't get much in the way of consumption that's not driven by this rubric (the wonders of the market) unless you have something odd distorting demand (e.g. a government paving roads that don't need to be paved).
    It is 'mindless' in the sense that it doesn't have any well-defined goals or purposes. We're kind of stumbling along in a strange Brownian motion trying to secure material goods, shelter and so forth for some segments of the population. Looking at it from the outside in, we're maximizing the production of human feces, or the number of humans, or the number of humans with some arbitrary set of possessions. Or something. That's just it, there really isn't anything beyond the pursuit of happy, warm fuzzy feelings. This isn't to say I'd prefer some bizarre Soviet-style mega-project-civilization where we dig huge holes and re-fill them just for the sake of having big holes and then filling them.

    I'd like to point out that people buy stuff that they perceive will better their lives. What these things actually do is either utterly up in the air, or poorly understood. We don't buy and sell radio-active enemas anymore, but arguably the people who bought them at the time thought they were bettering their lives. They probably thought that because they were gullible and were manipulated by advertizing. I can't in good conscience subscribe to the notion that people buy fast food because it makes their lives as a whole better. Although now we'd have to define what is a good life anyway, and who wants to do that?

    As you point out, most qualifiers we could come up with are absurd when looked at from a tree. We live in an age where we're so accustomed to the absurd that it is hard to view the world any other way; we are a moral species who spent the past 60 years counting potentially necessary victims by raising ten to the powers of seven and eight. We exist under an absurd system (see Chaloobi's sig, for instance), where absurdity can be found in different ways by interpreting the status quo from different angles. I don't know what that says about us, or about the relative merits of other absurd systems. People seem content wallowing in this race for contentment we've built, and I'm willing to agree it's far more pleasant than the gulag archipelago.

    Which is a round-about way of saying that it's equally hard to agree on any sensible (non-absurd) definition of a "good" society than it is on a "good" individual life. And with societies, we have the added difficulty of cultural inertia; you can take the German out of Germany, but...And so on.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Also,

    I'm not sure I agree with that. There's contradictory data on this point, but some have argued that advertising just splits up a finite chunk of the pie differently, but doesn't really stimulate fundamental demand for an object. Thus, advertising for Apple might mean they get a bigger chunk of the smartphone market, but it doesn't increase demand for smartphones. The only reason, then, that firms advertise is because if they don't while their market competitors do, they'll lose out market share. (I think there are some exceptions to this rule, particularly for fundamentally new products - then, advertising is to an extent educating the consumer about the utility of the new market. But in general I don't think that, say, McDonald's ads really increase the demand for fast food; it just takes away business from Burger King.)
    That might be, but I'd contest people have very poorly defined needs, which can be targeted and exploited. Without malice, per se, but certainly exploited in the sense that you're depriving the sucker of their money. Like the radio-active enemas, x-ray shoe fitting machines or stupidly expensive designer perfumes and jewelry, these all cater to some needs and wants people have, but it's questionable how well individuals can gauge their actual needs, the 'validity' of their desires, and how well which product actually serves them.

    It makes sense to buy electronics with a picture of an apple on them, because that statistically means you get laid more often, or was it the opposite OKCupid found? But which is the cart and which is the horse; do attractive people prefer Apple products because Apple is better suited for attractive people, or has Apple generated an image of Apple = sex appeal? This particular example doesn't exactly deprive anyone of anything, but I'm sure more ominous-sounding examples could be conjured up for the sake of conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    I heard my name and came running!

    It's more that they'd have to be designed to be enslaved in any meaningful sense; in any sense that anyone should feel concerned about. By default there will be no resentment or robot civil rights movement (except for the one inevitably started by idiotic humans). I think this is going off in a weird tangent, though.

    More on topic, I agree with the others above me that we're not post-scarcity and won't be any time soon. I'm more concerned about the illusion of being post-scarcity, one that the author seems to be falling for. This could easily lead to large problems, not just the more obvious economic ones, but it'd be greatly retarding our continued development.
    Yes, the entitled WoW-nerds are kind of the thing right-wingers like to harp on about; useless slobs taking up resources without contributing to the greater good. Shaking them up from their angry internet lolbertarian nerdhood might be too much to ask for, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    I don't think I'd be happy in a future where the only books I can read are on the quality level of fanfics.
    I think an obvious path for entertainment television and movies to take is even more aggressive product placement; your sponsor gets visibility even if the TV show is obtained via Torrent without ad breaks.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  23. #23
    Thats largely how Extreme Makeover: House Edition worked. The contractors were paid for parts, but labor was traded for advertising, and the expenses the show did have came out of product placement. Their obsession with those expensive Dyson vacuums that never lose suction was hitting meme status for a short period.

  24. #24
    Well, the OP writer also didn't recognize what selling baby formula and bottled water had in common: contaminated water. He just wanted to make it sound like neither had a valid reason but were figments of our manipulated imagination. Buying useless things?

    If a poor third world woman needs to hydrate herself in order to lactate, but she doesn't have access to clean water, then baby formula makes sense. But not if she has to use contaminated water to mix the formula powder. Bottled water first took on the Perrier status when only wealthy people would buy bottled water, as they trekked the globe and wanted safe water everywhere they went. Unfortunately, plenty of rural or poorer communities (in first world nations) have contaminated well water and aquifers. But they can't move; they're actually stuck where they are, and what they can afford to buy. They have to buy bottled water, but not as a status symbol.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    If a poor third world woman needs to hydrate herself in order to lactate, but she doesn't have access to clean water, then baby formula makes sense. But not if she has to use contaminated water to mix the formula powder.
    This doesn't make sense...
    The Nestle problem was that they didn't recognize the issue of contaminated water. The adults had developed a slight resistance to the contaminants. The babies were protected because the breast milk was filtered, but also passed on the resistance. So as Nestle was pushing their product, the babies were losing the main reason they were surviving the harsh conditions in the first place.

    This carries over to trekking the world as well. I know when I went to Mexico we were warned to not drink from the public water system, and I believe Europeans are advised not to drink our public water.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-20-2010 at 09:06 PM.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    This doesn't make sense...
    The Nestle problem was that they didn't recongize the issue of contaminated water. The adults had developed a slight resistance to the contaminants. The babies were protected because the breast milk was filtered, but also passed on the resistance. So as Nestle was pushing their product, the babies were losing the main reason they were surviving the harsh conditions in the first place.

    This carries over to trekking the world as well. I know when I went to Mexico we were warned to not drink from the public water system, and I believe Europeans are advised not to drink our public water.
    I only meant to diss the OP writer for his examples.

    Everyone knows Nestle-Carnation breached some long held standards about advertising and marketing formula over breast feeding.

  27. #27
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    This carries over to trekking the world as well. I know when I went to Mexico we were warned to not drink from the public water system, and I believe Europeans are advised not to drink our public water.
    Not sure if that has to do with actual resistance, or just because it tastes too much like chlorine Easy trekking tip: if local stores have a lot of bottled water brands, the tap water probably isn't okay.

    Wiggin, I do think advertising Burger King increases the total sales of fastfood, because it replaces 'normal' food, and because it can encourage people to go there if they aren't actually hungry but just feel like eating (but wouldn't have had other food otherwise). A lot of advertising and sales are for products that don't replace products that you would have bought otherwise.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  28. #28
    Ultimately, we'll move on to doing other things as automated renewable processes take over. It is true this will hurt jobs; however, the actual resources themselves will be present our government will evolve to have a new way of distributing resources. I think the notion of how much you contribute to society will always naturally scale with reward, but there will perhaps be many individuals whose skills no longer can contribute (we may think up new uses, or the uses will become more intellectual in nature). At a minimum there will be humans digesting and conveying to other humans the new information we will continually gather. That position will always be present. The conscious giving of value judgments or use of information humans will reign over. Sports will still be present even in a world where so many tasks are left to error free everlasting machines. Hopefully social interaction, games, and discussion, artistry will flourish. It's interesting thought to contemplate the result of our hypothetical advancements. I think we, humans, are intelligent enough to know to transition slowly into all advancements and we'll by in large only do those that benefit us as a society.

    As for the Nestle Quick B.S. that sickens me, and there is far better ways to create industry and trade and development than people buying things that hurt them. In a Nessian flow of thought though... perhaps limiting their population to some degree may be beneficial for them as they spread their resources around.

    That's just it, there really isn't anything beyond the pursuit of happy, warm fuzzy feelings.
    I think your goals can be whatever one wants them to be, so I don't think that follows perhaps for you that is true. Others the pursuit of understanding, or facts, regardless how such truths make them feel is what's worthwhile, or still others to make their mark in history.
    ---
    A far more glorious dawn awaits... Not a sunrise but a galaxy rise. A morning filled with 400 billions suns.

  29. #29
    From my conversations on this topic I already know that Loki and Lewk seem to assume that widespread automation to the point that there are no new jobs for humans to occupy and the jobs that humans can do are few and far between compared to the number of humans that need jobs, and somehow believe that capitalism can survive forever...
    Not happening anywhere near my lifetime. New technology destroys jobs *and* creates new ones. Robots are also expensive as hell. Maybe in 300 years a robot can replace a housekeeper in cleaning drains, toilets, vacuuming and cleaning the windows but more then likely it would still be a cheaper to higher a human.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Not happening anywhere near my lifetime. New technology destroys jobs *and* creates new ones. Robots are also expensive as hell. Maybe in 300 years a robot can replace a housekeeper in cleaning drains, toilets, vacuuming and cleaning the windows but more then likely it would still be a cheaper to higher a human.
    Roomba already vacuums and mops floors.

    Anyway, at the current technological arc, I think it will be less than 50 years. With luck, we might see it in our lifetimes. Maybe in time for nursing home robots to wipe our asses. Yay, no more being molested by the underpaid pervert nursing home aid.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •