SXEA5PY1

1[2/11, 8:41 PM] Nadav: I'm assuming sewer workers are paid more than others doing similar sorts of work because most people don't want to be sewer workers. So they get recompensed for doing grosser less desirable jobs
2[2/11, 8:41 PM] Nadav: Some sewer workers are patriotic soldiers, some are mercenaries. Some are somewhere in between.
3[2/11, 8:42 PM] Nadav: You want everyone to be purely patriotic soldiers.
4[2/11, 8:46 PM] Natasha: Sewer workers don’t make that much. And again, you act as if people will cut off their nose to spite their face. There are people who would get it done. And if the task is really so horrid and miserable then maybe it would be recognized in some way, but that doesn’t have to be financial compensation.
5[2/11, 8:47 PM] Natasha: Like, we can respect and value a job that’s necessary to society, that’s why people do some crappy, poorly paid jobs.
6[2/11, 8:48 PM] Nadav: What you're proposing is a system where rewards are distributes but costs are localized
7[2/11, 8:48 PM] Nadav: *distributed
8[2/11, 8:49 PM] Natasha: No... like, you know those things when people get keys to the city for doing something heroic. That’s more what I’m talking about.
9[2/11, 8:50 PM] Nadav: If there were no sewer workers, I'd suffer a little, but so would everyone else. If I had to be a sewer worker with no compensation, I'd suffer a lot but everyone would reap the benefits
10[2/11, 8:50 PM] Nadav: Wait what? Key to the city?
11[2/11, 8:51 PM] Natasha: Nope, you would suffer a lot and so would everyone else, because you would have no sewage system. And again, you act like there is no one that would not love that job.
12[2/11, 8:51 PM] Natasha: It’s a symbolic gesture of recognition is what I mean
13[2/11, 8:51 PM] Nadav: Ok so we say "some people have to be coal miners, but you get a plaque"?
14[2/11, 8:52 PM] Nadav: No, not really. It would be inconvenient, but I could use an out house or something
15[2/11, 8:53 PM] Nadav: I'm touched by your faith in the nascent sewer-lovers all around us lol
16[2/11, 8:53 PM] Natasha: If literally no one would do it without that yes, but I highly doubt that that would happen because there are people who like doing that. There’s people who get paid shit wages to wipe old people’s asses. Why? Because they know it’s a necessary job that needs to get done.
17[2/11, 8:54 PM] Natasha: https://youtu.be/LKBLtfM9AN4
18[2/11, 8:54 PM] Natasha: Yeah, people like it
19[2/11, 8:54 PM] Nadav: Well they get something out of that. They are caring for people.
20[2/11, 8:54 PM] Natasha: And so is a sewage worker
21[2/11, 8:55 PM] Natasha: They’re contributing to society
22[2/11, 8:55 PM] Nadav: ...not in the same way 
23[2/11, 8:56 PM] Natasha: Dude, come on. Stop acting like the literal only reason anyone does anything is the threat of starvation and the possibility of accumulating more stuff. It’s just a bleak view of humanity.
24[2/11, 8:56 PM] Nadav: I'm not saying that's the only reason. But it is a contributing factor
25[2/11, 8:57 PM] Nadav: A significant contributing factor
26[2/11, 8:57 PM] Natasha: Watch the damn video and you’ll see the fact that people can really enjoy their jobs and enjoy fulfilling the needs in a community
27[2/11, 8:58 PM] Natasha: You’re just being really cynical, and it’s funny because you always say I have a bleak view of humanity.
28 [2/11, 9:00 PM] Natasha: And so in your mind, we shouldn’t relieve poverty, because the threat of poverty is what allows us to not be drowning in poop right now?
29[2/11, 9:01 PM] Nadav: You know I'm not saying that.
30I'm saying that compensation and reward are factors in decision making and I think it's unwise to think that people would make the same decisions if you got rid of those factors
31[2/11, 9:02 PM] Nadav: But kudos on the vivid imagery of drowning in poop
32[2/12, 3:44 AM] Natasha: I don’t think so. I think you’re ignoring human dynamics and why people hate their job. They usually don’t hate it because it’s dirty or hard, they usually hate it because it’s alienating,  and they have to work long hours away from home and they feel separated from any benefit it provides to the world. Again, would you rather use the threat of state violence and suffering to coerce people into working? Because that’s what capitalism does. People do hard shitty things if they believe it has a benefit to society, look at volunteer work? Why would anyone do that? It’s because there can be intrinsic rewards in doing something and the extrinsic rewards don’t have to be monetary. In a society that’s not tied down by economic growth and competition, people wouldn’t have to work these long grueling hours that require some level of monetary compensation to do. Like, I wouldn’t do my job if I wasn’t getting paid, but I love animating. What’s the issue here? The issue is the way the jobs are set up in a capitalist economy.  Are you really saying that if you had the choice between working long hours in something you’re okay with where you had no time for anything outside of work or working  one day a month cleaning toilets, where you had the rest of the time to yourself to do whatever you wanted, you wouldn’t choose the latter? Also, I’m giving like a worst case scenario, you’d probably never have to do that and could something you already like or are good at and something else who didn’t mind cleaning toilets, or working in the sewer would handle it.
33[2/12, 3:46 AM] Natasha: Because there’s different kinds of people in the world who don’t see the fact that they got sewage duty as s bad thing.
34[2/12, 3:47 AM] Natasha: I just don’t see this as an insurmountable issue that capitalism is better at solving.
35[2/12, 8:13 AM] Nadav: You could be right. Maybe you are. And I'm not saying you definitely aren't. But you are putting a lot of faith in something that hasn't been demonstrated, especially not on the scales you want to implement it. You might think everything will work smoothly, but that might well not be true. Unknown unknowns have a tendency to bite you in the ass. It just seems unlikely to me. You're basically saying of we change the inputs into people's decision making, they will change how they make decisions to cancel that out. I'm not convinced.
36[2/12, 8:15 AM] Nadav: But it seems like you're drawing a false dichotomy. Either we leave things basically as they are or we go to your socialist Utopia. I see a lot of middle ground there.
37[2/14, 4:54 AM] Natasha: I think you’re thinking I want this all to happen tomorrow everywhere. No, this is an ideal, understand the limitations, which is why I focus on small scale solutions that we can implement now. And why I also want empower communities and workers to take control of their own existence. This has worked in relatively large scales, check out revolutionary Catalonia, the Zappatistas, and Rojava. None of these are perfect, nor are they completely rid of capitalism and it’s problems, but it is a start and it’s a way to move in that better direction.
38[2/14, 5:04 AM] Natasha: The issue I see with the middle ground is that you don’t change the issues that cause the problems in the first place, just post hoc try to rectify the issues. Like, I’m the always the one suggesting solutions but how do you solve the problems of capitalism? How do you stop rampant wealth inequality? How do you stop profit driven environmental degradation? How do you stop a profit driven media machine that is becoming increasingly more centrilized and by its market mechanics, turns out biased propaganda in the interests of the rich and powerful? How do you stop poverty and homelessness? How do you stop the military industrial complex that feeds on the interest of capitalists to increase war and aggression across the globe? How do you stop the boom and bust cycle, which the latter leads to a rise in scapegoating minorities and hyper-nationalism? How do you stop the profiteering off the third world, which causes war and poverty in those areas and the people to flee to western countries, escalating hatred and nationalist tendencies? How do you solve state agencies who have increasing power to monitor and control the masses of people? If you have a better solution to fix these problems, I’m all ears. At the end of the day, I just want these issues to be resolved, and if that’s some sort of social democracy, or restrained capitalism, or fully fledged communism, I do not care.
39[2/14, 9:10 AM] Nadav: What small scale changes do you want us to implement in the near term?
40I don't think those are adequate examples of what we were discussing. I skimmed through the wiki articles of what you mentioned and didn't see anything nearing the extent or scope of the sort of community quasi-altruism you were describing. To be frank, I think what you were describing is not realistic. It's not game-theoretically stable, isn't efficient, reacts poorly to perturbation, and seems incongruent to many (seeming-)truths about how people make decisions that don't seem terribly mutable.
41[2/14, 9:20 AM] Nadav: I agree that all the problems you listed are real and important. But as an analogy, say we are two doctors examining a sick patient. We are both looking at the symptoms and agree they are concerning and destructive to the patient. You've offered your diagnosis and proposed a line of treatment. 
421) I'm not sure I agree completely with your diagnosis.
432) I don't think the proper line of treatment needs to be as drastic as yours is.
443) I'm not sure your line of treatment would ultimately be good for the patient.
454) I'm not sure your line of treatment would even significantly alleviate some of the symptoms.
46[2/14, 9:27 AM] Nadav: 1) I agree that the wealth distribution is obscene. But I think some inequality is good. Exactly what the target distribution should be is tricky and what changes need to be enacted to move towards and stay at that distribution are non trivial and worth looking into.
47[2/14, 9:29 AM] Nadav: 2) increase regulation and accountability, give voice and power to the people affected, internalize externalities. I'm by no means any sort of expert but I know this isn't a simple to fix issue.
48[2/14, 9:38 AM] Nadav: 3) media is difficult, I'll admit. I honestly don't see very many good solutions. But one fundamental one is to change what people value. Garbage media is profitable only if people will pay for it. There needs to be more value and demand put on truth, accuracy, public benefit, etc. One way or another values will need to change
49[2/14, 9:44 AM] Nadav: We can go over each one but I think you get some idea
50[2/14, 9:58 AM] Natasha: Universal basic income, nationalizing all basic services including the internet, universal health care in America, democratizing the workplace through unions and straight up cooperatives, shortening the work week to 15 hours (ideally). You need to read more than the Wikipedia articles, and what do you think I’m proposing? Because what your criticized sounds a lot like capitalism, especially the instability and inefficiency part. And how is inequality good exactly? How can we be for equal rights because have unequal power in terms of monetary power and access to resources? Have you looked into the medical research that showcases how living in an economically unequal society is both physically and mentally unhealthy for everyone involved. How? You need to be more specific on your proposals. How do you stop regulation from being overturned by the elites who have an economic interest to do so? In the 1930s glass-steagal was put into place to make sure what happened in the depression never happened again, in the 1990s, it was overturned. Right now we’re seeing the roll back of any moderate regulation Obama put in place. These things are really easy to overturn, how do you stop that from happening? How do you change what people value? Do you think this happened because people wanted it? No, it happened because there were vested interests that benefited from it. A lot of people are moving away from the mainstream media because they can feel the affects of that propaganda, but now they’re going to right wing conspiracy sites to get their news because they’re not wrong in their sense of being lied to. How do you combat that? (Ps, I’ve been reading Chomsky’s manufacturing consent and it’s really good and this is why it’s on my mind). I really want to hear your thoughts on each one, because I find the idea of “changing values” to be sort of vacuous, somewhere along the lines of “if we could just get people to think better, then we wouldn’t have this problem”. It’s a non-starter and it ignores human psychology. And I’m feeling fine?
51[2/14, 10:21 AM] Nadav: I think those are interesting and worth studying and experimenting with. 
52
53Yeah probably lol. But really this has more to do with how I understand human behavior. So it's a little insulated I guess. 
54
55What you were describing a few days ago, the sewer workers etc. 
56They can both be flawed systems. And I think they are. But I'm unconvinced we have to pick from those two alone.
57
58Inequality means healthy flow and I don't think equality is stable anyway. Some people are better than others at certain things. Inequality means something to strive for. I see it as inevitable and beneficial, if it doesn't become excessive. Not too equal, not too unequal. Just right 
59
60We can't outright preclude it, any more than we can preclude crime. What we can do is continually combat it and work to stop it when we see it happening. It's not something we can just set and forget.
61
62I wish I knew how to change what people value. But you need to know that too. Otherwise how do you expect to change people's minds who now think your system is bad?
63Education is a big one, early education especially. 
64
65Partly because there was motivation to make garbage media. And part of the problem is convincing people they wanted garbage media. But an equally big problem is the appetite for garbage media that was there. Again, this will be a constant struggle. To stop the slide of information into media sludge. And one way, I suppose is to produce good media, or support it's production, and to boycott shitty media and dissuade others from consuming it, putting in means to regulate it, etc. What's your proposed solution?
66
67Again, I'm not an expert, but my shortcomings in providing a fully fleshed out solution doesn't mean I'm wrong or that you're not wrong. What sort of answer are you looking for? Policy? Specific, detailed, step by step procedures?
68[2/14, 10:45 AM] Natasha: I was throwing out an idea. Imagining what it could look like (I actually have a slice of life show idea that would take place in a post-capitalist world, a sort of palette cleanser to all the post-apocalyptic media we have). 
69
70The thing with the sewage workers is I think you underestimate people’s willingness to do hard work for its own sake, especially if they enjoy it. If I went up to all the sewage workers and told them that they had the option to either continue doing what they’re doing or work less hours and have all their needs and wants met, what do you think they would pick? 
71
72No one is saying that everyone is exactly the same. I’m not denying expertise or the different ability, but those different abilities shouldn’t garner extra access to resources. You also seem to imply that the richer people are richer because they’re better, which is a disturbing sentiment beyond being just false. I understand people are different, which is why I want everyone to have equal access to resources so that their different talents and abilities have the best opportunity to shine and contribute to society. We do ourselves no service by continuing this unequal economic structure. We’re only shouting ourselves in the foot. 
73
74We can preclude a lot of crime by getting rid of poverty, crime is not an individual issue, it is a societal one. Without the incentives and structure to utilize the state to amass greater profits, regulation or deregulation wouldn’t be an issue. How do we combat it? Give me specifics. I don’t really see a way since the system is (and was) set up to protect the rich and powerful. How do you stop the military industrial complex when so much of our economy relies on it? How do you resolve the fact that there’s more debt in the world than there is money to pay for it? 
75
76Education is good, but again, the issue isn’t people valuing the wrong thing. Ad-based media relies on certain ideas being pushed and even if people want some kind of media (which they have) its harder for it to thrive in an ad-supported media market. (Seriously, read manufacturing consent) who’s going to support good media? Who has the capital and power to get good media off its feet and give it the reach that mainstream outlets have? My solution is to destroy capitalism, but short term would be democratizing media outlets, maybe? Honestly, the problem is so big and complicated, that nothing short of radical transformation would change it. 
77
78I just think that if you sit down and research these topics it’s hard to come up with a solution that isn’t radical, because the problem seems to be at the root.
79[2/14, 11:28 AM] Nadav: (that sounds interesting! You should become a ruthless profiteering network exec)
80
81I don't think that's the relevant question to put to them. Rather, I'd say you have the option of being a sewer worker or whatever other job you want and your compensation will be the same regardless, how many would still want to be sewer workers?
82
83Abilities will always give one more access to resources. Intelligence and beauty and health will always be advantageous. That's not to say the less intelligent or less beautiful or less healthy should be left by the wayside, or eliminated. They deserve a part of our society. But I see it as unproductive and even counterproductive to deny or counteract the inherent inequality. And it also means that good decisions are rewarded. Why try to make good, difficult decisions if the result is the same regardless?
84I'm not saying people are rich because they are better. But good decisions by definition have benefits. Some people don't even have the opportunity to make good decisions, or their benefits are stolen. But I think it's undeniable that some people have worked very hard to achieve their success. And some people get more milage out of their work than others for a number of reasons, some of which are ability and privilege. One of those cannot and should not be eliminated, while the other can and should. 
85
86That doesn't preclude crime, but just reduces the pressure to do so. It's the difference between a child not eating sweets because she can't reach them and not eating sweets because she has less appetite for sweets. 
87There will always be incentive to do shitty things if you can get away with it. I think it's foolish to think otherwise. What we can do is reduce the desire to do shitty things, reduce the benefit one can get if one can get away with it, and reduce the chance anyone can get away with it. It's everyone's responsibility to hold everyone else accountable. That will never change. If the way the system is set up pushes out accountability, it's our responsibility to push it back in, possibly by changing the system itself. You keep raising points like you expect me to know what to do, and if I don't, you must be right. 
88
89That's *part* of the issue. 
90So you're saying the media producers have incentives to push garbage media, and to get us to want garbage media, even if we actively want better media. And I can see that. And yeah that's bad. But I think that's a problem that can only be realistically and near-term combatted in a piecemeal way, on many small fronts. I see it as a constant struggle, not one with a silver bullet solution. Even after your revolution, I think similar problems would arise.
91
92[2/14, 12:58 PM] Natasha: That is the relevant question, because we need sewage workers, so we need people to work in the sewers. They can do whatever they want on their own time but until 100% automation takes place, there will still be jobs that are necessary, but that necassity should extent to society as a whole. I really think you just think people are going to spite themselves and their community. Which may happen in capitalist mindset, but you asked me about the ideal.
93
94And no, it doesn’t and it shouldn’t. For 100,000 years before civilization, humans shared resources evenly amongst the group and any hoarding was met with swift punishment. Not saying this is ideal but this was the best way to organize ourselves back then. Now, with growing automation, there is no reason resources should not  be given out to everyone evenly. This doesn’t mean everyone must have the same thing and no one can have nice things, just that access to the resources of a society should be available to everyone. Not everyone can have a plane, but everyone can have access to a plane. And if you want something, you can make or get it so long as resources allow. You shouldn’t be able to hoard resources for things at the expense of other people’s ability to live and thrive. You miss out an a very important ability which is empathy and compassion, which is also greatly advantageous in a society. Why would someone make a good decision? Because the benefits are good and it helps the group. You don’t need an extrinsic reward for that, and people who want to reward or incentivize people who are not that to gain power and influence. People who are compassionate will help people regardless of extrinsic reward, and setting up a system where people are only doing the “good” thing in order to financially benefit themselves aren’t people we should be rewarding. I’m not denying differences in ability, I just also want a society that fosters cooperation and compassion rather than stepping in top of others to get to the top.
95
96It does preclude crime! People who are not poor are not less likely to commit crime because it’s harder for them (it’s actually much much easier for them) it’s because they have no reason or desire to. What is the incentive to rob when you have your needs taken care of? Why murder if there is no incentive to and it will only cause you pain? I think you underestimate the psychology impact poverty has and it’s effect in crime. Of course it’s a community’s responsibility, but that’s not happening now and the system is set up to cause crime. The issue is that I may be wrong but you haven’t raised any points I haven’t thought of myself or heard before. Which makes me think you haven’t gone into depth in this topic. 
97
98Read Manufacturing Consent, I’m sorry, I just don’t think you have a big enough grasp of the issue. It’s not garbage media, it’s propaganda. 
99
100 [2/14, 1:47 PM] Nadav: I'm assuming sewage workers will still need to do a significant amount of work. I am assuming there is some level of reluctance to be a sewer worker which is compensated for, to some extent by a sense of serving the community, but also to a large extent by being paid at a sufficient level. And I don't think it's realistic that you can get people to do jobs purely out of a feeling of service to their community. That's a component of their motivation but in many cases, a large component of the motivation is prestige, high pay, influence, power, etc. 
101Suppose you don't get enough volunteer sewage workers: do you basically conscript some for the good of the community?
102
103I very much doubt your view of early humans. There was tribalism, slavery, banishment,  quasi-kings, etc. Look at similar species. We have no reason to think we were significantly different. And while families may have looked after one another, I very much doubt that the "best" members didn't get bigger portions, first pickings, favor and preference, etc. 
104
105Why would I try to make the best decision when if Bob makes it, I'll benefit as much as he does? I might give it some effort, sure, but not the same as if I reaped what I sowed. I'm not saying all gain should be individual. But say that for every 3 units of gain I make, the society benefits 2, then I still have incentive to work hard and make good decisions to improve my life and the lives of my loved ones, and the community at large also gains. This is basically taxes.
106
107I'm not excluding empathy and compassion. I think youre unfairly painting me as this, like, horrible person. Maybe it's instinctive or guilt by association or something. But if nothing else it doesn't seem productive.
108
109What counts as hoarding resources? Any personal property? Where do you draw the line? What counts as a societal resource? 
110
111You are getting very hung up on motivation. Society doesn't care if you make a life saving medicine because you're some ambitious, greedy jerk, or if you have a big heart. If the cost and product are the same, it's all the same. Now, I'm all for giving people more motivation and excuses to be compassionate and community oriented. But I am wholly unconvinced that personal advancement isn't a key source of motivation. I think if your system doesn't in some way respect people's desire for personal advancement, or if you think you can eliminate it, it can't be that good a system. And that means there can't be equality. And that means, on the small scale, there will be winners and losers. But that doesn't mean I want the winners to get billions or the losers to die of starvation. I agree: let's foster cooperation and compassion. But we also have to recognize what I think is an ineliminable fact, that people seek some amount of personal advancement and it would be foolish not to allow them some.
112
113None of that precludes crime. People can be less likely to commit crime and still be able to and sometimes will commit crimes. If I hand you a baseball bat, I'm pretty sure you won't hit me with it (depending on how annoying I'm being), but you could if you wanted to. Why murder? Maybe you murder your work rival, or your wife cheats on you, or someone mocks your religion. I don't think all murders are very well thought through.
114I'm going into depth on it now! And I feel like even if I raise any points, you're basically conditioned to sort them into familiar categories and give me a well practiced reply. Like, I'm not sure there's really anything I could say to change your mind.
115
116"Garbage media" is just my term for shitty media, including propaganda. And you're probably right. I've been learning so much about all of this recently and my perspective is changing on it. I'm just giving you what my perspective is right now. Maybe in a few months I'll be totally agreeing with you 
117
118[2/14, 4:21 PM] Natasha: I think you’re assuming compensation happens in terms of access to vital resources. Maybe you help out and the community recognizes and gives it praise and awards, but that’s not monetary compensation. I mean, how do you get people to go kill themselves in wars? You create a narrative of greater good and societal prestige. None of this has anything to do with access to resources at the expense of others. Maybe you can conscript but again, you’re acting as if these decisions happen from a top down rather and horizontal committees that decide what to do in their own community. The people who are affected have a say.
119
120I’m sorry, but this isn’t a view, this it the standard narrative of early hunter-gatherer nomadic humans. They were fiercely egalitarian because it made sense. If you collectively gathered the food, then it made sense to share it amongst the group since it promoted group cohesion, reduced tension, and there was no way of keeping it without spoiling it. Sharing resources made sense since people moved around constantly, and everyone carrying a pot would be heavy and unnecessary. If you look at  one of our closest animal cousins, bonobos, you see a similar egalitarian elements with sex promoting group cohesion. I think you don’t know too much about this topic if you think there was kings or anyone had “first pickings”.
121
122What example are you talking about? If I come up with a way to make a software more understandable, why wouldn’t I share it with everyone. And then people can use it and even improve upon it? Why would money need to be a motivation. You don’t need a financial benefit to come up with new ideas to help society, that’s a really sad view of humanity. You seem to disgregarding open source software and volunteer work. And what do you want if your needs are taken care of? If you want recognition and praise, there’s no reason that can’t happen, if you want more power over people to control how they live their lives, then no. Like, I want to ascend in my career and get better at what I’m doing, and this has nothing to do with money, I think you’re thinking I don’t want talent or ability to be recognized?
123
124Nope, personal property is fine. You can have anything you want, but you can’t hoard necessary resources from the rest of the people. If you want to have a garden and keep the fruit for yourself or give it to your friends, you’re fine to do so. That’s not what I’m talking about.
125
126Personal advancement is a key source of motivation, that’s not what I’m talking about. But personal advancement doesn’t need to be tied to wealth, especially in a society without the need for wealth disparity since all needs are provided. Do you think people work their asses off to win an Olympic medal because they want money? No, they want achievement, praise, recognition, all things that can exist outside of the capitalist system. 
127
128It does! I don’t think you understand how crime works. People don’t just commit crimes randomly and without reason, most often there is some financial reason, even  in the cases of murder. What do you suggest to curb crime beyond changing the material conditions that preclude crime. 
129
130I’m sorry if I come off as strict in my views. I can’t definitely have my head up my ass and I’ve mentally step back while we’ve been discussing to think more broadly about the use of achievement and reward in a non-monetary system (I wasn’t really thinking too much about that before) so thanks for that
131
132[2/14, 5:16 PM] Nadav: Not really, no. Access to luxuries and niceties, access to higher quality goods and services, access to more comfort and leisure and security. That sort of thing. Not, like, steel or water or being able to pollute. Let's say we solve poverty. Everyone has a guaranteed minimum level of quality of life. I'm talking about beyond that.
133
134Soldiers are motivated for a lot of reasons, like nationalism, moral duty (killin' da bad guyz, saving lives). And it only works if soldiers buy into that. 
135
136Horizontal or not, unless there are enough volunteers, there will be people compelled to be sewer workers when they'd rather not be, while other would be sewer workers don't have to be. Maybe you rotate who is a sewer worker, but my solution is eminently better. Give people some counteracting incentive to take the worse jobs, let then specialize and be good at those jobs (not to say they can't change jobs later), and give them some extra niceties for taking those undesirable jobs. Supply and demand will determine how many niceties to give them.
137
138Yes, when the work is inherently collectivized, the reweards will be too. But work today is much different, so the analogy isn't terribly compelling. But groups were also much much smaller then, with tribes being almost extended families. And I would bet anything that the top cavemen and top bonobos got effectively special privileges, like first pickings at the day's spoils, first pickings for mates, first pickings at sleeping quarters, better access to favors, effectively more say in group decisions since people valued what they had to say, etc. By king I just mean leaders who enjoyed high esteem and favor. 
139
140I'm not really referring to intellectual property. I'm referring to more tangible things. Spending a lot of time and effort and personal expense in something in the hope of developing something, discovering something, creating something, developing a skill, etc. Maybe you're right and I'm instinctively framing this in a setting where along the way there was a low or no level of community support. So maybe I'm a little stuck thinking like this. But I'd like to see more than notional evidence I'm wrong. Evidence that esteem is enough motivation and is satisfying enough. 
141And I'm not making this personally about you at all. I'm aware that people have pretty different motivations. 
142
143What's a necessary resource? Say you discover that pine cones are vital for some disease cure and I like collecting pine cones so I have a bunch at home. Do those become a public resource? One thing I'm concerned about is ochlocracy. Like if I'm in a minority of the population, the majority can just decide it's in the public interest to do whatever they want with me. That's why I'm asking for clear delineations. What counts as a necessary resource?
144
145Needs are minimal. I don't need a hot cup of tea in the morning but I do enjoy it and I'd work to make sure I could still have that nicety in my life.  Again, I'm assuming basic needs are a given. Everyone is guaranteed a certain minimum level of quality of life. What I'm talking about is everything beyond that.
146
147I dunno. I'm sure they make a lot off of advertising deals, public appearances, book deals, etc. They get prestige, and an implicit promise of a better life. Who has a better life: Olympic athletes or the athletes who barely didn't make it into the olympics? 
148
149I gave you a number of non economic motivations for crime. And I'm not really suggesting anything. Just that something I now can't remove that you said like a million years ago by now wasn't right haha
150
151And I'm admittedly only like 90% sure you're being genuine in that last bit, but I think and hope you are so I'm glad 
152
153[2/14, 5:46 PM] Natasha: What if everyone had the highest quality of life possible, we have 100% automation and no one needs to work. Should we still have an unequal society? Should we not disperse the resources among society equally? If not, who gets to decide who gets more or less?
154
155That’s what I’m talking about, people are motivated to do a lot more harmful things for stuff other than money. 
156
157Supply and demand is bunk. Sorry, but market economies never reward the best or most valuable actors in a society. Think about the difference between bankers and teachers, or hell, doctors even. Or the difference within professions. Doctors who go an help the poorest people of our society, do it out of altruism and not money since they get paid shit. While doctors who specialize I giving plastic surgery to rich bastards get paid hand over fist. But if getting people to be sewage workers was an absolute issue that no one in the community would do, then something could be figure out, but that doesn’t have to be a market or monetary system. (Also, I never implied that sewage workers couldn’t specialize). 
158
159Work in a capitalist system is not collectivized, yes. And that is the issue. Make sure people have a say in what they do and what happens to them and let them reap the fruits of their labor. You brought our ancestors as an arguing point, the truth is no one got special privileges. They didn’t think like that. It’s literally not in their culture to have a top person. There may be leaders from time to time that have certain skills that suit a given task, but their leadership is temporary and their status is not economical. (Also, the pickings of mates is just wrong. Our ancestors were gender wise much more egalitarian and polyamorous). One can be regarded in high esteem, but that usually comes from age and knowledge, and doesn’t transfer over to economic power. 
160
161Did I send you this video about motivation:  https://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc because unless the task is absolutely mechanical, higher monetary compensation had a negative effect on performance. People are better motivated when they feel like their work is making a positive impact and the work is challenging but rewarding. 
162
163If you hoard all the pine cones so that all or most of the pine cones belong to you, then yeah, you’re hoarding a resource. If you just happen to have a lot of pine cones and you use it for yourself and friends but there’s enough to go around, then that’s fine. People shouldn’t have power over you without you having a say and you shouldn’t have power over them. Resources like food, water, shelter, clothing, heat, electricity, generally all the things necessary to live a modest lifestyle. Tea is included.
164
165Idk, the other people can have better lives for a variety of reasons. Being rich and famous doesn’t mean you live a happier more fulfilling life. (I think you equate wealth with happiness a lot of the time). But we’re talking about motivation, and you can’t deny that the driving motivator for Olympic athletes is not money. There’s much easier ways to get. Do you not think that if money wasn’t an option, that there wouldn’t be people trying to be the best in the world at something? You don’t think that’s not a reason in and of itself? I feel like you’ve pushed too far back against my point.
166
167I’m saying that capitalism creates a lot of material conditions that preclude crime and if capitalism was eliminated and lot of crime would be gone as well. This doesn’t mean that humans would never be shitty to one another, but just that a lot of it wouldn’t or even couldn’t exist.
168
169I’m always genuine
170
171[2/14, 6:05 PM] Natasha: I just did some number crunching because I was curious. It’s said that $75,000 is the “happiness salary” meaning that no more than that has any measurable effect on happiness. I crunched the numbers of the amount of wealth in the US vs the number of people. We have enough wealth to almost double that number for every single person in our society. There is no reason poverty should exist.
172
173[2/14, 6:40 PM] Nadav: If we ever get there, we'd need to seriously reconsider a lot of our current institutions, views, policies, etc. And much of this would be moot lol. I'm assuming we haven't gotten there yet.
174No one gets to decide. Or rather everyone does. If I do more for you, I get more from you. If Bob does less, he gets less. I'm aware this is a gross simplifications, but it's the idealization I'm working off of. I'm not really in favor of everyone having the best possible quality of life guaranteed to them. I'm operating on a principle of fairness where unearned means undeserved, in some sense. There's moral and there's supererogatory. I don't see why it should be done and why it is even desirable to do. We can discuss what the guaranteed minimum should be but it isn't above, for example, where I am right now. 
175
176Ok I'm gonna have to disagree that supply and demand is bunk. You might want to look into some more advanced topics on this. In a way, as a framework for systematizing, it can't be wrong as much as not useful or meaningful.
177
178I feel like you're getting emotionally invested in some of this. I'm not saying you shouldn't be, just that it makes it hard to discern what your argument is. Ok fine so I guess I kinda am 
179
180Demand is not just how much value someone would be willing to exchange for something. They have to be willing and *able* to exchange it. Honestly I'm not totally sure what your point was.
181
182I am almost 100% true that some of them got what would effectively be special privileges, as I mentioned. Even if it's just someone liking you more, they are willing to do nice things for you in preference to someone else. I don't know if there were singular top people, but there was some sort of pecking order. And as such the people nearer the top had a better life in one way or another. What is "economic" for a caveman? I feel like you're being nitpicky here. I'm making what I take to be a pretty obvious and unobjectionable point.
183However polyamorous they were, I'm sure there was some amount of protectivity between mates. I bet you anything they fought over mates because literally all animals do, pretty much.
184
185(Will watch later)
186
187Ugh. Ok what if I collect used apple cores and those suddenly become valuable for some reason. Or like human poo. I just mean it goes from worthless to worth something.
188
189Ok so at what point does it become a luxury? Is everyone guaranteed a Ming vase? A Picasso? Truffles and caviar? Where does modest become extravagant?
190
191You won't give me an inch lol. 
192Wealth does correlate with happiness afaik, at least to a point (like the one you mentioned). Yes the motivation isn't money, but it is some sort of personal advancement and does come with an implicit promise of it, like fame, recognition, favors, etc. I don't think if there would be as many people trying in the Olympics if they did their events in the wilderness with no one looking and just had to be satisfied believing they were the best in the world with no one else ever knowing it. Do you think I think these people are like dragons and want to win so they can sleep on a bigger pile of gold?
193
194(I assume you mean "cause/encourage/drive people to crime, not preclude)
195I don't know if capitalism per se is the cause of crime. I think you are conflating capitalism in principle with capitalism as it exists today. Like, the concept of a gun never hurt anyone. You could argue that capitalism inevitably or very likely leads to the same sorts of conditions, and maybe youre right, but I'm as yet not convinced.
196
197Yeah that's pretty fucked. But I'm not sure that plan would work that simply just due to inflation haha. I agree that poverty is a tragedy and is inexcusable for us to simply countenance.
198[2/15, 4:10 AM] Natasha: My justification for wanting to give everyone the best possible existence is not simply altruistic but also pragmatic. Going off of the information on human motivation, uneven means and staggered monetary incentives do not produce optimal outcomes. I want everyone to have access to the best quality education and resources because I want their abilities and talents to thrive as much as possible so they have the best chance of contributing back into society. You can’t deny that a lot of the brilliant ideas and inventions could have only come about become people had the resources possible to do so. I mean, if everyone had the educational and financial background of bill gates, just think of what we could do.
199
200What’s wrong with being emotionally invested in a topic like this? I’m honest about how I feel on this topic, but I don’t think that changes the validity of my statements.
201
202Value as is value to society in a non-monetary sense. Is it more valuable to a society to have scientists that work to fix environmental issues or work in cosmetics? Is it more valuable to have lawyers who defend the poor and marginalized, or corporations? stuff like that.
203
204I think you’re arguing a straw man. Of course if you get any group of people together, some people may be more well-liked for a number of reasons, that’s not what I’m arguing. Someone giving you a gift because like you and they want to show that to you is very different from you forcing them to give you something or coercing them I do so when it’s not in their best interest. The latter is unequal political and economic power. I think you think I’m being nit picky because you’re arguing against  something I’m not advocating for. Of course fighting did occur but it was less likely and often in a society where mating was more group oriented (like bonobos). 
205
206Okay? I don’t really get your point though. Like if you’re hoarding valuable resources from the group that needs its, what’s to stop them from just taking it from you?
207
208Well, in the case of art, everyone should have access to art that is considered part of the general canon. I don’t think anyone should own a Picasso or Van Gogh for instance, because those are cultural touchstones of a society. Scarce resources could be given out on a first come first serve basis. But if it comes down to it, would you rather solve poverty and stop our economic and ecological demise and the abuse and exploitation of your fellow humans, or have truffle oil? 
209
210Yeah, but it doesn’t correlate beyond that and I just pointed out that that can be provided to everyone right now. So what’s the point in going beyond that for some people? Again, I think you’re arguing against a straw man. I’m not advocating a society where personal achievement isn’t recognized or rewarded. The olympics (at least on the atheletic part) are fine,  I have no issue with that, and I find it telling you think I would? Do you think I’m arguing for no achievement or personal advancement to be recognized?
211
212Capitalism as it exists today is capitalism in principle. It requires poverty and inequality, especially in the third world. How do you think we’re able to enjoy all the luxuries we have without the exploitation of the poor here and abroad? But to give you solid, material example of capitalism as it relates to crime, in poor urban neighborhoods, houses are much more likely to have lead paint in them. This because the people who live in those houses can’t afford to get that fixed. So children who grow up in those homes are more likely to be exposed to lead which leads to cognitive deficiencies that reduce impulse control and heighten aggression, things that help lead to crime. It’s been shown again and again that the biggest cause of crime is poverty. But capitalism also causes and ignores different kinds of crime. White collar crimes committed by the rich and powerful get ignored. More wealth is stolen through wage theft than through pretty theft, and think about the large and ever reaching effects of the banking crisis. We don’t actually care about crime that isn’t done by poor people.
213
214Inflation is a part of capitalism! And part of the contradictions. If everyone was given a living wage in America, what’s to stop corporations from raising their prices to suck that money back up to the top? David Harvey actually talked about this at the end of one of his lectures. I know you said you didn’t like him, but he has this talk that utilizes graphs and by the end, it’s really enlightening: https://youtu.be/83Yx6RBvoFc
215
216[2/15, 10:50 AM] Nadav: Hoo boy these are getting long.
217
218Well, I disagree? I think no material incentives is far less optimal. I think you're comparing what you see today to some idealized picture of how you want it to be. Not quite a fair comparison.
219
220Developmentally, I'm on board with you. I think everyone should be afforded the opportunity to get a quality education that allows them to explore their interests, develop their talents, and gives them valuable information and experience. (Practice will be a whole lot less easy than theory here. Education principles today are pretty terrible) But at the same time, I don't want to ignore the value in the motivation of personal advancement. You keep talking as if, if we take away one motivation, another will grow to take it's place. Whereas I think of the motivations as independent and additive. Helping your community is a good motivation. But getting a treat if you do extra well is another motivation. And maybe some people are just constitutionally oriented more toward one than the other. Or some days one motivation lags so the other keeps you going. If nothing else it's diversification.
221
222Moreover, who are you to take an honestly earned benefit away from someone? That's kind of the eternal question of all redistributive systems. Now you could argue that it wasn't honestly earned, or that the person has some effective debt to the community that facilitated earning that benefit. But those are tricky justifications. You could always try to convince the person that it's really in their interest to redistribute it in a "rising tide lifts all boats" sense. But unless there's adequate reason, I see no justification to take from him without his consent (also known as "theft"). I'm sure you've heard this before.
223
224I specifically preempted you by saying I had nothing against emotion per se, just that it made it hard to determine what the true substance of your argument was.
225
226Depends what people value. If people don't give a crap about the planet and value looking pretty more, they will value cosmetics over environmental research. But obviously I agree with you in the cases you gave. I think I've lost track of exactly what this is referencing. 
227
228...Then what were you arguing for? You said that early human society was a socialist utopia or something lol. And my point is that well kinda, but there were still significant social hierarchies, not really sure what economy and politics would be to them so I don't know if that's too relevant. Like, is there whale politics or whale economics? It doesn't really mean anything. My point is that your point doesn't go as far as you need it to go to be worth much lol
229
230Things like law and justice? What's to stop someone from stealing from me or raping me? For one I'd do my best to stop them, and then I have social institutions to turn to if that fails. But if the mob was it and the mob wanted to take my stuff, unless I have like a castle or something, there's probably not much I could do. I feel like you think this is all terribly simple and it really isn't.
231
232Take some relatively scarce resource, or some luxury X. That is, X is not needed for a perfectly adequate modest life but would enhance it. Let's say X is infinitely divisible. Would you want everyone to be guaranteed access to their share of X, which say is like a tenth of a milligram or something? How do you divide up X? Suppose X isn't worth anything unless it's in sufficient quantity. How do you split it up then?
233
234Aaaugh. You keep saying I'm like in favor of poverty and global warming and sweatshops. Or that either I'm for what you're proposing, or I'm for those things. Put down the rhetoric and just talk to me. I've already stated that I am only talking about a post-poverty situation. I'm focusing on what to do with everything that's left over after everyone has their guaranteed minimum quality of life.
235
236Well firstly, again, I don't think it's as simple as just handing everyone a bag of money. Value is relative. And to some extent luxury is exclusive. I don't think a villa in the south of France would be quite the same if the French countryside was teeming with villas. At the very least, I'm not totally sold on your idea so it doesn't get you anywhere to base further points off of it. 
237
238What does "recognize and reward personal achievement" look like in your proposed world? 
239
240"Capitalism as it exists today is capitalism in principle."
241Disagree. I see no implicit or explicit assumption or implication of poverty or third world exploitation. Now, granted, we might be using different definitions of "capitalism", but I think I've already given you mine.
242
243Nothing about capitalism per se includes lead paint or what effect it has on humans. At best you can argue that capitalism exacerbated or facilitated that issue but it didn't cause it.
244
245Poverty correlates with crime but it doesn't cause it. Poverty often leads to desperation which often leads to desperate decisions which often leads to crime. And the way things are today means that rich people doing shitty things sometimes get away with it, but I in no way see that as an assumption or implication. It will always be the case that the relatively powerful will sometimes try to unfairly leverage that power (something about power and responsibility). It's up to us to do what we can to prevent and fix that when that happens, which may involve substantially changing our current systems. 
246
247Inflation isn't part of capitalism, and I know that because sometimes there is deflation. It's not inevitable or assumed. In fact, it has to be tuned and tweaked. Deflation is bad: why would I buy something today when my dollar will get me more tomorrow? I don't think this would substantially change under your system. I think you have unrealistic expectations.
248
249I agree with an effective living wage. (How many times have I typed "guaranteed minimum quality of life"? My text predictor already picked up on it). But I'm pretty sure that if you just dump money from the sky you might introduce some problems.
250
251[2/15, 1:47 PM] Natasha: Did you check out the video on the evidence that material incentives are not good for motivating people beyond mechanical tasks? Like, if you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it, but this is the information I’m going off of so it’s really a matter of opinion.
252
253When have I ever said to get rid of personal achievement? My whole argument is that monetary motivation doesn’t work. Personal achievement as well as altruistic desire are both motivations I support and think are probably one of the best ways to achieve the optimal outcome. Again, the evidence doesn’t align with your suggestion of motivations as independent. At least from personal experience, the desire to make good art comes much more from wanting to push myself and see what I can do than it comes from money. And while I’ll welcome more money to do what I do, the stress of needed to perform well in order to get that money (rather than it being guaranteed) would be stifling as an artist and a creative person. But do you have evidence to your points or is this just conjectures?
254
255What are you talking about? It sounds like you think I want to take away people’s TVs and toothbrushes? No, personal property is fine. And again, I’m not sure what your point is because this is what happens in capitalism, it’s a redistributive system up to the wealthy, with capitalists taking a cut of your hard earned work and making a profit off of it. My suggestion is that you see the fruits of your labor and the community shares in what it makes. If someone doesn’t want to be a part of the system, that’s fine. They just don’t get to enjoy the benefits. I’m very much for consensual labor and wealth. 
256
257 This was supply and demand. And people clearly value the environment more, but the system of market capitalism rewards things that can make a profit. It’s not profitable to record co2 emissions all day, it’s profitable to make shampoos that keep your hair shiny (not that that’s bad but if you had to choose between a healthy planet and shiny hair, I think we would all choose the former)
258
259No, I didn’t. I said it was fiercely egalitarian and his isn’t really disputed. Political and economic hierarchy would be having power to control what other people against their will or access to resources other people don’t have and didn’t consent to. This is what I’m talking about. And social hierarchies were fluid and dependent on situations, much in the same way friendships or kinships are. But by any observable measurement that we use for societies, they were not hierarchical.  I don’t think you’re giving this fact a fair shake and are just trying to poke holes in a very basic scientific observation. My point backs up my claim that the structure of human societies can be drastically different and still function. 
260
261I don’t think you’re getting my point. Unless you have a state or police to protect your right to private property (ie. hoarding necessary resources from the rest of the community), there’s no way for you to hoard your pine cones or whatever if the community needed it. I’m not talking about crime here.
262
263It depends. Does everyone want X? Does X need to be available to each individual person all the time? But again, this can be figured out on a case by case basis within the community, rather than luxuries automatically being given to the rich and powerful.
264
265Curious, your comments on left and redistribution, do you support reparations for black Americans?
266
267I’m not saying you support those things, I’m saying that capitalism supports it. Like, you can say “I’m not for people abusing other people” which I believe is sincere, but if we’re arguing about say slavery for example and I point out that it’s abusive, you’re rhetoric of not supporting abuse rings hollow.
268
269A villa in France is only regarded as a luxury because of the colonialist and neo-colonist practices of France that sucked resources and wealth away from other nations. I want a world where we make as much of our world as rich and desirable as villas in France. 
270
271The same way it looks like now? Again, I don’t get how money needs to factor into it? For example, Glenn Keane is regarded in the animation industry as one of the best and his skills and talents are recognized and looked upon by aspiring animators. He goes to speak at colleges and has interviews with people in and outside of the industry, none of that is an issue and all of that can exist outside of a monetary system. 
272
273Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and those resources being distributed in a market economy. Of course it requires poverty! How do you think you get people to work for profit, you threaten them with starvation and homelessness if they don’t. And all the luxuries you have today are because of exploitation of the third world. Maybe capitalism could exist today without it, but it would be very very different, and probably not something you would recognize or like.
274
275Poverty does cause crime, why do you think people commit crime in the first place? And yes, change the capitalist system so that the wealthy can no longer exploit everyone else. It doesn’t “always have to be the case” if no one has the economic or political power to leverage. Not to mention the inherent corruption of power, another psychological effect that have good evidence to support it.
276
277Omg.. sorry. But inflation implies deflation (both sides of the same coin) and they are both inherent to capitalism and a monetary system. Like, what is inherent to capitalism in your mind? Because it seems like whenever I point out a flaw in capitalism you say “no, that’s not part of capitalism”, it feels like you’re moving the goalposts.
278
279You also need to stop arguing without the system. Inflation/deflation wouldn’t exist outside of a monetary system.
280
281I’m not advocating that dumping money from the sky be the final solution, I’m advocating an entirely different economic system. Universal Basic Income is just a start to thinking in that direction and alleviating some of capitalists problems.
282
283[2/16, 12:32 AM] Nadav: 
284
285I did watch the video and I enjoyed it. But it doesn't exactly match what I'm saying, and I think you're extrapolating a bit too far from it. I'm not saying wave some money in front of people and say if you work hard enough you'll get this. It's more "As appreciation for working so hard, we want to show you how much we are grateful and value your contributions by making your life better, by giving you more security and options. You can do with it whatever you want, donate it if you want to, but it's here if you want it." That's more how I'm looking at it. It is an unequivocal demonstration of appreciation and of being valued. That way, people do what they love, what they're passionate about, and they know that they are being valued because you are demonstrating it to them. They're not just anyone doing anything: people care about what they are doing and like it and think it's worth supporting and continuing. it's kind of like people who play music by the subway (I'm aware there are other factors, like needing to eat, but bear with me), and if you enjoy it and want to keep the performer around and show your appreciation, you give them a donation. And if you don't want to donate or can't, there's no one stopping you from just enjoying it. 
286
287Material reward is intimately bound up with appreciation. Appreciation almost inevitably has some material aspect, even if it's only acts of respect and gratitude and honor, fame, renown, esteem. And if someone has significant material means, by maybe just by association we generally infer that the person is likely worthy of esteem and respect. That might be societal to some extent, but I think it's a very natural way to think and I think that it is to some extent innate. Appreciation devoid of any sort of material (beyond verbal and the like) realization seems hollow or insincere. You get your "employee of the month" placard and get absolutely nothing else. Thanks for your service defending our country, now we'll just boot you to the curb and you can figure out what to do. I take it as a tragedy that we don't respect the people sacrificing themselves for our communities that they struggle financially and are unknown and unappreciated. They deserve more than lip service. Likewise, it's disgusting that those who contribute nothing to the community or even act against her interests have such undeservedly opulent lives. Maybe I'm kind of agreeing with you, to an extent, but I think where we disagree is I think we need to reevaluate how we value people's contributions to our community and show them our appreciation accordingly. 
288I'm not in favor of some sort of monetary part without an attendant non-monetary appreciation.
289
290Why are there art contests with cash prizes? Why are there film contests with cash prizes? Poetry contests? Why are there cash prizes for certain math problems? Why do wanted and missing persons ads have cash prizes? Are people stupid? Don't they know money doesn't motivate people? Youd think they would have realized by now. Is it wrongheaded? I don't think so. It shows that someone thinks it's valuable. That someone thinks it's important. That the work is appreciated. If I post online that I'm having a poetry contest where the prize is 10 people will call you up and tell you how great they think you are, do you think I'll get many good submissions? Will people even take it seriously? Is that just because they're greedy or conditioned?
291
292"it’s a redistributive system up to the wealthy, with capitalists taking a cut of your hard earned work and making a profit off of it"
293Firstly, I don't think that's a fair representation, by and large. Secondly, that's not so much redistribution as just distribution. Redistribution is some third party coming in to a interaction of two others and changing what the outcome was or would have been.
294
295And wait, what? That totally didn't come through until now ("fruits of your labor" etc.). But it still runs into the problem that people can't really just leave. It's like saying "if you don't like how our country is run, why don't you move?" But most people can't. You need to address how you would deal with those cases. 
296
297But yeah, clearly if it was purely voluntary and everyone there was of the same mindset, then sure, a lot of what I'm saying wouldn't apply. But that's like saying "if everyone was just a good person we wouldn't even need laws". 
298
299I'm not totally sure what your point is here. People like the environment, sure. But what's the marginal utility in a little more environmental work vs a little more shampoo? We consume shampoo and demand it continually. But the environment is slow and a little more effort on it will only have a very small effect on an individual's quality of life. Why do we prefer chocolate to going to the gym (ok at least I do lol)? because a little chocolate is immediate and its benefit goes away and a little of it makes me very happy. But going to the gym, while better for me, and having much more long-term benefit and increase to my lifelong happiness, has a much smaller perceived marginal utility. It's arduous and sometimes tedious or odious, whereas chocolate is delicious, joyous, and dare I say fabulous (ok I'll stop). You get the idea. I think you're making out like capitalism is the root and cause of literally every less than great thing about the world. Satan isn't real. Some things are just kinda bad for various reasons.
300
301How so "fiercely egalitarian"? As opposed to highly stratified? Again, these were almost extended families, not like thousands of people. What means did they have to control one another? What was the cost/benefit of doing so? Again, I'm not sure what this would go to show.
302
303 Out of interest, how do they know this about these early human societies? I know chimp societies, for instance, are pretty significantly stratified, some even having slaves (? maybe? not totally sure tbh).
304
305And "function" is a pretty low bar. A sundial is still a functional clock but it's really not good enough by our standards. "Function" and "flourish at an acceptable level" are pretty different. Given that today's societies are on the order of thousands, I very much doubt the analogy extends far enough. 
306
307By the same logic, there's nothing to stop the community from killing me, or selling me into slavery, harvesting my organs, or doing anything at all they want with me. What you consider fair redistribution someone else calls theft of their honestly accrued property. What you consider justice, someone else calls injustice. That's' kind of why we have laws and a justice system, and by extension a police enforcement system so that we don't have mob justice or vigilantes etc. Granted, it might not operate that way in practice, but that's how it's supposed to in theory, anyway.
308
309Let's say many or even most people would use X if it were available to them. But there isn't enough to satisfy all of them.
310And you tell me. Let's say it can be available to everyone.
311
312That's a cop-out answer. I'm giving you a case. What would *you* do with X?
313Luxuries aren't automatically given to the rich and powerful. It's not like you win some game of economy and your prize is all the nice things. Some people can afford more luxuries than others. Poorer people still can afford some luxuries. 
314
315What would the reparations look like? To me that seems like it would be very difficult to do with the desired effect. And it also addresses the real issue at the wrong end. I predict you'll say I'm some big bad racist.
316
317So in that analogy, there's something that you see as X that I don't. What would X be in our case? An analogy from my perspective is you say "I don't like bad tasting food" and I agree and then you bring up goat cheese and you say all goat cheese tastes bad and I'm like "well I think some of it tastes good".
318
319You're getting hung up on specifics. All I mean is there are some luxuries or goods that are exclusive. They would be to some extent spoiled if they were more accessible or crowded or easy to produce. Now, that can be diminished by technology and development (aluminum used to be a precious metal), but my point is just that as it stands, some luxuries are either necessarily or effectively exclusive.  
320
321How is Glenn Keane's life? Does he have a pretty good life?(i looked him up. He seems to be doing pretty well).He's famous, respected, admired, people value his views and ideas, I'm sure he's very well appreciated. I hardly think he's badly off. I'd wager he's fairly above the mean. Can you think of many very well respected person who doesn't have a quite good life? Is that a coincidence?
322
323"Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and those resources being distributed in a market economy."
324I don't see "poverty" in there. I don't even see "profit" in there. I don't see "exploitation" or "environmental degradation" or anything of the sort. In fact, though it might tend to function or functions best or something with private means of production, that is by no means necessary. Uber is capitalistic, I would say. Textile workers used to have to provide their own sewing machines. (I'm aware something in each of those cases was provided and owned by the employer, but that's not outright *required*. Cooperatives are perfectly allowable in a capitalistic economy). I think you conflate historical capitalism with capitalism per se. 
325And how do you know I wouldn't like it? :p
326
327"Poverty does cause crime"
328So if I take someone, take away their money and stuff, that will somehow compel them to break the law. That's not very fair to poor people. They're not automata functioning based on their economic status. Most are perfectly law abiding. Again, it may put people in situations where they are more likely to break the law or feel they need to. I'm pretty much agreeing with you except in the specific words you're using which you seem inexplicably married to.
329
330"inflation implies deflation (both sides of the same coin)"
331I can only conclude that I don't know what you mean because in my conception they are not at all. That sounds to me like saying "increase implies decrease". So how do you understand the terms?
332
333What's inherent to capitalism is something pretty close to lessaiz faire. Stick some people on an island who have different skills and interests and abilities and give them each some share of the resources. They'll exchange goods and services and team up and compete and cooperate and organize and all of that. But they are essentially free to do as they see fit. That's the sort of thing I have in mind. 
334
335Sure it would. Say we value X. There's only a certain amount of it and it is consumed and depleted at some rate. One day we discover a whole bunch of it or discover some new way to produce it much more easily. We wouldn't value it as much. If you were a rare stamp collector and you spent months hunting down a particular rare stamp, and then one day they discover a whole bunch of that stamp, the value you put in that stamp would go down. This works with any resource. Like, I think you'd be dismayed if tomorrow they invent an AI that makes art better than you can. Your contribution to your community would be lessened. It's all in the same vein. In no way particular to money at all. 
336
337 [2/16, 4:16 AM] Natasha: I think you need to step out of your ideology for a second and imagine a society without money. I pretty much agree with you. In a monetary system, giving a musician on the subway money makes sense. Outside of that, it doesn’t make any sense. In a society where you’re already as secure as communally possible and you already have all the options available to to you, then this incentive makes no sense. But if you mean we should reward people for their good work, I’m all on board with gift giving and an community recognition, but that’s very different than our current set up which goes, “here’s the power and authority to control people and their livelihood”.
338
339I think you’re confusing material means. When have I ever said I was against acts of honor or gratitude. And even concrete material things don’t have to be monetary in nature for them to have significance or motivation to the person. Like trophies don’t really have an monetary value (beyond the market value of whatever resources it’s made up of) but winnings a trophy is not about gaining access to material wealth, but achieving what the trophy symbolizes. Again, those things can exist outside of a capitalist monetary system. 
340 And yes, the people sacrificing themselves for the communities are not appreciated or valued to their contribution in capitalism, that’s why I’m proposing a system that actually values what people put in, rather than how much money they make.
341
342I feel like you’re being pedantic here. As I mentioned, you need to step outside of the monetary framework. Those cash prizes exist as they do because money is resource that people need to live and thrive, without that being the case money makes no sense. Even the money in those situations are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. More money means more security and less stress and access to luxuries or better just things people want or need. But money is not that in and of itself, and it’s use of motivation where all those things are taken care of is moot. Say you have a bunch of people who are financially satisfied in their lives, giving them money won’t do anything and they must prefer a competition where the awards were honor and prestige than some sort of monetary compensation. This is the society I’m suggesting, please try to think outside the rules we live in now.
343
344It is a fair description because it is third party redistribution. If a good is privately owned, then some of the wealth that the workers make is going up to the top, if that didn’t happen, then what’s the point of it being privately own. The boss doesn’t just make what they produce, they make more than that off of the exploited labor of the workers in the means of profit. If you try to stop this, say the workers get together and try to take the factory or office for themselves and own the company cooperatively, then the police will come in and stop you. The police are set up to protect private property. This is a redistribution by your own definition since a third party (police) are coming in and interacting to change what the outcome would have been. If Walmart employees get together and say, actually, since we do all the work necessary for keeping this story open, and we don’t even have enough to feed our families, we’re just going to control the store and contribute the wealth generated amongst ourselves. The police would never let that happen even though the Walton family is one of the riches in the country and have done nothing to contribute to that wealth generated by the workers.
345
346Fruits of your labor is what socialists talk about when they talk about public ownership of the means of production. I think you need to look into this topic more because  I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding what I’m proposing.
347
348Ideally, people can leave and go to another place because there would be no borders or countries. Again, ideal. But now is way worse because people have no consent to the capitalist system. All land is either privately owned or owned by the state, so it’s not like you can go, “oh, let me just get me and some friends together and start a new place outside of counties and corporations”, that’s not possible in this system, while I’m proposing a system in which it could”
349
350I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding what I’m saying. My point was a fact that scientists are offered more to go work in private companies like cosmetic and hair care companies, not to help in the actually production of shampoo (like, there wouldn’t be less shampoo without them), but on slightly modifying the existing product so that they can advertise it as different and better than their competitors so they can make more money, rather than going and work in environmental or more humane fields that go on to have a much larger and more positive impact. I think your focus on utility and example of chocolate fundamentally misses that point. Why can’t you acknowledge the possible failure of a market economy? 
351 
352Fiercely egalitarian as in if someone tried to hoard resources, they would stop them. Or if someone tried to act like they were better than the group, they would mock and shame them. Not saying this is ideal, I’m just explaining what it means. And that’s the point there was no benefit to trying to control people or resources. That’s my point, when you don’t have a system that incentivizes those things, they tend not to happen.
353
354I’ve read and followed this guy called Chris Ryan, he wrote a book on non-monogamy but he studied bonobos and early human societies to do so, plus I was interested and saw the information elsewhere. You should also check out Robert Sapolsky’s work on Baboons. He was able to showcase how the hierarchal nature of the baboons caused stress in the lower level male baboons. But more interestingly, all the top males in the troop he was studying died of Tb
355[2/16, 5:15 AM] Natasha: Tuberculosis* so what was left was the all the “good guys” (sapolsky’s words) and the dynamic of the troop changed overnight. Stress was way down amongst the group, males and females were better off, there was no stratification of resources or power, and the troop thrives to this day, 20 years later.
356
357Now you’re just being pedantic, you know what I meant. The issue is is capitalism allowing us to thrive? The the evidence points to no.
358
359I think you need to understand the difference between personal property and private property. You owning a house is personal property, you owning a factory is private property. And again, all the things you’ve described happen now within capitalist systems. What’s to stop rich and power people from killing or raping you, oh nothing. What I want is the community to have power over itself and for everyone in that community to have a say. This means a bottom up justice system. Your argument against mob rule (which is really just a derogatory term for democracy) is top down oligarchy. Again, the power has to go somewhere, where would you preferred it went to, the many or the few?
360
361I don’t like this thought experiement becaude jts too vague and misses out on the nuances of a situation. Like, I don’t know every little specific of this new system, I just think it works better on the macro.
362
363Luxuries are though, at least the luxuries that people regard as luxuries. I don’t know any poor person with a private jet. And maybe a lot of this can be solved with equal access. Like, not everyone can have a plane, but everyone can have access to one when they need it. 
364
365Why would I say that? I was asking because I’m trying to get a better understanding of your worldview? How would reparations not address the real issue? A lot of the systemic issues of racism are due to historical and current unequal access to wealth and power. Like, black people don’t live in poor urban ghettos because they wanted to. And yes, it would be difficult, and no amount of reparations  would ever be enough to undo the horrors inflicted on black Americans as a community, but if want them to thrive and contribute to their society as best that they can then we need to fix the root of the problem.
366
367It was just a response to your assertion that I think you like exploitation and environmental degradation.
368
369Okay, well, then the community can figure it out amongst themselves. I don’t want to give you a single answer because it can be very dependent on circumstance and I want to allow for that.
370
371You’re missing the point here. All this can exist without money. The fact that he or other well respected people have more money is more a correlation than having any motivational power. I doubt that if I went up to Glenn and was like, hey, so we’re going to live in a world where everyone has access to the wealth of our society and money doesn’t exist, he’d go “dammit, fuck animation, I worked really hard just so that I could have more money than other people and be better off. This shit is useless without it”. Like, cmon dude. You won’t give me an inch on the idea that people are ultimately highly motivated by things outside of of money. 
372
373All those things are in there, and “profit” is almost explicit since why would you privately own something if you weren’t making money off of it. Profit entails exploitation since people are working for more than they’re getting, and in a market economy and it’s need for profit and competition, constant growth is necessary and constant growth is incompatible with a sustainable environment. Uber is a great example of the horrors of capitalism, I mean, look at their labor issues. They still own the means of production, they just make you pay for the cars, which is kind of brilliant, but they own the app and control the price. You seem to have a very small specific idea of what capitalism is, I’m giving you want economists and everyone else generally accepts. Full on mutualism (cooperatives owning everything but still distributed in a market economy) isn’t really capitalism any more since the means are not privately owned, but it’s not really fully socialist either. So I’ll give you that.
374I’m talking about capitalism as it exists today, and has always existed. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the idea that if we just get the “true capitalism” everything would be fine. A) it’s never happened. Like can you give me one positive example of capitalism working and not causing these things?. Or how capitalism could work and not cause these things?
375Your example later about people on an island is just wrong. Like this is the issue with thought experiments, you don’t get out of your own biases and actually check what happens in real life. Anthropologically speaking, bartering, money and any notion of a capitalist system was not a thing in these kinds f societies. Most Native American societies functioned in a sort of “gift economy” (which was brutally repressed by the colonists when they came). The only way you’re idea might work is if you took American people who’ve been conditioned their whole lives in capitalist economies. But even then, it might not because that’s not how communities function.
376
377Yeah, if they need to break the law in order to survive or they feel like they have nothing left to lose. Yeah. Psychologically speaking, it’s very damaging to do that to people since you set up a world in which they don’t see a possible avenue  for them in it, so why the fuck would they care about your rules and laws if you don’t care about them. It also depends on what you mean by law. I’ve broken the law plenty of times, but I’m an upper middle class white girl,  the police aren’t coming for me. This is another way capitalism and the state exploit the poor, in the slavery of the prison systems.
378
379If something can go up, it can also go down. That’s what I mean. That doesn’t mean it does both at the same time, only that it has the possibility to do both. Saying that inflation is not a part of capitalism because deflation exists, is like saying lightness is not a part of color because darkness exists. They’re both necessary for the other to make sense, in the same way you can’t have a one-sided coin.
380
381Again, really just look this up and see if it’s true or not. Because from my understanding no society has ever exhibited this fact. Like, you complain that my ideas can’t work when you’re notion of capitalism has never and could never exist.
382
383I’m not sure what you’re talking about. It seems like you’re discussing the labor theory of value. The AI thing making art better than me only really makes a difference if the AI is consciousness (but that’s a whole different topic), and also ‘better’ art is highly relative.
384
385I’m enjoying this but I see it as more like an intellectual fight since I’m trying to figure out what it would take to convince you. Like, tell me, what can I show to you to convince you that capitalism is bad and maybe we should think of systems beyond it.
386[2/16, 2:23 PM] Nadav: You're not even engaging with the points I'm making. Does every artist who participates in an art contest rely on the prize money to live and thrive? I doubt it. Again, the prize money shows that it's a serious competition, that someone cares significantly about the submissions and appreciates them, that the art matters and is valued. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "put your money where your mouth is". Even if I'm a nobody (as I am), if I had a contest with a large prize, I'm confident I could get a lot of good submissions and attract a lot of talent, whereas if I had a small prize, I doubt I could. If the prize was a button that said "I won Nadav's art contest" I don't think I'd get anyone to take it seriously. Given that many of the people who participate in these sorts of contests are financially fine, the money must do something to motivate them. In fact, winning a contest with a significant prize itself grants some honor and prestige. How could I, myself, grant someone honor and prestige? Suppose you say you won the such and such prize for art. How do I know how prestigious that is? For all I know that could be a prize from a cereal box or it could be above a Nobel prize. But if you tell me you won $10,000 in an art contest, I'd infer that you must have beaten out a lot of other contestants and I'd be very impressed and think that you are a top-notch artist (as I do). I feel like you don't want to admit I'm even a little bit right, here.
387I talk more about this stuff below.
388
389Let's say we take the perspective that you are selling your labor to your boss. How much do you value your own labor? If it's less than what your boss is offering you, then that's a pretty good deal for you. Your boss then trades your labor (packaged with some other stuff) to someone. If Your boss values your labor at less than what he gets for it, that's a pretty good deal for him. Now, maybe you could get more for your work by selling it directly to whom he sells it to, and maybe you could do that. But your boss does add some value to your labor and facilitates the transaction with the final buyer (you could argue it's not enough value to justify how much he gets paid). I see nothing in that that is obviously redistributive, or even exploitative. 
390
391Workers revolting and seizing control of the factory is what many would call theft. Theft is basically redistribution since it isn't a consensual, voluntary transaction. What is deemed theft is generally not permitted in society. Now, you might say it's not genuine theft, and you might be right. But as we see it today, it looks a lot like theft. 
392
393What you had been describing sounded more like "We both enjoy the fruits of one another's labor equally". For every two apples you produce, I get one, and for every two oranges I produce, you get one. So if you produce twice as many apples but I produce as many oranges, I get twice as many apples, and you get more apples too, but as many as I do. 
394
395This is starting to sound like a world domination plot haha. Do you need the whole world to be on the same page for this to work?
396
397People in general, in principle, don't really consent to the laws of where they are born. They don't really get an opportunity to leave until they are older. And then they lose all their friends and family. You can't just assume there won't be barriers or costs to moving. This is why freedom is good because it makes people want to stay. In most cases no one is stopping them from doing what they want, so why would they leave?
398
399And a situation where if you didn't like it you could just leave and make your own country seems less than ideal for a number of reasons. You're basically giving people permission to secede and negate your values and interests. Your country would tear itself apart and you'd be facilitating it. Don't cut the baby in half. Figure out a way so that everyone can enjoy the baby (analogy didn't quite work lol).
400
401What defines a failure of a market economy? That it goes against the best interests of the people in that market, or people not in that market?
402I feel like you're not willing to grant me any point I make, no matter how small. Why don't people care about the environment enough to support more environmental research? Why do they care enough about new types of shampoo to effectively support shampoo research? Effective advertising, consumer culture, etc.  But however it got there, that represents what people effectively value. Do you think if people cared more about the environment than new shampoos that there would be more environment research than shampoo research? 
403
404What about your system prevents the benefit to cost ratio of controlling people from rising above a certain point? 
405
406How do you study early human societies? Pretty sure they're all gone by now. How can paleontological/archaeological evidence point to egalitarian vs. not? How do you know if early humans were more like chimps than bonobos? 
407And that example kind of points to an instability. It suggests that if some oligarchs emerge that they can get and retain power and only some accident(like TB) would overthrow them, and put the society back to something more egalitarian. Presumably, if new top males emerged the lower males would be more stressed again.
408
409Where is the line between personal and private property? When does the one become the other?
410We have at least a veneer of justice. And it certainly does work in some cases. There are rich people who lose in court to poorer people (or settle). Either you know about a lot more heinous activity than me or you're blowing it out of proportion somewhat. Some rich people go to jail. You make it seem like rich people have a government issued free pass to rape and murder and steal in broad daylight as they please. 
411
412Mob rule isn't the same as democracy. Mob rule is just whoever has the bigger or stronger team wins. It's similar to tyranny of the majority. The point of our democracy is that we have principles of self-restraint and rights. We force ourselves to guarantee one another certain rights and freedoms that are only taken away in egregious cases.  We don't just say "whatever the community decides goes," we say "what the community decides goes up to the point that it infringes on any individual member of it". If some member of the community is behaving contrary to the wishes of others, we have a system for settling those disputes and making sure that the settlement is enforced, even if that is contrary to what the majority wants. We appoint referees and even if the whole stadium is in an uproar, we still abide by their decisions since we appointed them to have the unbiased judgment we sometimes lack. Hopefully, after some time we can see the wisdom in their decisions. Otherwise, we get a new referee. Having justice determined by the many is not something I want in general. The many is good at determining rules when there is no pressure. Some few are better at applying those rules under pressure. 
413
414That's fair that you don't know every specific. And I realize I might be being a bit too persnickety on that. But I don't see how it would work on the macro if it seems faulty on the micro. Like, the effectiveness is emergent or something? haha. But in all seriousness, I think you may be putting too much faith in it. You see the faults in the current system because it's been around for a while and is widespread and you're looking out for them. You can't see the potential flaws in your system since it's in your head, and I don't think you're looking too hard at finding potential flaws in it.
415
416"Why would I say that?"
417Bit of a joke. Kinda :)
418What would be the purpose of reparations? To balance out the disadvantage they are at? Would it resolve racial tension? I think it would likely increase racial tension (given how contentious it is). I see it as cosmetic surgery for gangrene. The real issue is what put them there and is keeping them there, not the fact that they are there. I mean, yes the goal is to get them out of the hole. Maybe it would do some good, I don't know, but I don't think it's a good long-term solution.  
419This might have a more proper term, but I came up with what I call additive rebalancing and subtractive rebalancing. If you have a scales that is supposed to be balanced, but there's too much weight on one side, you can balance it out either by putting more weight on the other side (additive rebalancing) or taking away the extra weight on the excess side (subtractive rebalancing). This is how I see the situation with inequality. I think additive rebalancing is wrongheaded (the way we fight bias is with countervailing bias in the opposite direction, affirmative action, diversity bonuses, etc.). I think the better way is subtractive rebalancing (addressing and eliminating the root and cause of the bias, giving people more opportunities, a fairer shake, more chances, better access, better education, etc.). 
420
421I don't need a super specific answer. Something vague will do. Just some idea of how it might likely be handled. 
422
423I'll give you that people are motivated by things other than money (I thought I already did that). It varies from person to person. And that isn't ignored in our culture. What you won't grant me is that money still serves a function in the matrix of motivation and recognition. Do people like to feel appreciated? Yes. Do I work harder based on what people appreciate? of course. There are things that I'd love to do that I know basically no one but me would appreciate (translating "If I ran the Zoo" into Latin or something) and they don't mean as much to me because of that. I like doing things others appreciate and value. And I know they appreciate them because they demonstrate it to me. The love languages come to mind. Some people like to be shown appreciation with words, gifts, time or service (I don't think touch applies much to non-romantic appreciation lol). And they tie together and reinforce one another. Gifts with words mean more than gifts or words alone. it does to me. And money is effectively vouchers for gifts and services. But you want appreciation to be just words (not sure how time would work, tbh)? A gift isn't a gift if I would get it even without doing anything. Like I can't show my appreciation to someone by saying "as a gift I give you air to breathe". You're changing the baseline and hence the appreciation-force of gifts. Like if I gave you a cookie as a gift, it wouldn't mean as much if they were giving them out for free in the break room. When my coworker got a bigger bonus than I did, I wasn't bitter. I was happy for him and knew that he had worked hard and did a lot of good work. But it made me think that I could do better. That I wanted to do as good a job as him. That I wanted to be as appreciated as he was.
424
425How are they in there? Certainly not explicitly. 
426What does "profit" mean to you? Say I want a table so I go and buy one for what I consider to be a good price. Now I have a table, which I value at or above the price I paid for it, and the table seller has money that she values at or above the table. Technically we both make a sort of profit or at least break even. 
427Say I have a book I don't really want anymore and you have a book you don't really want anymore. But I want your book and you want mine so we exchange them. Suddenly we are both much happier. We both profited a lot, in a sense. Is that bad?
428
429You might privately own something so that you can retain control over who uses it and how. Or so that you can guarantee that it is of a certain type or in a certain condition. Say you have a snow shoveling business. You might want to make sure the shovels aren't damaging the driveways. And you want to make it easier to find people to help you shovel driveways so you don't require them to provide their own shovels. You have some money from some babysitting work you did, so you go and buy some good shovels that meet your standards and provide them to the people who want to join in your venture. Do you object to any of that?
430
431Capitalism historically has only been around for some few hundred years and under fairly homogenous sociopolitical circumstances. But you saying "it's never happened before therefore it can't" is just silly. We have scarcely tried everything. How would we ever have done anything the first time with that mindset? And aren't you saying nearly the same thing? That "true, perfect socialism" has never been fully tried?
432Depending on what sort of society the islanders formed, sure the economy might be somewhat different. I suppose it depends on their constitutions and culture and values. I'm assuming they have specialization and technical skill. Somewhat industrially-oriented. Now I don't want to sound like a total ignoramus, which I might be, but I'm pretty sure that's not quite what native American cultures were like. So the counterexample isn't terribly powerful for me. Like, I just googled it, and the Aztecs are a pretty good example. Like, this is what I have in mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy#Ancient_times. 
433
434Not all poor people are in life or death situations. Again, most poor people are perfectly law abiding. What laws have you broken? Speeding? Jaywalking? Not, like, tax evasion, robbery, assault, I would think. Now I agree that the current system of police discrimination and prisoner exploitation and all that is bad. But it's not really relevant to what we were discussing. My point is very simple. Correlation isn't causation, and changing something that correlates with another thing, while likely to reduce that other thing in general, doesn't preclude it. 
435
436Not everything that goes up goes down a significant amount. What about entropy? What about experience? What about the size of the universe? 
437I'm just saying that some things have a tendency to go up and hardly or almost never go down. It just seems fatuous to say that inflation implies deflation. 
438
439I think moderate and controlled inflation is actually a good thing. Moreover, I think it's basically inevitable. We generate a surplus and that's good: it means our quality of life goes up, it means there is more for everyone (at least potentially). Costs go down, efficiency goes up, automation goes up etc. But that means that the relative value of any given thing relative to the total goes down. That's why prices go up. And that's something that A) Isn't in any way assumed or implied by (my conception of) capitalism (maybe what I'm calling "capitalism" is what almost no one else is. So call it what you like. Davitalism, whatever. Pure semantics. I guess that might mean that Davitalism and capitalism are actually opposed. Maybe Davitalism is closer to socialism than to what other people call capitalism. At any rate it nevertheless seems that Davitalism and Tashian Socialism are at odds in several respects.)
440And B) would almost certainly happen to some extent in your world, too, whether you see it or not. Maybe it wouldn't matter as much (just as someone whose wealth isn't in money doesn't mind too much if there's inflation that leaves his wealth largely the same) but it would.
441To be honest, I'm not sure what your argument is. Value fluctuations and changes happen. And that's bad why?
442
443Well, I know that my idea of capitalism certainly has existed to some extent because I have experienced it. I used to be a babysitter and a tutor, sell lemonade on my street, be part of bake sales, and that's more or less what I have in mind. I'd offer my goods or services to someone and they'd pay me and we were both happier. And I know that's more or less how it works in a lot of cases. I even got my friends to help me bake things for the bake sale using my (ok my mom's) oven and supplies I bought and they got a cut of our sales. Was I exploiting their labor? Was that not capitalism? Maybe Davitalism?
444
445I am kind of talking about the labor theory, I guess, but more generally (still not a huge fan of the LToV, I think it isn't quite right).
446Why does it matter if the AI has consciousness? For whatever art you make and however you judge it, is it conceivable that a machine or program could make something that is better than you can make? For whatever value you have to your community, is it not possible that that could be greatly diminished? Like even my value to you: if there were an AI that was a better conversationalist than I am, or did whatever it is I am doing better than me, I couldn't really blame you if you preferred talking to it more than me (I'd be sad tho).
447
448What would change my mind is something along these lines:
4491) What are we trying to optimize? What's our end goal? Maybe this is fundamentally different for you and me, in which case, why is your end goal better than mine?
4502) How do you plan to optimize? How do you plan to deal with all the problems that might come up in your implementation? How would you keep it optimized?
4513) How do you know that would work? Is that really optimal? Is it achievable and stable? How do you know mine wouldn't work or be optimal/achievable/etc.?