http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/06/25/idINIndia-57912120110625
QuoteWhen New York became the sixth and by far the largest state to legalize same-sex marriage, following a grueling overtime session in the state Legislature on Friday, it immediately transformed the national debate over the issue, legal experts said.
With a population over 19 million -- more than the combined population of the five states that currently allow gay marriage, plus the District of Columbia, where it is also legal -- New York is poised to provide the most complete picture yet of the legal, social and economic consequences of gay marriage.
"I think that having same-sex marriage in New York will have tremendous moral and political force for the rest of the country -- in part because New York is a large state, and in part because it hasn't come easily," said Suzanne Goldberg, a professor at Columbia Law School.
The New York Assembly passed same-sex marriage legislation twice before, in 2007 and 2009, but in both cases it stalled in the state Senate, as it nearly did again this week. The bill passed late on Friday after legislators agreed on language allowing religious organizations to refuse to perform services or lend space for same-sex weddings.
The new law's impact can be measured in part by the numbers at play: New York is home to more than 42,000 same-sex couples, according to an analysis of U.S. census data conducted by the Williams Institute. This means, among other things, that the number of same-sex couples living in states allowing same-sex marriage has more than doubled overnight.
REAL-WORLD DATA
If a significant portion of those couples choose to marry, it could provide a wealth of new information about the practical economic effects of such legislation, from employment and retirement benefits to divorce rates and wedding and tourism industries, said New York University Law School professor Arthur Leonard.
Parties on both sides of the issue frequently invoke the hypothetical economic impact of same-sex marriage, Leonard pointed out, so the influx of real-world data from New York could go a long way toward changing those hypotheticals into concrete facts.
"It becomes less of an experiment the more information we have," he added.
The ripple effect of the new law is likely to provide more than just information, said Goldberg. New York's mobile population means that the effects of the law will reach literally into other states.
"New Yorkers tend to move about the country quite a lot," Goldberg said. "High numbers of same-sex couples likely to marry here will increase pressure on other states to treat those couples fairly."
Currently, 39 states have laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman, according to statistics from the National Conference of State Legislatures.
NEW YORK UNIQUE
For states considering how to handle calls for same-sex marriage, Massachusetts -- the first state to legalize it, in 2004 -- has generally served as the reference point, Leonard said. But he noted that New York was different from Massachusetts for two primary reasons.
First, it has more than three times as many people. Second, New York instituted same-sex marriage through legislation, complete with religious exemptions. Massachusetts, on the other hand, established the right to same-sex marriage in a court ruling.
The significance of that difference cuts both ways, said Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School who studies the constitutional and social consequences of same-sex marriage in the United States.
When legislation fails to pass, it can serve as evidence of a minority group's political weakness or of widespread prejudice against it, Dorf said. Both are factors courts use under an equal-protection analysis to determine whether to intervene and protect minority rights. The New York legislation's success, in contrast, could lead judges in other states to say, "'We don't need to intervene, let the political process work this through,'" Dorf said.
But because courts are also wary to make rulings that are perceived to be too far outside the mainstream, the New York law may begin to tip that balance.
"To the extent that the anti-same-sex marriage argument has been that this is a radical change and incompatible with the country's social mores, the fact that the country's third most populous state has done so shows that it may not be," Dorf said.
Regardless of the immediate impact of the law, Dorf said, politics and public opinion on the issue "are in the course of rapid change."
"It seems inevitable that we'll have same-sex marriage in most of the states within a decade," he said.
Oh, maybe not a decade, but eventually, relatively soon.
Kind of sucks. I don't know what I'll be able to get constructively angry at soon enough. Sure, there will be things I hate about society, lots of things, but those things will never change. Was Fukuyama: right?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2011, 11:34:43 PM
I don't know what I'll be able to get constructively angry at soon enough. Sure, there will be things I hate about society, lots of things, but those things will never change. Was Fukuyama: right?
Depends. Can civilization survive its own success?
Good for them. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2011, 11:34:43 PM
I don't know what I'll be able to get constructively angry at soon enough.
The second "I" is a key word here. I think our generation is the last to see GLBT issues as a political cause (because it will soon be resolved with only loons opposing gay equal rights etc.) and probably for our generation it will be it. But the next generations will come with something new - something our generation will probably find hard to stand behind (as was the case with the gay rights and the previous generations). Stuff like "primates' rights" for example or some deepening pro-animal legislation.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FJyCwtntFi5IMosHXWpOhmA--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MjA7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2FReuters%2F2011-06-25T032041Z_01_NYK910_RTRIDSP_3_GAYMARRIAGE-NEWYORK.jpg&hash=cf576002e8e6fc1ef0212f5307af7fa54ff8a5ff)
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 01:32:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2011, 11:34:43 PM
I don't know what I'll be able to get constructively angry at soon enough.
The second "I" is a key word here. I think our generation is the last to see GLBT issues as a political cause (because it will soon be resolved with only loons opposing gay equal rights etc.) and probably for our generation it will be it. But the next generations will come with something new - something our generation will probably find hard to stand behind (as was the case with the gay rights and the previous generations). Stuff like "primates' rights" for example or some deepening pro-animal legislation.
Well, this is actually what I meant by the "those things will never change" part, at least not enough to be to my liking.
Primates rights may come, but I really suspect it'll be too late. The time to deal to "rebalance" the primate population in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is today (just kidding, but the Congolese piss me off), but no one else thinks it'd be a good idea to use Blackwater mercenaries to guard bonobo sanctuaries and execute people trying to use them for bushmeat. Probably no one ever will. Well, maybe Slargos, but for the wrong reasons.
And people won't give up meat-eating, as a general rule, until we invent Star Trek replicators or something, and even then people will likely kill for their own entertainment. Hinduism and Buddhism failed to come close to eliminating it even within their own religions, and they promised punishment to credulous morons. What does a secular morality have to offer? "It's bad, don't do it!" Yeah, right.
Capitalism will continue to survive and objectivist libertards will continue to be numerous and influential enough to keep necessary reform to a minimum, even while automation makes human labor increasingly pointless and human intelligence increasingly worthless.
I
can still probably find some people to hate over the issue of genetic engineering, though, so there's that. Of course, just like supporting gay rights, a bunch of other people who are not me will get to reap all the material rewards, and I receive the dubious prize of being morally correct. Yay.
You know, maybe those libertards have the right idea. <_<
The thing is, any futurology like this is ultimately pointless, because we will never know. I bet if you asked people in the 1950s (which is not that long ago) if they think two guys will be able to marry in New York, they would have laughed at you and said "it will never happen".
By the end of the century we may find ways to communicate with apes and have them vote in elections, as far as we know. :P
Quote from: citizen k on June 25, 2011, 01:57:24 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FJyCwtntFi5IMosHXWpOhmA--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MjA7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2FReuters%2F2011-06-25T032041Z_01_NYK910_RTRIDSP_3_GAYMARRIAGE-NEWYORK.jpg&hash=cf576002e8e6fc1ef0212f5307af7fa54ff8a5ff)
Why are so many gays so skinny? It's unnatural. <_<
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 02:19:52 AM
By the end of the century we may find ways to communicate with apes and have them vote in elections, as far as we know. :P
Why do you want to see the Statue of Liberty buried in the sand? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 02:19:52 AM
By the end of the century we may find ways to communicate with apes and have them vote in elections, as far as we know. :P
People can already communicate with apes.
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 02:22:21 AM
Why are so many gays so skinny? It's unnatural. <_<
Are you fat?
Quote from: Faeelin on June 25, 2011, 04:32:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 02:22:21 AM
Why are so many gays so skinny? It's unnatural. <_<
Are you fat?
Well, I'm not fat but I do struggle somewhat with my body image and wouldn't mind dropping a couple of pounds around my waist. The problem is whereas as a hetero I would be considered slim, it's not the case among gays. In fact many gays, in addition to being skinny are realy tiny. I wonder why
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 07:04:30 AM
Well, I'm not fat but I do struggle somewhat with my body image and wouldn't mind dropping a couple of pounds around my waist. The problem is whereas as a hetero I would be considered slim, it's not the case among gays. In fact many gays, in addition to being skinny are realy tiny. I wonder why
What's your height/weight?
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 07:04:30 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 25, 2011, 04:32:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 02:22:21 AM
Why are so many gays so skinny? It's unnatural. <_<
Are you fat?
Well, I'm not fat but I do struggle somewhat with my body image and wouldn't mind dropping a couple of pounds around my waist. The problem is whereas as a hetero I would be considered slim, it's not the case among gays. In fact many gays, in addition to being skinny are realy tiny. I wonder why
This is true. There's a couple of dudes I know who are ridiculous small--despite being around my height, they can't weigh more than 140 pounds, and I'd suspect less.
I would admire their misplaced discipline, then I remember, "Oh, yeah, cocaine exists."
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2011, 04:08:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 02:19:52 AM
By the end of the century we may find ways to communicate with apes and have them vote in elections, as far as we know. :P
People can already communicate with apes.
And technically apes already vote in elections.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 25, 2011, 07:45:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 07:04:30 AM
Well, I'm not fat but I do struggle somewhat with my body image and wouldn't mind dropping a couple of pounds around my waist. The problem is whereas as a hetero I would be considered slim, it's not the case among gays. In fact many gays, in addition to being skinny are realy tiny. I wonder why
What's your height/weight?
181 cm, 79-81 kg.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2011, 06:14:47 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 25, 2011, 07:45:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 07:04:30 AM
Well, I'm not fat but I do struggle somewhat with my body image and wouldn't mind dropping a couple of pounds around my waist. The problem is whereas as a hetero I would be considered slim, it's not the case among gays. In fact many gays, in addition to being skinny are realy tiny. I wonder why
What's your height/weight?
181 cm, 79-81 kg.
:x
Good for them but I really don't get the big deal about same sex marriage. Who gives a crap whether its called a marriage or a civil partnership? Its just a word. Sure, gay people should be allowed to call it a marriage if they want, but still, surely things would be a lot easier for them in getting gay marriage in some more conservative states if they let it be called a civil partnership there instead of going for the marriage word?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2011, 08:59:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2011, 06:14:47 AM
181 cm, 79-81 kg.
:x
:unsure:
Gay people are weird, that sounds quite normal to me.
Quote from: Tyr on June 26, 2011, 09:04:47 AM
Good for them but I really don't get the big deal about same sex marriage. Who gives a crap whether its called a marriage or a civil partnership? Its just a word. Sure, gay people should be allowed to call it a marriage if they want, but still, surely things would be a lot easier for them in getting gay marriage in some more conservative states if they let it be called a civil partnership there instead of going for the marriage word?
I guess there is a point about international recognition - there are international laws on treatment of marriage, whereas there are none on civil partnerships (and even countries that do not recognize some type of marriage - e.g. polygamy - have to apply certain standards). Plus there are countries - like Israel - which only recognize religious marriages and marriages recognized in other countries (I may be wrong about this one though).
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2011, 08:59:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2011, 06:14:47 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 25, 2011, 07:45:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 07:04:30 AM
Well, I'm not fat but I do struggle somewhat with my body image and wouldn't mind dropping a couple of pounds around my waist. The problem is whereas as a hetero I would be considered slim, it's not the case among gays. In fact many gays, in addition to being skinny are realy tiny. I wonder why
What's your height/weight?
181 cm, 79-81 kg.
:x
Troll. :P
Quote from: Tyr on June 26, 2011, 09:04:47 AM
Gay people are weird, that sounds quite normal to me.
Well, Marty is vain so he's probably lying a little bit. Still, I had to find a metric converter to get a better idea of Marty's dimensions. He's .00112 miles tall and 2857.2 ounces heavy. Since his height is miniscule decimal number and his weight is almost 3,000 I've come to the conclusion that Marty is both very short and very fat.
Martinus would be overly large were he a woman.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 25, 2011, 01:58:15 AM
Capitalism will continue to survive and objectivist libertards will continue to be numerous and influential enough to keep necessary reform to a minimum, even while automation makes human labor increasingly pointless and human intelligence increasingly worthless.
:lol: The horror of automation. Go pull a plow and tell me how that works out for you.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2011, 08:59:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2011, 06:14:47 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 25, 2011, 07:45:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 07:04:30 AM
Well, I'm not fat but I do struggle somewhat with my body image and wouldn't mind dropping a couple of pounds around my waist. The problem is whereas as a hetero I would be considered slim, it's not the case among gays. In fact many gays, in addition to being skinny are realy tiny. I wonder why
What's your height/weight?
181 cm, 79-81 kg.
:x
Fuck you, S. :(
(I don't weigh that much, but the Ostmensch is taller than me somehow, and I think the BMI is roughly the same.)
Quote from: HabbakuThe horror of automation. Go pull a plow and tell me how that works out for you.
Don't be disingenuous. You know I have no problem with automation, but a system that does not adjust to the technology upon which it rests.
The failure of capitalism is inextricably linked with the failure of democracy.
Of course Mart is fat, his parents were profiteers.
Good show New York. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on June 25, 2011, 01:58:15 AM... while automation makes human labor increasingly pointless and human intelligence increasingly worthless.
:huh:
Automation not only frees humans to do more productive work but can only replace tasks where human intelligence is ALREADY worthless.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2011, 08:59:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2011, 06:14:47 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 25, 2011, 07:45:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 07:04:30 AM
Well, I'm not fat but I do struggle somewhat with my body image and wouldn't mind dropping a couple of pounds around my waist. The problem is whereas as a hetero I would be considered slim, it's not the case among gays. In fact many gays, in addition to being skinny are realy tiny. I wonder why
What's your height/weight?
181 cm, 79-81 kg.
:x
Sounds completely normal, especially if he has some muscle tone.
Since gays will fuck everything at least once I fail to understand Marty's anxiety. Even when you're old and hideous, you'll still be able to attract the odd desperado on a fairly regular basis. Sure, it'll be on a strict pump & dump basis, so in that regard you'll be like women who re-enter the meat market at 40, and quickly find out that it's not enough to just stand there and that they may in fact have to settle up by 20 years or so.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2011, 02:16:56 PM
(I don't weigh that much, but the Ostmensch is taller than me somehow, and I think the BMI is roughly the same.)
Gays are weird about weight. My brother is gay and he's rail thin.
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2011, 02:22:21 AM
Why are so many gays so skinny? It's unnatural. <_<
They are not particularly skinny where I come from.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 26, 2011, 07:24:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 25, 2011, 01:58:15 AM... while automation makes human labor increasingly pointless and human intelligence increasingly worthless.
:huh:
Automation not only frees humans to do more productive work but can only replace tasks where human intelligence is ALREADY worthless.
Automation frees humans
qualified to do more productive work, to do more productive work. 99% of humanity is qualified to be a ditch-digger. What fraction is qualified to be an automation engineer?
I think we have an assumption that any human intelligence is malleable enough that, with proper education and discipline, anyone is potentially qualified to participate in the economy, regardless of how advanced that economy is. While it's based on the historical experience that the labor force
has adapted to technological revolutions--hunter/gatherers become farmers, farmers become factory workers, factory workers retrain to become office workers--I don't believe the assumption that they
always shall to be true.
I also sharply disagree that automation will only replace physical labor and routine tasks, and leave true, non-routine intellectual activity untouched. But this is a separate issue, and depends on how you feel about strong AI.
Now, I am not a luddite, and I'm not attacking technological progress in itself. All I'm attacking is the ideological notion that humans
are obligatedto participate in the economy, or to participate to the extent they presently do, in order to survive, because I do not believe that this notion will be sustainable once only 75, 50, 25, or 10% of humanity is even biologically equipped to participate. We are not a race of scientists and artists.
The goal should be (and implicitly has been for at least a hundred fifty years) to put an end to human labor. You can only hold on to a capitalist worldview and embrace that goal at the same time if you accept the logical result of keeping to both: massive human dieback.
Quote from: ValmyThey are not particularly skinny where I come from.
Texans = fat.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2011, 08:08:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2011, 02:16:56 PM
(I don't weigh that much, but the Ostmensch is taller than me somehow, and I think the BMI is roughly the same.)
Gays are weird about weight. My brother is gay and he's rail thin.
True, but I've always had similar aversion to gaining weight, and also heavy sexual partners (well, long-term sexual partners, I've never much cared about what random ones look like). Vanity and taste play into it, but I expect the main reason is because my mom was 1)fat and 2)died at 50 because she was fat.
I want to die at 50 because I calculated the trajectory over the Grand Canyon wrong, not because I'm a physical wreck.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
The goal should be (and implicitly has been for at least a hundred fifty years) to put an end to human labor. You can only hold on to a capitalist worldview and embrace that goal at the same time if you accept the logical result of keeping to both: massive human dieback.
Given that a massive human dieback is the only moral option availible to us, I don't see a problem with continuing with a capitalist system.
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2011, 11:08:29 PM
Given that a massive human dieback is the only moral option availible to us, I don't see a problem with continuing with a capitalist system.
Modern Europe seems perfectly capable of reducing population without killing off a bunch of people. Well, not counting fetuses that is.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2011, 10:49:46 PMAutomation frees humans qualified to do more productive work, to do more productive work. 99% of humanity is qualified to be a ditch-digger. What fraction is qualified to be an automation engineer?
I think we have an assumption that any human intelligence is malleable enough that, with proper education and discipline, anyone is potentially qualified to participate in the economy, regardless of how advanced that economy is. While it's based on the historical experience that the labor force has adapted to technological revolutions--hunter/gatherers become farmers, farmers become factory workers, factory workers retrain to become office workers--I don't believe the assumption that they always shall to be true.
I also sharply disagree that automation will only replace physical labor and routine tasks, and leave true, non-routine intellectual activity untouched. But this is a separate issue, and depends on how you feel about strong AI.
Now, I am not a luddite, and I'm not attacking technological progress in itself. All I'm attacking is the ideological notion that humans are obligatedto participate in the economy, or to participate to the extent they presently do, in order to survive, because I do not believe that this notion will be sustainable once only 75, 50, 25, or 10% of humanity is even biologically equipped to participate. We are not a race of scientists and artists.
The goal should be (and implicitly has been for at least a hundred fifty years) to put an end to human labor. You can only hold on to a capitalist worldview and embrace that goal at the same time if you accept the logical result of keeping to both: massive human dieback.
Yeah, this. It's often funny too that people who hold a view that the automation is always a good thing often also have quite strict views on people living off the welfare. The fact is, in a purely capitalist economy, where you are not getting paid money "for sitting on your ass and collecting a welfare check" (an anathema to many), you end up creating an unemployable, poor underclass, which is a sure recipe for a revolution.
Either you work from a principle of full employment (which means less efficient system because you are trying to pay fallible humans a wage that is higher than the cost of having some simple, menial task done by a robot) or you have to allow that a growing portion of the populace will be jobless and part of the wealth generated by the working few will have to be shared with those poor dupes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2011, 12:46:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2011, 11:08:29 PM
Given that a massive human dieback is the only moral option availible to us, I don't see a problem with continuing with a capitalist system.
Modern Europe seems perfectly capable of reducing population without killing off a bunch of people. Well, not counting fetuses that is.
Fetuses are not people.
Incidentally, you would be surprised that abortion laws are more strict (often much more strict) in most European countries than in the USA. I wonder why you hold a view that Europe has more liberal abortion laws? Perhaps because we do not have that many lunatics.
Also, I may be wrong on that one, but I wouldn't be surprised if abortion rates in the EU were actually lower than those in the US.
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 01:42:53 AM
Incidentally, you would be surprised that abortion laws are more strict (often much more strict) in most European countries than in the USA. I wonder why you hold a view that Europe has more liberal abortion laws? Perhaps because we do not have that many lunatics.
You make up for it in quality.
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 01:42:53 AM
I wonder why you hold a view that Europe has more liberal abortion laws?
I wonder why you hold a view that I hold such a view. /grumbler
But seriously, that assumption is not present in my post. The point of mentioning "Europe" was that you have birth rates below replacement levels. The US doesn't, yet.
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 01:39:51 AM
The fact is, in a purely capitalist economy, where you are not getting paid money "for sitting on your ass and collecting a welfare check" (an anathema to many), you end up creating an unemployable, poor underclass, which is a sure recipe for a revolution.
That's an interesting fact.
Meanwhile New Jersey strides in petulant.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/26/2011-06-26_gay_marriage_passed_in_new_york_new_jersey_gov_chris_christie_says_he_wouldnt_si.html
QuoteGay marriage passed in New York: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says he wouldn't sign similar bill
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie may think he's a "huggable" guy, but he's got no love for gay marriage.
Christie appeared on NBC News' "Meet the Press" Sunday, where he talked about U.S. debt, abortion, the 2012 election and fellow Republican Michele Bachmann.
He also dissed New York's new gay marriage bill, telling host David Gregory that his state will stick with civil unions.
"I am not a fan of same-sex marriage," Christie said. "It's not something that I support.
"I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. That's my view.
"And - and that'll be the view of our state because I wouldn't sign a bill like the one that was [passed] in New York."
Later in the show, Gregory asked Christie about the governor's rough-around-the-edges public image.
"I'm huggable and lovable, David. I am not abrasive at all," Christie said with a smirk. "I - listen, I'm honest. And I wish we had more of it in politics."
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
Texans = fat.
Mississippi
Tennessee
Louisiania
Kentucky
West Virginia
Arkansas
Alabama
Georgia
Texas
North Carolina
The ten fattest places in the fattest country in the world!
They have Civil Unions which is better than most states. Glad Christie at least plans on leaving them alone.
So Marti is taller & skinnier then I. I do not consider myself fat.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 08:27:56 AM
They have Civil Unions which is better than most states. Glad Christie at least plans on leaving them alone.
Christie ought to sign it, if for no other reason than as a courtesy to his predecessor Jim McGreevey. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 26, 2011, 07:24:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 25, 2011, 01:58:15 AM... while automation makes human labor increasingly pointless and human intelligence increasingly worthless.
:huh:
Automation not only frees humans to do more productive work but can only replace tasks where human intelligence is ALREADY worthless.
Automation frees humans qualified to do more productive work, to do more productive work. 99% of humanity is qualified to be a ditch-digger. What fraction is qualified to be an automation engineer?
I think we have an assumption that any human intelligence is malleable enough that, with proper education and discipline, anyone is potentially qualified to participate in the economy, regardless of how advanced that economy is. While it's based on the historical experience that the labor force has adapted to technological revolutions--hunter/gatherers become farmers, farmers become factory workers, factory workers retrain to become office workers--I don't believe the assumption that they always shall to be true.
I also sharply disagree that automation will only replace physical labor and routine tasks, and leave true, non-routine intellectual activity untouched. But this is a separate issue, and depends on how you feel about strong AI.
Now, I am not a luddite, and I'm not attacking technological progress in itself. All I'm attacking is the ideological notion that humans are obligatedto participate in the economy, or to participate to the extent they presently do, in order to survive, because I do not believe that this notion will be sustainable once only 75, 50, 25, or 10% of humanity is even biologically equipped to participate. We are not a race of scientists and artists.
The goal should be (and implicitly has been for at least a hundred fifty years) to put an end to human labor. You can only hold on to a capitalist worldview and embrace that goal at the same time if you accept the logical result of keeping to both: massive human dieback.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I didn't want to imply most humans can do creative work. I know for a fact they do not. And most of those who do are unwilling to do so. For some reason normal people try to use their brain as less as possible, which is something I always found puzzling.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 08:27:56 AM
They have Civil Unions which is better than most states. Glad Christie at least plans on leaving them alone.
Doing anything against them would be impossible and politically suicidal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2011, 06:52:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 01:39:51 AM
The fact is, in a purely capitalist economy, where you are not getting paid money "for sitting on your ass and collecting a welfare check" (an anathema to many), you end up creating an unemployable, poor underclass, which is a sure recipe for a revolution.
That's an interesting fact.
If you define "fact" as a statement that is completely contrary to observed conditions.
We didn't have an underclass in this country before we had a federal welfare system. Dirt poor people, yeah, but not a seeminly permanent underclass.
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 12:11:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2011, 06:52:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 01:39:51 AM
The fact is, in a purely capitalist economy, where you are not getting paid money "for sitting on your ass and collecting a welfare check" (an anathema to many), you end up creating an unemployable, poor underclass, which is a sure recipe for a revolution.
That's an interesting fact.
If you define "fact" as a statement that is completely contrary to observed conditions.
We didn't have an underclass in this country before we had a federal welfare system. Dirt poor people, yeah, but not a seeminly permanent underclass.
Do you really believe this bullshit?
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 12:11:49 PM
We didn't have an underclass in this country before we had a federal welfare system. Dirt poor people, yeah, but not a seeminly permanent underclass.
Slaves were middle-class? Even the South wasn't that bad.
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 12:11:49 PMWe didn't have an underclass in this country before we had a federal welfare system. Dirt poor people, yeah, but not a seeminly permanent underclass.
:huh:
So wait... how about the slaves? You don't get much more underclass than being a slave. And while slavery ended, the consensus seems to be that the former slaves and their offspring didn't experience a massive jump in class status afterwards.
But perhaps you're speaking of a federal welfare system that predates slavery?
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2011, 12:45:20 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 12:11:49 PMWe didn't have an underclass in this country before we had a federal welfare system. Dirt poor people, yeah, but not a seeminly permanent underclass.
:huh:
So wait... how about the slaves? You don't get much more underclass than being a slave. And while slavery ended, the consensus seems to be that the former slaves and their offspring didn't experience a massive jump in class status afterwards.
But perhaps you're speaking of a federal welfare system that predates slavery?
It would have to predate the US as well.
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2011, 12:45:20 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 12:11:49 PMWe didn't have an underclass in this country before we had a federal welfare system. Dirt poor people, yeah, but not a seeminly permanent underclass.
:huh:
So wait... how about the slaves? You don't get much more underclass than being a slave. And while slavery ended, the consensus seems to be that the former slaves and their offspring didn't experience a massive jump in class status afterwards.
But perhaps you're speaking of a federal welfare system that predates slavery?
If you're bringing up slavery in this, you're about a century off. We didn't really have a welfare state until Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
If you're bringing up slavery in this, you're about a century off. We didn't really have a welfare state until Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
Blacks were the permanent underclass in the 1960s and they had been for centuries by design.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 01:58:33 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
If you're bringing up slavery in this, you're about a century off. We didn't really have a welfare state until Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
Blacks were the permanent underclass in the 1960s and they had been for centuries by design.
Intelligent design? :hmm:
Quote from: Habbaku on June 27, 2011, 02:00:12 PM
Intelligent design? :hmm:
Some of them were pretty crafty. The Grandfather clause was truly inspired.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 01:58:33 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
If you're bringing up slavery in this, you're about a century off. We didn't really have a welfare state until Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
Blacks were the permanent underclass in the 1960s and they had been for centuries by design.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 01:58:33 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
If you're bringing up slavery in this, you're about a century off. We didn't really have a welfare state until Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
Blacks were the permanent underclass in the 1960s and they had been for centuries by design.
They weren't unemployable though, as in Marty's post. Unemployment was higher among blacks than among whites, and blacks in the main couldn't get the decent jobs, but they could usually find work. And the situation was a direct result of racial segregation, not an inevitable result of capitalism.
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 01:53:43 PMIf you're bringing up slavery in this, you're about a century off. We didn't really have a welfare state until Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
But it seems you're implying that the descendants of the slaves, the poor Blacks in the Northern ghettos and rural South were not a permanent underclass before Lyndon Johnson.
Which seems preposterous, to put it mildly.
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2011, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 01:53:43 PMIf you're bringing up slavery in this, you're about a century off. We didn't really have a welfare state until Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
But it seems you're implying that the descendants of the slaves, the poor Blacks in the Northern ghettos and rural South were not a permanent underclass before Lyndon Johnson.
Which seems preposterous, to put it mildly.
Did you read the part about being unemployable?
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 02:07:27 PM
They weren't unemployable though, as in Marty's post. Unemployment was higher among blacks than among whites, and blacks in the main couldn't get the decent jobs, but they could usually find work. And the situation was a direct result of racial segregation, not an inevitable result of capitalism.
Sorry I joined this conversation in the middle. I just heard there was no underclass until the Great Society.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2011, 09:26:55 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 26, 2011, 07:24:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 25, 2011, 01:58:15 AM... while automation makes human labor increasingly pointless and human intelligence increasingly worthless.
:huh:
Automation not only frees humans to do more productive work but can only replace tasks where human intelligence is ALREADY worthless.
Automation frees humans qualified to do more productive work, to do more productive work. 99% of humanity is qualified to be a ditch-digger. What fraction is qualified to be an automation engineer?
I think we have an assumption that any human intelligence is malleable enough that, with proper education and discipline, anyone is potentially qualified to participate in the economy, regardless of how advanced that economy is. While it's based on the historical experience that the labor force has adapted to technological revolutions--hunter/gatherers become farmers, farmers become factory workers, factory workers retrain to become office workers--I don't believe the assumption that they always shall to be true.
I also sharply disagree that automation will only replace physical labor and routine tasks, and leave true, non-routine intellectual activity untouched. But this is a separate issue, and depends on how you feel about strong AI.
Now, I am not a luddite, and I'm not attacking technological progress in itself. All I'm attacking is the ideological notion that humans are obligatedto participate in the economy, or to participate to the extent they presently do, in order to survive, because I do not believe that this notion will be sustainable once only 75, 50, 25, or 10% of humanity is even biologically equipped to participate. We are not a race of scientists and artists.
The goal should be (and implicitly has been for at least a hundred fifty years) to put an end to human labor. You can only hold on to a capitalist worldview and embrace that goal at the same time if you accept the logical result of keeping to both: massive human dieback.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I didn't want to imply most humans can do creative work. I know for a fact they do not. And most of those who do are unwilling to do so. For some reason normal people try to use their brain as less as possible, which is something I always found puzzling.
Wait, we agree? What the fuck? This is Languish, Iorm! You call me a dirty commie!
(Although, I would accept Friedman capitalisism as a workable system. :smarty: )
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 03:21:53 PM
Did you read the part about being unemployable?
Why do you assume they are now unemployable? Or they weren't unemployable prior to the 1960's?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 05:11:34 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 03:21:53 PM
Did you read the part about being unemployable?
Why do you assume they are now unemployable? Or they weren't unemployable prior to the 1960's?
The "unemployable" bit came from Marty's post. My point was that while most blacks were stuck in an underclass prior to the 1960s, they weren't unemployable.
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 06:32:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 05:11:34 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 03:21:53 PM
Did you read the part about being unemployable?
Why do you assume they are now unemployable? Or they weren't unemployable prior to the 1960's?
The "unemployable" bit came from Marty's post. My point was that while most blacks were stuck in an underclass prior to the 1960s, they weren't unemployable.
Are they now unemployable?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 06:55:34 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 06:32:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 05:11:34 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 03:21:53 PM
Did you read the part about being unemployable?
Why do you assume they are now unemployable? Or they weren't unemployable prior to the 1960's?
The "unemployable" bit came from Marty's post. My point was that while most blacks were stuck in an underclass prior to the 1960s, they weren't unemployable.
Are they now unemployable?
Not that I know of.
http://news.yahoo.com/york-braces-gay-wedding-boom-lottery-171558327.html
QuoteNew York braces for gay wedding boom with lottery
Overwhelmed by marriage applications from gay and lesbian couples who can wed under a new law starting Sunday, New York City is conducting a lottery to decide who will be allowed to marry that day.
City officials said Tuesday that 764 couples were expected to be married Sunday, more than the city's previous single-day high of 621 on Valentine's Day in 2003 and 610 marriages on August 8, 2008.
"We've done our homework and it's clear that the number of couples who want to marry Sunday is more than the City Clerk's offices could possibly handle," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a news conference in explaining the lottery.
Couples can register in the lottery between noon Tuesday and noon on July 21 if they want to marry at any of the five city clerk's offices Sunday. Winners will be selected randomly.
"The fairest way to determine who gets the chance to wed on Sunday and ensure everyone can properly plan for their own big day is through an even-handed lottery system," Bloomberg said.
He urged those who do not win the lottery to consider going Monday or another day.
Bloomberg and other city officials said that 2,661 online applications had been made since July 5, of which 1,728 were same-sex couples benefiting from New York State's Marriage Equality Act, which was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo on June 24.
The law made the state the sixth and most populous in the United States to allow same-sex marriage.
Clerk's offices are normally closed on Sundays, but officials across the state said they would open them to marry same-sex couples on the first day the law takes effect.
At least two town clerks in the state, citing religious objections, have resigned to avoid being forced to sign licenses for gay and lesbian couples.
"We will be completely prepared and ready," City Clerk Michael McSweeney told reporters. "We look forward to being a part of history."
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is expected to marry her woman partner under the new law but not enter the lottery, said many judges had volunteered to perform ceremonies and speed up the process.
"That's what happens when you pass laws that expand human rights, you unite people," Quinn said at the same news conference.
"We want to make as many New Yorkers have the most important part of their life be that first Sunday."
:lol:
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 06:55:34 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 06:32:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 05:11:34 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 03:21:53 PM
Did you read the part about being unemployable?
Why do you assume they are now unemployable? Or they weren't unemployable prior to the 1960's?
The "unemployable" bit came from Marty's post. My point was that while most blacks were stuck in an underclass prior to the 1960s, they weren't unemployable.
Are they now unemployable?
Not that I know of.
:lmfao: Beautiful! Best play of a series of red herrings in a thread in weeks.