Once you've read a history book or two, you start to see how repetitive certain sociological "tropes" are.

And you dont need to be an ivy league level historian to observe the phenomenon.

Every great invention that changed our mode of life had people claiming frogs would rain from the sky and the water would turn to blood.

Electricity, cars, the blues, the internet, cryptocurrency, and now AI.

Society and the world has a way of adjusting to and accommodating innovations that are more useful and desirable than they are deterimental.

Its happened many times before and it will continue to.

Our main issue as a species right now is an organizational and logistical one; we haven't figured out how to spur enterprise and mass cooperation without resorting to exploitation and coercion.

IMO, that is the issue that deserves our bandwidth.

If this problem were to be solved a lot of other problems would be solved at the same time, as they are but branching consequences of it.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

This repetitive cycle makes it seem that we are living inside a script and have been since the beginning.

CynicalSpaceMan · 26-30, M

@MarkPaul my stance is that it began with hierarchical and centralized government reaching critical mass.

Before HCG got a grip on the world history was a lot less cyclical.

Its murphys law. Because HCG narrows down the possibilities of what can happen, the same things keep happening over and over.

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

@CynicalSpaceMan I'm not convinced that's true although I suppose it's possible a hierarchical and centralized form of government has accelerated the cycle. You can go back to biblical history and see the same cycles in play. Certainly every century forward has seen the same cycle repeating. For example, Britain's Luddites are not that different from those today who call for rolling back technology for a romanticized return to "simpler" times where "life was easier, more friendly, better, less complex, more understandable, etc."

The cycling seems to be a commentary on human nature rather than the form of government any human society chooses during its time on the planet. Or.... OR... we are all living inside a scripted version of the Twilight Zone. At least that's what that signpost up ahead says.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@MarkPaul The Luddites were not at all romantics though; and their own times' past was by no means "simpler" or "better".

Naming themselves after a Thomas Ludd who did not exist (so could not be traced) their concern was purely the future of their own livelihoods.

The name is often used now in totally the wrong way, usually to denigrate anyone who happens not to understand or use the very latest gadgets.

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

@ArishMell They weren't all romantics in the classical or traditional sense. But, to counter the loss of their jobs from the new productivity of technology at the time, they romanticized the idea of keeping things status quo to prevent loss of jobs. As their romanticism turned violent and the state responded in kind, they literally accomplished nothing as the world continued to move on anyway.

Without really preserving the future of their own livelihoods and failing to see how they could use the new technology to their advantage, the modern use of the term, luddite, is not really that far removed from its historical context.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@MarkPaul I see what you mean. The sad thing was that they might not have lost any work at all had they thought about it and welcomed the new mechanical looms.

I suppose they thought that if one mechanical loom* could produce what ten hand-loom weavers could make in a single day, then nine of them would be out of work. Not consider the resulting income might lead the owner to buy nine more looms.

*Originally water-wheel powered.

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

@ArishMell Their reaction is understandable even now. After all, they had concerns for themselves, their families, and their neighbours. And the authorities didn't help matters by being so aggressive in fighting them back. Sadly, that is the cycle that seems part of human societies regardless of the times.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@MarkPaul Perhaps both sides are afraid of each other?

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

@ArishMell Or want to control each other.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@MarkPaul Agreed: mutual fear, mutual mis-trust, mutual desire to oppress the other.

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

@ArishMell And sadly that is human nature from the beginning to now.