Comment by roninorder

Comment by roninorder 10 months ago

6 replies

I am just a stranger on the Internet, so I apologize in advance if my comments/questions are irrelevant.

> In a very real sense, my most impactful choices were in the beginning, but I chose poorly or lost

Specifically in relation to picking up technologies. Unless you are working on something highly specialized, I am not sure your situation calls for such desperation. Learning new languages is not hard (as you are aware, as far as I can tell), and switching to a more agile stack like e.g. React/JavaScript could unlock new opportunities, considering how in demand it is across the industry.

> We grok that there's no way to opt out of reincarnation.

Hm. That's a personal belief, right? It seems like you are convinced in it as a fact of life, and that might not be the most change encouraging strategy. Similar to fatalism in a sense.

> Which means that the wealthy and powerful often live in a fear-based reality, while the poor often live in a love-based reality.

You are romanticizing the poor. Certain societies have more family and community oriented lifestyles. Not because they are poor but because they have a cultural predisposition and a tradition. Poverty is not full of love, financial abundance is not full of fear.

zackmorris 10 months ago

Ya I guess I should have been a little more specific. I've learned React and Javascript and most of the domain-specific and functional languages like SQL, Octave/MATLAB, Lisp, Clojure, and mainstream languages from assembly, Python, Lua, Swift, Java, C#, Kotlin, etc over the years. Sometimes I wonder if I'd be better off unlearning what I've already learned, if I could.

I'm actually most fascinated now with simple spreadsheets and getting back to #nocode with stuff like Firebase and Airtable, although I don't believe that anyone has fully solved offline and distributed conflict resolution well enough to give us MS Access and FileMaker for the web. Although CRDTs can do a lot if we're willing to let ACID go, kind of like the eventual consistency fad around 2010. Dunno if I can do that though!

So really what's going on is that I'm not an artisan, I'm not a craftsman or even an engineer anymore (if I ever was, I never got my professional engineering license). I'm more of an architect or researcher. I want to write the building blocks for engines that are used to build other things.

But that ship has sailed. Open source isn't modeled right, since nobody solved funding. So nobody pays for the pure research that I'd like to do, so society misses out on proceeds from that investment in innovation. Banks only loan to match a multiple of collateral which doesn't kick in until someone has on the order of $100,000 saved. And there never was funding for ventures. VC firms vacuumed up all available capital so those trillions of dollars are now concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires and multinational corporations who pick winners and losers in the same role that democratic governments used to perform, except now through gatekeeping. The central challenge is how to get money for runway to get real work done, and that hasn't changed in the 30 years I've been doing this. If anything it's far worse today, with competition increasing an order of magnitude each decade, along with wealth inequality as winners hoard their gains and dodge their taxes.

On top of that, AI has already surpassed my knowledge and experience. It can whip up working code for mainstream frameworks like Laravel and React in seconds, whereas it would take me days just to formulate a plan of action. So the only thing going for me is that I know what not to do, from attending the school of hard knocks. But AI will solve that too within 5-10 years, removing even the minefield so that all programming has guard rails. Every innovation there just withers me, since I started down this course in life with the goal of creating AGI back when that was a joke. It's an all but certainty now, arriving by 2040 but maybe even 2030.

That's a good insight about reincarnation being akin to fatalism, I hadn't considered that. I feel that philosophies have merits that can be ranked under somewhat formal metaphysical conventions, even though they amount to sniff tests. So I find written religious accounts somewhat less believable than personal insights from experience. The most universal truths seem to come from epiphanies that can then be verified against other accounts.

So basically that means that a child's question of "how does my soul control my body?" is every bit as valid as "why don't dogs go to heaven?", except that the child's question is ranked higher because it's universal, whereas heaven is a construct and rules about who gets to go there are dogma.

We live in a mostly western capitalist economic model, with ethics rooted in Abrahamic religions. In other words, we live under dogma. So seeking universal truths is mostly discouraged, as they threaten the status quo and entrenched power structures controlled by dynastic wealth. It also threatens the psyche. The more I learn, the more my mental health suffers with knowledge that can't be shared, either because there are soul-crushing aspects to life that can't be changed (yet), or because I don't want to co-opt someone else's journey. Then people confident in their worldview mock me for trying, the way that hard-right politics mock any attempt to make things better. Because they are optimizing gain within a zero-sum game to find the best Nash equilibrium, while I and others are thinking outside the box at a meta level to change the rules, which again threatens their power. Leftist politics can also succumb to tribalism, so I'm not saying that hard-left or hard-right is best, but that strong attachments block insight and solutions. And unfortunately the people with the strongest attachments control the world right now.

So I guess my belief that we're all one in the consciousness field, destined to live out every perspective so as not to be trapped alone within a singularity as God, is not so different from believing that this is all there is and we're worm food when we die, or that we spend eternity in heaven or hell after this life. Except that I might say the worm food philosophy doesn't pass my personal sniff test, since being here again doesn't seem that much less likely than being here now.

And you're right, fear and love have no direct correlation with wealth or the lack thereof. I might say that the feeling of having enough can be personal or societal though. Someone may feel loving and not see the burden their lifestyle places on those supporting it. And conversely, someone may feel loving and not realize that it's a trauma response from exploitation.

I feel that my soul contract, the dream of my inner child, is to liberate future generations from unnecessary suffering so that they (we in the next life) can more easily self-actualize. Which IMHO is closer to a progressive planned economy with UBI like Star Trek than a libertarian wild west economy like Star Wars. Maybe our attention shifts though, the way that children in developing nations seem happier than children raised with a silver spoon. Maybe my personal journey through suffering has felt rewarding in some way. Like maybe I'd go crazy with anhedonia if all my needs were met.

All that said, what I really seek is peace, since I'm not sure that I've ever really felt at ease in my entire adult life.

  • inquisitorG 10 months ago

    The real problem we ultimately face as humans is that the human dopaminergic system always resets so that what was great yesterday is expected today and not enough tomorrow.

    It is why a windfall when young can be problematic. It won't be enough tomorrow and there just isn't enough non-chemical experiences to get that feeling back again.

    It is also why people romanticize poverty because it is so much easier to go from nothing to something than abundance to even more abundance that would subjectively give the same "kick".

    • zackmorris 10 months ago

      Very true. I've noticed that wealthy people tend to suffer from a feeling of never having enough, but the rest of the world can't feed their appetite. Witness the antics of Diddy and the former president.

      The biggest risk with not winning isn't poverty, but debt. My early losses set me up for a lifetime of exploitation making interest payments, which I didn't get out of until I paid my student loans off at 40. Millennials/Gen Y/Gen Z/Gen Alpha will have an even harder time, and I believe that we passed the point where debts could no longer be paid when the Housing Bubble popped in 2008. Which coincided with stuff like Peak Oil and the rise of post-Cold War authoritarianism. What we see today is theater, as the government makes no attempt to pay down the national debt, and moneyed interests stop efforts like student loan forgiveness by packing the Supreme Court. The wealthy and powerful are becoming parasites living on the working class's back. Which is incredibly tragic IMHO, as they had been stopped between WWII and 1980 before Reaganomics and the rollback of New Deal social safety nets under Clinton and GW Bush.

      I had to let breaking even go as a concept. So I went through wage slavery, career death, mourning and rebirth of my own life as I stoically continued showing up with no proof that better days were coming during my healing and growth journey. But I did experience divine intervention during my destitution, as well as surrender and redemption, which I am eternally grateful for. My regrets are vastly outnumbered by the serendipitous blessings my soul received as my ego withered and died.

      You're right that it's easier to live richly in poverty than it is to acquire any wealth at all or grow wealth. In fact, I think in these times it's a valid option. #vanlife and off-grid living can present more opportunities than competing with the Joneses.

      A specific example of that is that I moved furniture between 2001-2003 and my income was $10/hr, about $1600/mo or $20,000/yr. My apartment's rent was $500/mo and my half was $250, so I could work about 3 days and cover rent. Which gave me time to leave work early with only 4-6 hours some days and take the winter off, but still have time to work on my startup. Dish Network and DSL were $30/mo each. Gas was $1-2. Used cars were $2000.

      Contrast that with today's $1500 rent and stagnant wages. Now it takes 10 days (2 weeks!) to cover even half of rent. Food prices have tripled, Dish Network is $100-150/mo, DSL is $60-100. Car prices are in the stratosphere.

      This outcome is a result of phantom tech. Stuff like innovation in entertainment and finance. Which drives costs up to maximize profit. So instead of offering the same internet speed at a lower price, we can only get faster internet at a higher price. Times everything.

      Real tech is automation, economies of scale, etc. If we had real tech, the minimum wage would be perhaps $30 today. Rents and other fixed costs would decrease with inflation, not increase. So my furniture moving job would pay about $40-50/hr and I'd be able to make more than my $250 half of the rent in just 1 day.

      Other countries like Finland experience this work-life balance and scratch their heads at US rugged individualism. The raw deal we receive is visceral now, it's lived. It takes a massive propaganda effort to hoodwink half the country into voting against its own self-interest to keep moneyed interests in charge.

      No amount of discipline skipping Starbucks and avocado toast can counteract late-stage capitalism societal collapse.

      Even though I think how bad things are is becoming apparent to most people, and I have tremendous empathy for young people entering adulthood today, it's not enough. We need a plan of action, positive outcomes that can be replicated at scale so that people have viable alternatives, and organizing for coordinated execution. The revolution is coming whether we like it or not, but it's up to us to manifest the reality where we live in a tech utopia instead of the tech dystopia that's coming if we merely survive.

      • roninorder 10 months ago

        Just to note, comparing existing economic systems in different countries can lead to very flawed conclusions. The solutions won't necessarily come from mimicking a particular system either.

        Your example -- Finland -- is a very homogenous society with a population that grew from 4.5 to 5.5 million since 1960. The US, on the other hand, is vastly more diverse, both economically and culturally. US population grew from 180 to 345 million since 1960.

        When advocating for UBI we can't also advocate for open borders. We have to pick one. Do you want a more open society that is also more economically inequitable, or do you want a more closed and homogenous society that is also more economically healthy? We can't do both unless we transform into some form of the World Government and an extremely globalized economy.

        All economic systems (all systems in general) have to adapt to scale. What works for a village is unlikely to work for a country. European economic systems that seem more fair to you have not been yet tested by what we can expect the future world to look like. And when they have, they cracked and showed their flaws (e.g. the recent influx of immigrants from poor economies).

        Also, a natural side-effect of more complex systems is that they become harder to manage. That's what we see in the US today. Disfunction at so many levels. China and a few other cultures are attempting to solve that by embracing a varying degree of authoritarianism - a more centralized control of, and distribution of, resources. This system has been proven to be fairly effective at scale (and the scale we can expect in the future). American society lately seems to be moving in a similar direction (both major parties). I don't have high confidence that our economic issues can be solved by anything other than a higher degree of authoritarianism than we currently have.

        Lastly, we have experienced major automation breakthroughs throughout the 20th century. E.g. fields that took whole villages to plough now can be handled by a single operator of large machinery... I don't believe in automation as a singular solution for the reason described by inquisitorG above, i.e. human biology and human nature.