thought for the day... again... capitalism? dying? dead?

[rabid]

Its difficult to take bigpharms in isolation though. I was talking about the whole package. Medical breakthroughs can't happen without the other technologies supporting it. All science and technology is intertwined.

The increase in speed and power, and lowering of costs of computers is as bigger factor as anything else in technological and medical advancements. Something I firmly believe is driven by a competition between companies. e.g. Would processing speeds be at the level it is now without the likes of AMD and Intel striving to beat the other. Would graphic capability be at these levels without the computer games industry.

The examples are endless. Mobile phones for example, would be nowhere near the level they are now without consumer capitalism. Our thirst for the newest, fastest and smartest phone. But with that comes vast improvements in microchip technology, comms signals, etc, which all have cross overs to other industries.

Competition has throughout history produced the fastest technological advances. Be it in times of war, during the space race, or in open capitalist markets.

[Purple Monkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBRfQFBgRSY&feature=player_embedded

[abdoujaparov]

The examples are endless. Mobile phones for example, would be nowhere near the level they are now without consumer capitalism. Our thirst for the newest, fastest and smartest phone. But with that comes vast improvements in microchip technology, comms signals, etc, which all have cross overs to other industries.

[kaosmark2]

But the price for these technological advances, assuming that they are desirable, has been beyond imagnining. Literally hundreds of thousands of dead in the DRC, for example, as a result of the illegal mining of minerals to feed the semi-conductor industry. That's the problem with capitalism - technological innovation is a by-product of the pursuit of shareholder wealth and the social and human consequences are just collateral damage

[Ed209]

isn't that part of the problem? The desire for more stuff without ever considering whether we actually need it?

[fred quimby]

what is undeniable, is that the need for profit, brings it's own negatives, on many levels

[eFestivals]

Sure it might be driven by our desire for things we don't actually need, and there's collateral damage. I acknowledge that. But my point was purely that competition speeds up the process and us wanting the newest technologies and to do things faster has advanced research across the board and has lead us to discovering things that would otherwise still be beyond our reach. These would include technologies and medical breakthroughs that even you guys might think were useful.

If I accept what what you say is correct (and I'm far from sure that it is in reality), there's still a HUUUUUGE problem with that whole idea.....

Those medical breakthrus are saving extending some lives, but at the expense of many more lives being lost because of the diversion of resources to new high-end stuff when the majority of the world still doesn't have access to the basics.

And so while you and I might be grateful that (say) our mother's life can be extended by another 10 years over what it might have otherwise been, it's actually pure selfishness for us to want that. Our mother's extended life is at the cost of little or no life at all for many others.

It's just yet another example of the selfishness of the western world, who at the end of the day don't give a shit about the effect on others.

Edited November 2, 2011 by eFestivals

[Ed209]

Well consider this. How far might we have got if learning and development and benefit were the prime motivators rather than profit?

Competition may drive development but I see profit as a constraint.

[kaosmark2]

speeding it up for what though?... if we're going up the wrong path, we could be just like lemmings

I think things could slow down a little... or a lot. It seems the main driving force behind a lot of issues is whenever the next election is. Each government - especially now - lies to us by telling us that while they're in charge, things will be better. But some things aren't in their control... they end up chasing their tale...

alternative energy, for example (which is in their 'control'). This requires a lot of investment (the tax that Vodafone didn't pay would probably cover a lot of it ) and some time, but won't reap the benefits in time for the next election circus. So there's no value in it (ie votes to win)

[kaosmark2]

we could certainly start at the top end of things... company directors giving themselves 50% rises on top of what most people would think is silly money in the first place

[Purple Monkey]

I can't believe people can look at facts, look at the way the world is and still say "yep, this is working, nothing to improve on here!".

Cant people see where this is going? Mind boggling.

It's like Cassandra or something - she spoke about catastrophe but people couldn't understand what she was on about until it actually happened. That's how I view it anyway - the concepts and ideas especially when it comes to the psychology of our conditioning - is so foreign and identity-threatening that we choose to dismiss warnings about impending disaster. The writing is on the wall, but so few are able to actually read.

It's the people that actually CHOOSE to ignore the facts that baffle me. I can forgive people who don't have access to this information, but it's hard to forgive the wilfully ignorant, the wilfully selfish and the wilfully blind. As a system, as a tool of repression I am constantly impressed by it's complexity and self-reinforcing machinations. It's a beautiful, terrible machine straight out of Satans ballsack and people are guzzling it left right and centre.

Enjoy the next war, folks!

Edited November 2, 2011 by Purple Monkey

[kaosmark2]

I can't believe people can look at facts, look at the way the world is and still say "yep, this is working, nothing to improve on here!".

Cant people see where this is going? Mind boggling.

It's like Cassandra or something - she spoke about catastrophe but people couldn't understand what she was on about until it actually happened. That's how I view it anyway - the concepts and ideas especially when it comes to the psychology of our conditioning - is so foreign and identity-threatening that we choose to dismiss warnings about impending disaster. The writing is on the wall, but so few are able to actually read.

It's the people that actually CHOOSE to ignore the facts that baffle me. I can forgive people who don't have access to this information, but it's hard to forgive the wilfully ignorant, the wilfully selfish and the wilfully blind. As a system, as a tool of repression I am constantly impressed by it's complexity and self-reinforcing machinations. It's a beautiful, terrible machine straight out of Satans ballsack and people are guzzling it left right and centre.

Enjoy the next war, folks!

[fred quimby]

It's the people that actually CHOOSE to ignore the facts that baffle me. I can forgive people who don't have access to this information,

[rabid]

There's places that pretty much do this already, they're called Universities. I work in one. And this is the reason I do academic research rather than industry. I don't particularly like profits driving scientific discovery and technological advancements, but having worked on the dark side as well, it does a very good job at it.

[eFestivals]

You missed the word "currently" from that. There is no reason whatsoever why it has to be like that.

[abdoujaparov]

It doesn't remove the fact that there have been advances and developments encouraged and promoted by the capitalist system.

And while fancy mobile phones aren't exactly the most vital, considering individual people now have computers that would have been the best of the best, one-of-a-kinf a mere 10-15 years ago, I'd suggest it's furthered globalisation, and indirectly furthered vast potential for other advances in science and technology. If high-speed computing of the scale we've got wasn't available and mass-produced, scientific research wouldn't be able to progress as quickly.

[Ed209]

rapid progress at that sort of price is not worth it...nothing can justify human suffering on such an epic scale just so people can have an iphone

[abdoujaparov]

oh come on. That's totally over simplified the point being made.

Edited November 2, 2011 by abdoujaparov

[Ed209]

So am i right in assuming you will be taking your computer to the scrap heap tomorrow, never to surf the net or send an email again?

I presume that if you or a loved one gets cancer you will be refusing the latest groundbreaking treatment? because it will have been researched and developed thanks to semiconductors.

If we manage to develop a workable Nuclear fussion station then you will continue to burn coal?

And what if we discover the cure for the 22 million people with HIV in Africa. Will you still say it wasn't worth it?

[abdoujaparov]

So am i right in assuming you will be taking your computer to the scrap heap tomorrow, never to surf the net or send an email again?

I presume that if you or a loved one gets cancer you will be refusing the latest groundbreaking treatment? because it will have been researched and developed thanks to semiconductors.

If we manage to develop a workable Nuclear fussion station then you will continue to burn coal?

And what if we discover the cure for the 22 million people with HIV in Africa. Will you still say it wasn't worth it?

[Ed209]

if the cure for HIV is bought with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, then no it isnt worth it...this isnt some kind of utilitarian formula that says it's ok for a million people to die as long as their deaths lead, indirectly, to a cure for a nasty disease.

But my problem isnt with semiconductors per se. The point is that it is possible to obtain the raw materials for these kinds of developments a bit more ethically - without leading directly and indirectly to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Except capitalism doesnt really care about that kind of collateral damamge, it's about obtaining the raw materials at the lowest cost and returning the greatest value to shareholders....

I'm not anti-technology particularly, but I am anti-capitalism

Edited November 2, 2011 by Ed209

[fred quimby]

ok, so what scientific or technological progress is worth the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in DRC?

I'm sorry, but the point is perfectly valid - the kind of technological advances being mentioned relied for some years on raw materials covered in blood

[rabid]

I presume that if you or a loved one gets cancer you will be refusing the latest groundbreaking treatment?

[abdoujaparov]

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if they could be more ethically sourced. The tech industry can be a nasty business. And you're right, it shouldn't be situation whereby we are trading on lives, its far from ideal. My point has always been that we are in an age of incredible scientific discovery that has come to fruition through competition and capitalism, and some awesome things are happening as well as some terrible things. But this is my profession, so of course I'm going to stand up for it. considering where we're heading, with the uprising of the new economic powers, capitalism's darkest days are still to come. But I also think sciences best days are still to come. we should be doing all we can to embrace and support science, because its possibly our only hope.

[abdoujaparov]

I assume you will only buy products that use recycled materials, which is really hard to find.

What would you do if you knew that if your mobile failed and you would not be able to buy another until these conflicts were solved?