I have no close friends and I couldn’t be happier.
But also
I wish I wasn’t me. I really do.
hrmmmm
daltotron
joined 5 months ago
You eliminate the rural area with 5 minute drives between homes. Japan has a much higher population density more generally, granted, and they do occasionally get older, offset, single homes that are miles from anything else. But they also have extremely rural villages with maybe 2000 people that are still about as rural as you can get and still go in for farming. Many other places (I would say, basically all of them?) do this as well, and not all of them have high population density. I think, almost definitionally, the land use I'm proposing has a higher pop density, but the style of development generally, you'd be hard pressed not to classify it as rural.
The solution here is to orient the land use radially. Also probably to use less land generally, but that's a separate issue. Most land use in america looks like having 20 different farms, that are each like 3 or 4 miles across, sometimes with multiple plots, with each house being positioned as far away from the other houses as possible, usually somewhere along the edge of a plot, and then running roads out to each of them, sometimes dirt roads, sometimes paved, usually some combination of the two for higher use vs lower use vs private.
Instead of that, you do what people have been doing for centuries. You clump the 20 different houses together in one contiguous strip that's placed along some sort of rail line or higher traffic road, and then you disconnect all the plots of land from the particular houses. Ownership doesn't necessarily have to correlate with one plot of land vs another. Then you gain all of the benefits that entails, and if everything is laid out sensibly, then you're only about 3 miles from your specific plot. Utilities become cheaper to maintain, emergencies like fires, medical problems, natural disasters, become much easier to deal with, you can start building some actual infrastructure, like, say, a rail line.
That becomes much easier to justify if you only gotta send that shit to like one concentration of 20 or 30 or houses instead of sending it to those 20 or 30 houses individually, most especially if that line is just passing through before heading somewhere else, which should generally be the case. Maintenance of that rail line also becomes less problematic compared to that of a road if we're considering that this rural area is probably mostly going to be farmland that demands larger industrial equipment shipments, and is going to be shipping back and forth things like grain, bulk goods which would do much better to be shipped by train compared to most other forms of transit. Slap that together with a multi-daily passenger rail line that passes through it as a stop and you're pretty much set.
some of us make good pets, some of us make good masters, the main problem I'm having right now is that it lacks the kind of erotic kind of framing that I tend to prefer
Use illogical, bad faith arguments to trick them into believing that the sky is blue, of course. People fall for horrible stupid dumb propaganda, it's the nature of humanity. Only like 5% of people are really gonna bother to go actually read studies and shit, I don't even really do that, I just look at the abstracts and then hope that the scientists didn't fuck up and run the study wrong or engage in p-hacking or something. I couldn't afford to go to college and take a statistics course, and my only form of education beyond that is watching 3brown1blue videos at 2x speed interspersed with useless escapist brainrot.
Everyone wants to believe that humans are some highly logical computer creatures that can just be convinced if we get hit with enough rigorous logical argumentation. We're really not. You can make something much more convincing to someone if you validate their ego, or if you incentivize someone into believing a certain kind of truth as a result of their survival in a certain context, right. Even if we were purely logical beings, that wouldn't even really solve the problem, because we're all exposed to vastly different information landscapes, i.e. every MAGA guy you run into has probably be tweaking out to AM radio for 8 contiguous hours at their job, or socializing with a bunch of insularly sexist, homophobic, or racist good old boys in an echo chamber for most hours of the day, or whatever else, right. So, what hope can you have to change their minds over the course of a 1 or 2 hour conversation? If even that. And double this for everyone out there that spends their time listening to NPR, or has milder takes about things, or even just spends their time passively absorbing whatever propaganda floats at them through pop culture and escapist media consumption.
Well that's why the point of arguing with other people isn't really to convince them, but just to make yourself smarter and more informed by reading 200,000 pages of government legislation for fun, like it's just another tuesday. Light work for a person like you
This is false actually. Any claim can be dismissed and evidence doesn't matter because nobody cares. The best way to convince people of things is with cheap psychological parlor tricks
Those "good old days" are mostly just an invention of modern propaganda, a narrative that people nowadays tell themselves about the past, so they have some sort of ideal reality to work towards and hope for the future. Norman Rockwell, George Quaintance type shit, and now you can have it AI generated. Never mind the leagues of working class men that still went underpaid, lived in shithole stick houses, died of the black lung, never mind the segregation and systemic racism and redlining which reinforced all this shit, never mind the fact that the system is and always has been a zero sum game with haves and have-nots. That all gets whitewashed, and people get presented some ahistorical vision of the good old days when you could get a king sized snickers for a nickel.
I dunno if that would be being allergic to strawberries so much, since most of these services have options for only seeing women if you're also a women. The gay dating market in general seems much healthier, ime. It's more as though you were drowning in strawberries, and then maybe one out of a twenty or twenty-five wasn't rotten at the face, or, maybe one in twenty wasn't a clone of the same five or six kinds of strawberries that you keep seeing. It's ultimately the same problem for both sexes, though. An overabundance, and a lack of real ability to distinguish between everything because of both a glut and a drought of overly flattened data leads to a kind of processed apathy out of sheer volume. Then, neglect leads to desperation, and then for some, to resentment, and so on and so forth. What I really don't understand is that for mostly purely cultural reasons there's such a massive and self-reinforcing disparity, it's kind of insane. There has to be a further underlying cause there than just like, 20 or 25% of men are desperate freaks and that sort of plunges everything into a downward spiral where everyone is sort of putting on this elaborate game of lying to each other because of a couple bad actors. Makes it kind of impossible to deal with any of this if you're autistic, to be honest.
I'm gonna try not to go line by line here because I think it would end up swelling the comment sizes to a ludicrous degree like when I was vent posting and also I just woke up so I don't wanna do that, but I dunno. I am mostly convinced that markets are not actually good at allocating things because they assume rational actors, they externalize costs and thrust them upon the public and the government, because they replicate centrally planned monopolies anyways. I also don't like them because we broadly don't look a the core power structures that end up manifesting under markets, which are mainly authoritarian and thus obviously have information problems allocating resources, on top of information problems that arise as a result of competition between market actors. I would rather just organize the economy in a way that makes sense, even if it ignores the fundamental right, the fundamental good, the fundamental freedom, of private property and capital.
The broader point I was trying to make about rationality and ethics, is that capitalism and markets have a core conceit of what like, is good, fundamentally. This idea of "freedom" right. Maybe it's cooked up by the americans, I dunno, not really my point, I'm just looking at the fundamental core values that differentiate each system. In socialism, I'm gonna be looking at like, the organization of power structures, whether or not they're democratically organized, I'm gonna be looking at central planning vs, I guess the markets would be considered a decentralized form of planning, maybe, though you could also have like decentralized little anarchist communes running around or whatever. Socialism is a pretty broad tent. In capitalism, though, I'm gonna be looking at the ownership of private property, of capital, as a fundamental, core value that makes the system turn. The ownership of capital is thought of as a good, as a fundamental right, a fundamental freedom that people should be afforded. That's what capitalism is.
Also, again, I'm not so sure you can just be like, "killing old people is economically rational" type of thing. That's assuming a kind of core value to those economics that you're using, economics, like rationality, like, we commonly assume a value when we use economics because we live in a sociopolitical context where the people who use economics are going to be using them for a very specific purpose, right, but ultimately "economics", what we call economics, is just sort of the study of like, resources and how they're used and shit. I dunno if I wanted to come up with a better definition I can, but ja. But we still have to come up with a core value that motivates the shit along, there, is what I'm saying.
That's what I'm talking about. The fact that so often in capitalism, the values are assumed. Maybe it's because we exist in a kind of post-history, end of history reality, where capitalism and neoliberalism won, or whatever, but we assume that whatever is good is whatever makes money, and we assume that whatever makes money is economically efficient. And then, if killing old people can make us money, we do that. But we don't pay attention to the broader contexts under which all of this takes place, which shapes the incentive structure, it shapes whether or not a particular company can make money doing something or not. That's my point, is that we don't look at those core systems, their incentive structures, their organizational structures, we just say "leave it up to the market", and then the market just sort of shakes out somewhat randomly but mostly towards little authoritarian fiefdoms and monopolies. And we do that because we assume that to chase after private property, and capital, and to be a capitalist, is a sort of core freedom, a core good, a core moral value, which is supposed to exist for everyone.
Also, I must address this, right:
My primary concern for something like socialism is that we would remove some fundamental level of freedom. Only building high density housing because it’s what the collective hive mind says.
So, collective hive mind, right, I dunno. Halfway, that sounds like democracy to me. I mean, there's a lot of reasons, again, divorced from the organizational structure, that I've put forward in my previous comment and I could put forward now, you probably know the arguments already, as to why higher density housing is a good idea, why it's rational, why it's logically sensible, especially when done at scale. If we give most people the "freedom", to choose which housing they want to live in, then we kind of run into a prisoner's dilemma where people of means believe that it's in their best interest to turn themselves into antisocial suburbanoid hermits that can live apart from the "others" that live in the city, they can commute in and out, they can retain some level of status as a result of their lifestyle, and maybe because of this they can gain some level of luxury through living in suburbia, at least for the first 20 or 30 years before their house fucking crumbles into dust cause it was made of particleboard and sad dreams.
So, is their "freedom" to choose to live in suburbia, is that thought of as more democratic than the popular will might be, because it afforded that minority of people the power to live as they chose, right? Or is it actually less free, is it actually less democratic, because it imposed the will of that minority of people on the majority of people which would've rather lived without the issues that suburbia brings to them? i.e. racism, increased utilities costs, increased maintenance costs, financial and economic insolvency leading to crumbling infrastructure, pollution, massive ecological costs, I've said this shit already, you get the point. I would say that the former, obviously, forcing people to live either in high density housing, then having some proportion of people live in like, cabins in the woods where they do permaculture style farming, and then maybe having the rest of the people just live totally separate from your society maybe even if they so choose, right, I can argue why that makes more sense as a whole in material reality, why it logically makes more sense. But the question as to which one is good, which one affords more freedom, which one is morally correct, that's an open question. I put my chips, so far as that exists, in the camp where we're not doing massive amounts of ecological damage.
But, that's the core sort of, distinction I'm trying to get at, here, which motivates the difference between capitalism and, not even socialism or communism necessarily, but just between capitalism and other systems. That core ideological divide, that belief in chasing capital as a right, that's what I'm trying to get at.
If the economy were operating under rationality it would probably stop feeding elderly people as they can’t do any work and don’t provide much in the way of productivity, for example.
See, so that's like, I dunno if that's so much a problem. First off, rationality is sort of just a method that you're using to affect some type of process, in this case, economic efficiency Under which it probably also wouldn't make sense to, say, just throw old people off of big towers or whatever type of thing. People would probably overthrow your system, you'd deal with a high level of instability, and being unable to track people's ages effectively, which seems pretty inefficient, people might also try to move, or leave your system as they get older. So I'd expect some level of brain drain there, which leads to another point: You're also decreasing any worker productivity you would gain from old joe who ran the lumber yard still being around, so you can ask him questions about the quirks of the lumber yard. Maybe old joe even just boosts worker productivity by the fact that he makes his family and friends happier, and more able to tolerate bad working conditions, longer work hours, or more desirable than that, maybe he gives them the will to learn more, and bring you better higher level jobs where they will be ultimately much more efficient for whatever time they do end up spending on production. But back to rationality, that's just a method you're using to evaluate things. In this case, maybe "efficiency", which is sort of a proxy value for other, more real values. Efficiency to do what? Usually by, economic efficiency, we mean like, we're minimizing the necessary inputs, to affect some productive capacity, while maximizing the outputs, in like, a material way. But then, maybe the sort of our core value that we're chasing after should be to maximize the happiness that old joe is capable of giving to his friends and family, or something harder to define and measure, and more along those lines. That, that would maybe be a flaw of socialist systems, that we don't have some universal definition of a "good" to work towards, but I would say that, again, that's not a distinct flaw of those systems in particular, and in capitalism, that just gets subsumed by a bunch of other bullshit values. You don't have a universal definition of good, because you're always just making short term moves to maximize the profit of your company. Moral miasma, zombification.
Getting even more off topic, I think in general though my main counterargument is just that like. Any risk we take by defining a "good", right, a good to work towards, I think that's a good risk to take. To take the risk that, by defining the good, you eliminate other definitions of "good" that could'veexisted, and the freedom to have those other definitions of good. It's better to take that risk, and define that good, and then work towards it (and mostly, even to point out that such a core value exists, in practice, even acknowledge that it exists, more than anything else.). I think it's better to do that, than substitute your "good" for "freedom", which, like efficiency (and even like "good", but shhh), is just a proxy value for other things. In the market, in capitalism, we define freedom as the ability to own capital, own property, spend money on what you want to spend it on, and work to death in a soul-sucking 9-5 flipping calorically and nutritionally deficient burgers for a bunch of other people who have worked to death in a soul-sucking 9-5 doing equally insane things. We define no "good" in capitalism, we just leave that shit up to the market, and the market already reaches a decision, which is that every little corporation should just replicate authoritarianism in their little shithole section of the economy. Every little corporation gets their "good", and then they fight it out in the marketplace. Ends up that actually, we've just blown this up to be even every single individual, because, again, we've adopted freedom as our current value. Swim in the water, stop knowing that it's there. Big shocker when the individuals at the highest level of the market, having passed through many tests to get there, big shocker when their personal definition of "good" is fucked up, short sighted, and when they can't implement said definition if they even have one, because when they decide to do so, they get curbstomped for engaging in too much long term thinking compared to just sucking up as much of the industry as is possible at the time. I'm also not even saying that a monopoly is bad necessarily, right, as an alternative to this, I'm just saying that it's hypocritical to the supposed value of capitalism, which should be to use market economics to do these calculations at basically every level (which I'm also not convinced would be more efficient then just doing them somewhere else). It also tends to be bad because it still exists within this context in which all this short term incentive is naturally floating around and in which the highest powers in the land are naturally selected to be bad authoritarians.
But take the ICE, for example. I fucking hate the ICE. Mostly because it has enabled mass market automobiles to become a thing, which has impacted our transportation infrastructure in a very adverse set of ways, with an adverse set of incentives. Suburbanization blows up out of white flight as america, conceived as a sort of colonial experiment in a time of slavery, obviously has a lot of hangups around 18th century conceptions of racial superiority. Then you have the corporate lobbying that affects the political system, on top of the general political system just being tailored for the wealthy from the jump (and being tuned to the wealthy over time), and badda bing badda boom pretty soon you're ripping out LA's streetcars to instead flood the streets with massive chunky automobiles that kill a ton of people per year, fill the air with leaded and mostly unregulated particulate emissions, and we're like a century into that as a system now, so we're basically locked in, and none of the fundamental problems with cars as a format have been solved, even with EVs, you're still getting particulate emissions from brakes, lithium mining issues, you're still getting road wear and expenses from that, you're still spreading out cities much more than they need to be which massively increases the necessary power consumption by decreasing the r-values of homes by increasing the surface area of homes and increasing the surface area of a home in which a singular person is going to live and increasing the volume of air inside the home per person which is necessary to be heated, and then we have relay stations so we need to spend more money to pump more electricity and water a longer distance and so on and so forth. We can talk about socialism as a distinct set of values as mostly divorced from questions of authoritarianism, because it's assumed that we're doing this, in good faith, to decentralize ownership of everything, ownership of the workplace, restoring the ownership of the means of production to the proletariat and all that good shit. We can assume all that to be the case, right, oh, and then since we don't want market economies to really re-emerge, replicating class dynamics inside of the apparatus of the corporation, we go from having a co-operative to just having the corporation be owned by the public, and then maybe that's "authoritarian" even if we have a more democratic voting system than a capitalist country is allowed to have. Whatever, those are all good debates to have, those sorts of debates, they're what socialists are gonna talk about in a sort of abstract sense, and then they're all gonna draft up lines like, oh, I'm a marxist because of XYZ, whatever. My concern, personally, is sort of like, I look at the market economy, at capitalism, and the supposed "freedom" it provides people, in the market, to make totally dunderheaded, propagandized decisions, that if you look at them in the abstract, make totally no sense whatsoever. My concern is that we currently find ourselves in a system where all of that shit about the ICE exists, and the ICE isn't just used to power like, a bunch of farm vehicles somewhere, and then everyone else takes the train because if I talk through every other point about car use then obviously none of it makes any sense to any set of values that isn't "I want to kill people with my car" or "I want to waste a lot of gas" or "I want to intentionally spend a lot of money" or "I want to look cool and feel cool and manly", type shit. That, is multiplied for like every other facet of the economy, that times a million. I hate that shit, mostly more than anything. That we can come to the correct takeaways and decisions, and then do nothing about it because the system doesn't care. I don't care so much how we get there, or even necessarily how authoritarian a given system is, because I think about the most that can be expected from people who have been in a capitalist society is to vote for the replication of said capitalist society with maybe some socialized benefits, democratic socialismo style, and I fully expect that shit to get rolled back in 50 years and also to exploit the third world since obviously people outside the jurisdiction of the state aren't allowed to vote in the state's elections. Really all I want is for everyone to just have healthcare, everyone to have good regional transit, for our energy infrastructure to make sense, our food infrastructure to make sense, I want people to stop dying in wars, whatever. The current global system fucking sucks for all that stuff. That's mostly the only reason why I get pushed towards socialism. Mostly the specifics only exist for me insofar as they affect or not my ability to enforce that idea of "good", which I think is pretty sensible once it actually gets spelled out into the material.
I dunno if I'd say that, really. "useful service or product" is inferring a lot about the context in which these transactions are done, it doesn't really open up the box, there. Is gambling a useful service to have access to, for instance? What about, say, setting everyone about buying a big suburban house, a car, running out a ton of asphalt to these places, putting out utilities to them that are both financially insolvent in the abstract and also take up too many resources for what they are? Like, I dunno, if we're considering the alternatives, there, which incur much less consumption, and thus, much less trade, the alternatives that cost a whole lot less, I would say that the idea that this is a useful measurement really at all begins to totally fall apart. I dunno. I maybe wonder if, say, free healthcare might be thought to decrease the GDP of a country simply because less money is being thrown around.