Geographically defined jurisdictions are obsolescent. We the people, regardless of whether we are physically sitting in Ohio or France, spend more and more of our time and energy in this digital space that you and I mentally occupy right now. The word "virtual" in this context is denial of reality.
Terrestrial governments will go the way of county government in Massachusetts. No one knows what Massachusetts county governments do besides invisibly consume a portion of our "state" tax.
Norfolk County Agricultural School still exists to train farmers in a suburban Boston county that has practically no farms left; it's just another part of the anachronism that is geographically defined jurisdiction. Norfolk Aggie will be around for another hundred years, providing a sinecure for school administrators who are confident in the knowledge that everyone's too busy writing and commenting on blogs to bother to ask questions.
Well, if geographical jurisdictions are obsolescent, that means governments of those jurisdictions are irrelevant. That seems to be what you are saying. And I am fine with a LOT less jurisdiction of any kind.
I see nothing in what you say that imparts any authority to unelected organizations seeking global control. It is a straw man argument to suggest that local jurisdictions have outlived their usefulness, therefore worldwide jurisdictions are legitimate.
I'll take your word for it that Norfolk Aggie has outlived its usefulness. For that matter, so has the federal bureaucracy. And there is far greater benefit to eliminating federal bureaucracy than eliminating Norfolk Aggie, not that we can't eliminate both.
France doesn't want to be Germany (or Ohio), and vice versa. Ohio doesn't want to be California. Boston doesn't want to be Detroit. Besides philosophical differences, there are significant environmental and geographical differences. There are cultural differences. We will always live in a physical world. There is no escaping it. I'll stick with local jurisdiction over 'national' jurisdiction. But in any event, I support responsible jurisdiction, of which we have less and less. When you get down to it, that is the real issue.
Well we're on the same page when it comes to less government of physical jurisdiction.
As far as "global control" - which globe are we talking about? Some global communities such as certain subreddits are governed by despots. Indeed, it seems that the more targeted the turf, the more likely it is to have a little Napoleon at the helm.
True, we physical human beings must live in a physical place. That's why cities are secure, and in fact will grow in importance. A year ago people were saying that the cost of converting office buildings to residences in the wake of work from home (you know, turfless, jurisdictionless work) would be prohibitive. After twelve short months the definition of "prohibitive" is becoming flexible. People want to live in the city and work in cyberspace.
Some good points. But not everyone's perception of reality comes out of a computer screen. Farmers still exist in reality, and always will. However, they often have a laptop in their tractor, and some tractors are self-driving. Still, the crops come out of the ground, not out of a computer, based on whether there was enough rain, but not too much. Based on disease, etc.
We get to sit on our butts and pontificate thanks to those farmers. And those plumbers, electricians, welders, steel mill workers, other factory workers, and on and on. Here's a sobering thought: Those people mean everything to you, even though you don't acknowledge it. But you mean nothing to them, because you offer nothing they need or want.
Let me continue interpreting this be of reality through this computer screen by noting that the number of farmers that exist in reality steadily dwindles in absolute numbers, and dwindles faster as a portion of the population. Half of the U.S. labor force worked in agriculture at the turn of the twentieth century. I just asked Gemini for the current figure and got "The direct proportion of the U.S. labor force employed in agriculture is quite small. As of 2022, only about 1.2% of workers are directly involved in on-farm production ."
Next point: I'm confused about who you claim I don't acknowledge. Bewildered, actually. Please explain.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are farmers growing less food? Not hardly. The human population has doubled within our lifetimes, yet there is less famine. But there are probably fewer farmers. That's because farmers are taking advantage of improvements in agricultural technology, including computers. This makes them more efficient. I certainly didn't suggest that computers run counter to good farming practices.
My point was, and is, any fool can use a computer. But fools generally are not productive, are even counter productivce. Computers don't change that. The proliferation of computers is no sign of increased intelligence or capability. Same for AI.
OK, so farmers make a smaller percentage. But they remain an absolutely essential percentage, every bit as necessary as they were centuries ago. Because of their efficiency, and the efficiency of manufacturers, that allows for all our needs to be met by fewer people. That allows for more people to do unessential 'work'. But unessential work is, of course, unessential. For all the great work I've done in my life, I've never failed to realize that nobody's life depends on what I do.
I'll repeat, you and I need what farmers do. They don't need, and don't necessarily want, what we do.
Not trying to make a point, just responding to what you said. "Farmers still exist in reality." True literally, but not so much statistically.
"The proliferation of computers is no sign of increased intelligence or capability. Same for AI." - no argument there.
Farmers "remain an absolutely essential percentage, every bit as necessary as they were centuries ago." Well, that's true of the whole food industry - probably even more true as fewer people grow their own food these days. Actually, today's farmer, with bigger finances, smaller margins, costly capital equipment, much bigger acreages/herds etc. has more to manage than in the past.
Re unessential work: The traditional notion of employment - implementing a process - is obsolescent. Few repetitive processes requiring humans will be around in ten years (and that includes farm processes.) "Work" now means either management (thinking, innovating) or creative-maker work. There are huge numbers of problems to be solved that do not yield to repetitive processes.
Geographically defined jurisdictions are obsolescent. We the people, regardless of whether we are physically sitting in Ohio or France, spend more and more of our time and energy in this digital space that you and I mentally occupy right now. The word "virtual" in this context is denial of reality.
Terrestrial governments will go the way of county government in Massachusetts. No one knows what Massachusetts county governments do besides invisibly consume a portion of our "state" tax.
Norfolk County Agricultural School still exists to train farmers in a suburban Boston county that has practically no farms left; it's just another part of the anachronism that is geographically defined jurisdiction. Norfolk Aggie will be around for another hundred years, providing a sinecure for school administrators who are confident in the knowledge that everyone's too busy writing and commenting on blogs to bother to ask questions.
Well, if geographical jurisdictions are obsolescent, that means governments of those jurisdictions are irrelevant. That seems to be what you are saying. And I am fine with a LOT less jurisdiction of any kind.
I see nothing in what you say that imparts any authority to unelected organizations seeking global control. It is a straw man argument to suggest that local jurisdictions have outlived their usefulness, therefore worldwide jurisdictions are legitimate.
I'll take your word for it that Norfolk Aggie has outlived its usefulness. For that matter, so has the federal bureaucracy. And there is far greater benefit to eliminating federal bureaucracy than eliminating Norfolk Aggie, not that we can't eliminate both.
France doesn't want to be Germany (or Ohio), and vice versa. Ohio doesn't want to be California. Boston doesn't want to be Detroit. Besides philosophical differences, there are significant environmental and geographical differences. There are cultural differences. We will always live in a physical world. There is no escaping it. I'll stick with local jurisdiction over 'national' jurisdiction. But in any event, I support responsible jurisdiction, of which we have less and less. When you get down to it, that is the real issue.
Well we're on the same page when it comes to less government of physical jurisdiction.
As far as "global control" - which globe are we talking about? Some global communities such as certain subreddits are governed by despots. Indeed, it seems that the more targeted the turf, the more likely it is to have a little Napoleon at the helm.
True, we physical human beings must live in a physical place. That's why cities are secure, and in fact will grow in importance. A year ago people were saying that the cost of converting office buildings to residences in the wake of work from home (you know, turfless, jurisdictionless work) would be prohibitive. After twelve short months the definition of "prohibitive" is becoming flexible. People want to live in the city and work in cyberspace.
Some good points. But not everyone's perception of reality comes out of a computer screen. Farmers still exist in reality, and always will. However, they often have a laptop in their tractor, and some tractors are self-driving. Still, the crops come out of the ground, not out of a computer, based on whether there was enough rain, but not too much. Based on disease, etc.
We get to sit on our butts and pontificate thanks to those farmers. And those plumbers, electricians, welders, steel mill workers, other factory workers, and on and on. Here's a sobering thought: Those people mean everything to you, even though you don't acknowledge it. But you mean nothing to them, because you offer nothing they need or want.
Let me continue interpreting this be of reality through this computer screen by noting that the number of farmers that exist in reality steadily dwindles in absolute numbers, and dwindles faster as a portion of the population. Half of the U.S. labor force worked in agriculture at the turn of the twentieth century. I just asked Gemini for the current figure and got "The direct proportion of the U.S. labor force employed in agriculture is quite small. As of 2022, only about 1.2% of workers are directly involved in on-farm production ."
Next point: I'm confused about who you claim I don't acknowledge. Bewildered, actually. Please explain.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are farmers growing less food? Not hardly. The human population has doubled within our lifetimes, yet there is less famine. But there are probably fewer farmers. That's because farmers are taking advantage of improvements in agricultural technology, including computers. This makes them more efficient. I certainly didn't suggest that computers run counter to good farming practices.
My point was, and is, any fool can use a computer. But fools generally are not productive, are even counter productivce. Computers don't change that. The proliferation of computers is no sign of increased intelligence or capability. Same for AI.
OK, so farmers make a smaller percentage. But they remain an absolutely essential percentage, every bit as necessary as they were centuries ago. Because of their efficiency, and the efficiency of manufacturers, that allows for all our needs to be met by fewer people. That allows for more people to do unessential 'work'. But unessential work is, of course, unessential. For all the great work I've done in my life, I've never failed to realize that nobody's life depends on what I do.
I'll repeat, you and I need what farmers do. They don't need, and don't necessarily want, what we do.
Not trying to make a point, just responding to what you said. "Farmers still exist in reality." True literally, but not so much statistically.
"The proliferation of computers is no sign of increased intelligence or capability. Same for AI." - no argument there.
Farmers "remain an absolutely essential percentage, every bit as necessary as they were centuries ago." Well, that's true of the whole food industry - probably even more true as fewer people grow their own food these days. Actually, today's farmer, with bigger finances, smaller margins, costly capital equipment, much bigger acreages/herds etc. has more to manage than in the past.
Re unessential work: The traditional notion of employment - implementing a process - is obsolescent. Few repetitive processes requiring humans will be around in ten years (and that includes farm processes.) "Work" now means either management (thinking, innovating) or creative-maker work. There are huge numbers of problems to be solved that do not yield to repetitive processes.