/lit/ - Literature

>>12897003
My prediction rests on the belief that we are slowly making moral progress. Over the long term, our circle of concern has expanded from the tribe to the nation, and from the nation to humans everywhere. Now it is extending, though far too slowly, to nonhuman animals.

The effective altruism movement, built by millennials, is part of this trend toward living more ethically. Effective altruists aim to do the most good they can. They use reason and evidence to find out how to do that. Many of my students at Princeton are choosing careers that will give their lives meaning rather than wealth. If they make money, they will look for something worthwhile to do with it. For many of them, that means an effective nonprofit organization working to help people in extreme poverty, combat climate change, or fight factory farming.

Although millennials often have the reputation of being narcissistic, that rests on little more than the fact that they post selfies on social media. If earlier generations had had the ability to do that, they would probably have done the same. More significant are studies that show that millennials are not only generous but also much more thoughtful in their generosity than older generations, going to more trouble to find out what impact a charity has before they donate to it.

Psychological research suggests that these students are making a wise choice. Acquiring new toys or trinkets provides a temporary buzz, but soon we adapt to our new possessions and, in terms of happiness, are back where we started. That puts us on a hedonic treadmill, working harder to earn more to buy more to maintain the same level of satisfaction. In contrast, when researchers give people money and tell them to spend it on themselves, the recipients rate their day less favorably than those who are given the same sum and told to buy something for someone else.

We won’t get this wrong forever. Eventually we will learn what makes us happy and makes the world a better place. I give it 50 years.

>>12897012
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18188801/conspicuous-consumption-luxury-items

>>12897003
>last generation to flaunt their wealth
pfffffffffffffffffffffft
from the roving bands of bandits and looters maybe

>>12897003
I think he's underestimating the aesthetic value of a lot of luxury items and his prediction is obviously a bold one, but I don't see anything particularly stupid about this. What's your argument against the idea that people are becoming more charitable or that generosity is conducive to happiness?

>wanting digital anything

>muh digital!!
How to spot a reddit pleb

the ideal Liberal-progressive system: enslavement by an invisible ruling class that humbly shops in thrift stores and wears plain sweaters

>>12897218
>the idea that people are becoming more charitable
>generosity is conducive to happiness
Both of these points may be true. The second one has evidence backing it up. But, neither of those points suggest that conspicuous consumption will be eliminated in 50 years or ever. Shit, the archaeological record shows a history of conspicuous consumption among the wealthy and priestly classes as long as humans have made art and tools. It's a dumb sentiment that reveals him to be a sophomoric thinker.

>>12897355
having a hand fedora is pretty reddit desu. the only acceptable watch is that black terrorist watch from casio

>>12897003
>>12897012
Libs' ideology is based on the retarded idea that humans are basically good. Maybe we should blame Rousseau. In any case, the proper Christian teaching from the beginning has taught the fallen nature of man. In rejecting Christianity the modern world has rejected this view of man in favor of its own overly optimistic idea; throwing out the idea of a savior, modernity is forced to conclude that it does not need saving because it is alright on its own. That's the real issue here.

>>12897702
Retard

>>12897361
unironically the most based and redpilled post made on this board today. Few will understand.
we're already there

>>12897742
You really showed him!

>>12897702
Are you saying the people who don't believe humanity should accept whatever conditions its thrown while it waits around for God to show up are the real problem here?

And that those who acknowledge and address the problems our species faces, or believing we are even worth of doing so, are the real problem?

I know why the people you receive these arguments from spread them, but I don't know why you choose to believe and spread them yourself.

if conspicuous consumption ever becomes passé it will be because generalised environmental concerns make it appear morally righteous and thus fashionable to look austere and frugal. this sort of ecologically minded minimalism would be preferable to what we have, but it would still be conspicuous

>>12897565
A watch is a hand fedora? I'm glad I care about what some Marxist faggot on an Israeli Crotchet pattern website thinks about my watches.

>>12897003
>How could a lauded public intellectual be such a brainlet?

>>12899341
cared enough to reply, redditlord

>>12899267
I'm not saying that at all. Of course we should seek to improve conditions. But it's absurd, groundless optimism to believe the neoliberal social order will magically solve every problem--social, economic, and political. Humans will create as many problems as they solve. Do we have fewer problems today than our ancestors did? No. What I'm saying is that these neolibs have an eschatology (without spirituality), they believe in a future day of perfect peace and happiness. That's a religious faith without any scientific grounding.

>>12897003
all these articles are garbage but this one is the worst
>self driving cars are sexist because yesterday i saw a mentally ill black person on the bus and the bus driver told them to calm down and without bus drivers black people scare me
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18194715/self-driving-cars-uber-lyft

>>12899373
Have fun with your onions lattes faggot. I understand that your wrist is so small and frail that a watch wouldn't look good on you anyways, but try not to take out your self-hatred on others who are pursuing genuine interests of theirs (even if their interests aren't obfuscated by uncountable layers of irony as a means of hiding dissatisfaction with ones own self like yours).

>>12899443
What about OPs post suggests a defense of neoliberalism? What do you understand the term neoliberalism to mean?

>>12899447
Self-driving cars are the big gay, and women have good reasons to seek protection from strange black men. Those are both reasonable positions to hold. Black people commit significantly more violence (especially interracial violence) than any other group in the country and year over year, half of all the homicide in the US is committed by blacks (13% of the US population). If you break it down by age, the vast majority of murders done by blacks are committed by men aged between 14-40 (~3% of the US population). Given that just slightly over half of all murder is committed by a group representing about 3% of the population it's pretty smart for her to be fearful of black men.

Luxury, elegance, and obvious wealth on display aren't necessarily a bad thing.

Ask yourself this: which of these do you prefer? Do you prefer some wealthy shipping magnate who has a yacht and a jet and who wears fine watches and fancy suits and tuxedos? Or do you prefer Mark Zuckerberg, who also has a yacht and a jet, but who goes around in a t-shirt and jeans, only the t-shirt is secretly cashmere and the jeans are secretly $1000?

>>12899502
>Which do you prefer, shit covered in piss or shit covered in cum?
Wealth radiates some kind of metaphysical connection to evil that inescapably corrupts anyone who is around too much of it and nothing will ever convince me otherwise

>>12899515
Well, we're never going to get an egalitarian utopia, so you're going to have to choose between the two.

>>12899502
I saw him with an ugly asan woman in down town Palo Alto a while back. I wasn't sure it was him at first so I was too afraid to call him a faggot. Turns out that the ugly Asian woman was his wife. Didn't know it at the time.

>>12899518
I choose to work for a decade or two in grumbling anger until I either go on some kind of psychotic break or cash out and travel around the world seeking something to kill me
I will absolutely never resignedly support a system that sees me as nothing but a mid-to-low-tier advertising statistic and disgusting little worms like you that do should be euthanized

>>12899454
>my interests include buying fedoras, collecting fedoras, wearing fedoras, and arguing about fedoras on the internet

whatever floats your boat, fella

>>12897012
>Although millennials often have the reputation of being narcissistic, that rests on little more than the fact that they post selfies on social media.

Yes, and clearly they love to take selfies of themselves wearing rags and living in run-down homes. The act of posting selfies on social media is not the small, venial sin that he makes it out to be; it's comething that contradicts everything else he says. Social media put the "conspicuous" in "conspicuous consumption": if in the past you could only brag about your wealth to your immediate neighbours, now you can brag to the whole world. The "altruistic" millenials are always posting pictures of themselves wearing expensive clothes and stylish haircuts, pictures often taken in exotic locations like Dubai or Bali. These people consume luxury goods and they want to brag about it: their virtue signaling is an afterthought because they want to appear as "good" persons in the eyes of other people. Fuck this gay bullshit.

This is what it looks like when an entire ideology and economic system is only studied in the humanities (and laughed at in STEM)

>>12899605
What are you talking about?

>>12897218
They’re only more generous insofar that they (read:we) have more money than ever. If automation takes over and we’re all on UBI expect social collapse. We might return to some sort of feudalism but the world will never stabilize in the utopian terms of this article.

>>12899443
>What I'm saying is that these neolibs have an eschatology (without spirituality), they believe in a future day of perfect peace and happiness. That's a religious faith without any scientific grounding.

I agree with you but I don't think Jesus Christ is the solution. There is simply no hope, and neither faith in progress nor in Jesus will save us.

>>12899666
Jesus literally did rise from the dead, you know.

>>12899666
based Satan

>>12899623
The poster that pointed out that this is a neoliberal view (the humanities) was dead on. It’s progressive in the sense that people believe in consistent and ongoing success and progress as measured through altruism. This is a worldview and one that doesn’t take into consideration the various types of people that exists. It creates a pathology for humans that is simply untrue. The greatest human event that involved human progress and technology was World War Two and that ended modernism ( which in some ways harkens to the neoliberal ethos ). I don’t doubt that the people saying this believe it with every fiber of their being and they’re probably good people that want to help the work and extend their philanthropy to humanity. That’s the morally right thing to do. But they refuse to accept that a large part of humanity doesn’t share those values or accept their worldview. These might be especially low IQ people, Religious factions, Sectarian politics etc. but this argument has been going on before Marx was even born starting with The Rationalists. This is at the crux of the left/right paradigm where right wing ideology is usually more pragmatic and realistic and it understands human nature. Its shortcoming make it pessimistic and closed off by nature but I’m sure you would agree it appeals and always has appealed to large swaths of humanity. This is the same reason that poster pointed out religion because we’ve seen in micro and macro (maos cultural revolution) examples of this base thinking being outlawed or taken away but it doesn’t cause less violence. It’s time to admit humanity is flawed and come closer to the center. Commune with your fellow man. Read Celine and Cioran but love everyone.

>>12899443
>to believe the neoliberal social order will magically solve every problem--social, economic, and political.
Who implied this?

>>12899518
> we're never going to get an egalitarian utopia
I'm sure many of your more distant ancestors said things in that vain that you less distant ancestors proved wrong.

>>12899745
"The poor you will always have with you"

>>12899738
It’s implicit in the very premise of the article my dude....

>>12899745
Wait are you saying there’s an egalitarian society somewhere?

>>12899761
First of all, there were egalitarian societies in the distant past, but that's beside the point. What I'm saying is that saying the world has changed beyond recognition throughout human history. Dismissing something as completely impossible is stupid - hell, things that have been dismissed and were completely impossible are now easy to accomplish. I think that ideals are very important to politics. I don't see an egalitarian society on the horizon, but I think that it's a splendid thing to strive towards. We can't make society egalitarian, but we can make it MORE egalitarian. Maybe our descendants will stray from this path, maybe events will happen that will make this whole quest completely irrelevant, or maybe it may become a reality some day.

>>12899791
It’s a little difficult for me to parse what you’re saying. I’ll start by saying that I agree that we should ALWAYS strive for a more humane and egalitarian society but I don’t think that’s the fundamental issue here. You say that we’ve had egalitarian societies before (and we have) and that they go in and out of existence. This is true of history. I don’t think it’s impossible to dismiss the possibility of a long standing and successful egalitarian affair. There’s something anti-human to even suggest it and we’ve already been trough the century where we thought technology could socialize us to do this. It can’t. That’s what I’m confused because on one hand you say not to dismiss this idea but also that it seems impossible but also say we can’t make it happen? All I’m suggesting to you is that you’ll gain a better understanding of human nature taking the Longview, the realistic one and historically proven one of people. You’ll be forever disappointed if you’re “waiting for Godot” so to speak on the arrival of some social stasis. The mark of true maturity is to as you said, strive for the social good, but also look inwardly and grasp the full scope of humanity for all its flowers and barbs.

>>12899828
Damn dude he’s just saying you should try and you seem to be saying we should try but not too hard because what if the good times don’t last forever. So what if the good times don’t last forever? What exactly is lost by trying to do better in the short time we’re alive?

>>12899848
I think the first thing I said was that I agree with that, we should try. But it truly is an entire zeitgeist and one that people can be stuck in for so much of their lives. There’s an entire world of philosophy and thought out there where the emphasis is away from this kind of thing. Don’t conflate the fact that I’m pointing out the all too true history of the world with some sort of pessimism, it can be synthesized with a larger and more compete view of humanity. I’m saying this as less of an ideologue and more of a human being, because I myself have made those mistakes as a young man. For example a novel like a Crime and Punishment remarks on all these things. What does it mean to be a man? Or a person even? There’s a natural “order” if you will that we all belong in and we’re happier when we get there. This is what most people learn naturally as they age anyways.

>>12899761
>It’s implicit in the very premise of the article my dude....
No, he even mentions specific reasons extreme poverty is not likely to go away soon. And the article is about one specific aspect of our culture, not "dude neoliberalism will just solve every problem lmao." I'm not even agreeing with Singer here, but I'm sick of people who caricature any optimism about any aspect of society as panglossian naivete.

>>12899886
>oh yes we should try to be mire egalitarian
>but if we actually get there everyone will be unhappy so not really
Hmm

>>12899729
>right wing ideology
>understanding human nature
LMAO

>>12899443
Stirner said it better.

>>12897003
It's pretty damn obvious to me Peter Singer isn't actually giving his real opinions here but just writing an article to widely promote his philosophy of utilitarian charity.

>>12899699
Prove it.

>>12899699
And Heaven's Gate left earth on a spaceship.

>>12900033
if God's holy word isn't proof enough then what is?

>>12899752
>Jesus said not to address poverty or be humble
Oh no no no no AHAHAHAHAAA

>>12899447
That author doesn't understand neuroanatomy and essentalizes anthrocentricity into intelligence. What a hack.

>>12899488
Just use killer drones. They're more effective at protecting people than some wimpy bus driver.

>>12897702
>Libs' ideology is based on the retarded idea that humans are basically good.
It's not. Rousseau isn't more relevant than other liberals than Locke, Voltaire, Smith, Mill, etc. None of those others presumed that humans are basically good, but rather that humans can cooperate when it is in their rational self-interest to do. This is a very reductive view of humanity, but still not to be conflated with "humanity is good".

>>12901601
This is stupid though, as it is almost always rational to work together. Yet, at the same time prisoners dilemma exists.

>>12899502

Luxury and wealth don't necessarily mean elegance or good taste.
The latter are a sign that you have an eye for aesthetics or that you have developed a personal vision of beauty.
Luxury and wealth can be as vulgar as squalor if you splash it about ostentatiously without infusing it with your own good taste or personality (at best you just look like thousands of other yuppies).

For example, people who drive souped-up cars with personalized licence plates and gold rims are pretty disgusting though they may be clean and wealthy.
On the other hand, there can be something very attractive and aesthetic about old houses with wild, colorfull gardens.
I guess the implicit message you send about yourself by consuming things partly determines how your consumption is perceived.

I don't know why I'm typing all of this. I'm just going to stop now.

>>12897003
If anyone has seen a girl with an iPhone laugh at someone's android green text bubbles, they know conspicuous consumption is only growing as a consumer insentive.

>>12897003
>Veblen

>>12897012
>we are slowly making moral progress
Certainly not.

/lit/ - literature

>>12897003
>The next generation isn’t going to want those clunky mechanical things that don’t keep time as well as their trim digital devices, which, for about one-thousandth of the price
did he think this wasn't the case before digital watches? you could buy a cheap Timex and it would keep better time than a Rolex/Patek Pheilippe/whatever. Literally no one has ever bought a Rolex for it's efficiency at keeping time

I'm tired of the endless cheesy advertising.
They supposedly have to do with the alleged social engineering that has taken place in creating feelings of inadequacy in people to get them to buy things and ads showing people becoming happier by using the advertised products.

>>12897003
GIVE IT AWAY GIVE IT AWAY GIVE IT AWAY NOW