Essay on cancel culture

[gerblod]

21 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's a bloody interesting debate and probably belongs in another thread tbh.

 

But to give my two pennyworth on this briefly: that humans haven't gone extinct yet is down to luck and ingenuity in times of crisis as our own evolutionary response, and that includes using what we make to adapt our environment. Technology still means progress for me simply because without it, that timeline to human extinction will be much shorter than it might be with it.

 

I certainly share the worries regarding the way things are playing out expressed here, but I'm reminded of a quote: "I feel I must remind you that it is an undeniable, and may I say a fundamental quality of man, that when faced with extinction, every alternative is preferable"

I told myself when I first joined FoxesTalk, that I wouldn't even 'go there' - meaning get involved with General Chat. At least football has a vaguely finite boundary - this kind of question is boundless in its by implications. 

Her view of this facet of first world culture has implications extending to humans' place on Earth. While we're all squabbling about incredibly petty issues, we're ignoring the huge issue of the damage we're doing to our environment.

The survival instinct has been rendered meaningless and somewhat risible. We've taken species survival out of any global equation, because we've taken over the globe and adapted it (either intentionally or carelessly) to our own requirements (rather than essential needs).

Adichie points to symptoms which indicate that infantilisation and disempowerment of the generation of young people who could begin to get human society back in sync with 'Mother Earth' is, in the cause of capitalism, being fed more and more of the technological toys which will distract them from the task - which my generation (baby boomer) only played at doing. 

Anyone who thinks playing the generation game of decrying the kids forgets that their examples come from us. What irritates me the most is that  those  politicians who could begin to change things are sitting around a table in Cornwall discussing human issues rather than global issues.

It's significant that the one child who's acted with incredible maturity in this, who sees it objectively (possibly down to her autism) has been ridiculed, vilified and told she should leave the grown-ups to sort this stuff out!

I'm getting agitated - time to log off .

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, gerblod said:

I told myself when I first joined FoxesTalk, that I wouldn't even 'go there' - meaning get involved with General Chat. At least football has a vaguely finite boundary - this kind of question is boundless in its by implications. 

Her view of this facet of first world culture has implications extending to humans' place on Earth. While we're all squabbling about incredibly petty issues, we're ignoring the huge issue of the damage we're doing to our environment.

The survival instinct has been rendered meaningless and somewhat risible. We've taken species survival out of any global equation, because we've taken over the globe and adapted it (either intentionally or carelessly) to our own requirements (rather than essential needs).

Adichie points to symptoms which indicate that infantilisation and disempowerment of the generation of young people who could begin to get human society back in sync with 'Mother Earth' is, in the cause of capitalism, being fed more and more of the technological toys which will distract them from the task - which my generation (baby boomer) only played at doing. 

Anyone who thinks playing the generation game of decrying the kids forgets that their examples come from us. What irritates me the most is that  those  politicians who could begin to change things are sitting around a table in Cornwall discussing human issues rather than global issues.

It's significant that the one child who's acted with incredible maturity in this, who sees it objectively (possibly down to her autism) has been ridiculed, vilified and told she should leave the grown-ups to sort this stuff out!

I'm getting agitated - time to log off .

 

 

 

Hear hear.

 

Just have two observations: I agree that humanity has taken species survival "out of the equation", but I think most humans fail to realise just how easily nature could stick it very much in our faces again, and we might not like that. And I think I know the girl you are referring to here, and she has more maturity in her little fingernail than most of the "grown-ups" taking shots at her have in their entire bodies.

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

I've been able to learn something positive from every post written since I last read this thread. One of the real problems is that nuanced debate has been rendered incredibly difficult, to the point that any (even hugely indirect) implication of wrongness or responsibility for bad choices is taken as a huge attack - I see it in my own family, I see it in all the areas of public life I am involved in.

 

Someone mentioned that the 50-75 age bracket is the problem area, and I'd broadly agree with that (and, to be clear, I belong in that age bracket) - and it's not because I have any problem with older people, either. I can forgive ignorance/stupidity in the young more easily because they still have time to learn. Those my age and older have had longer to learn and know better, but instead of doing so, in many cases have wilfully doubled down and have passed it down in the name of 'university of life' and 'telling it like it is', which is the worst excuse for ignorance & spite ever invented.

 

Of course, many 50-75s are nothing like this, but as is so often the case, decent people don't scream from the rooftops, and do less damage, while the angry adult delinquents amongst us shamelessly kick and yell, and somehow now have an audience. 

[Buce]

On 18/06/2021 at 01:38, leicsmac said:

And, perhaps there might be another explanation for it all too: our technology has evolved faster than our brains, and we simply haven't evolved enough to get along universally as a species.

 

As we must in the future.

 

Nail on head.

 

In evolutionary terms we're not long out of the trees.

 

23 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's a bloody interesting debate and probably belongs in another thread tbh.

 

But to give my two pennyworth on this briefly: that humans haven't gone extinct yet is down to luck and ingenuity in times of crisis as our own evolutionary response, and that includes using what we make to adapt our environment. Technology still means progress for me simply because without it, that timeline to human extinction will be much shorter than it might be with it.

 

I certainly share the worries regarding the way things are playing out expressed here, but I'm reminded of a quote: "I feel I must remind you that it is an undeniable, and may I say a fundamental quality of man, that when faced with extinction, every alternative is preferable"

 

One could equally argue that technological progression has been the main driver of climate change.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Buce said:

One could equally argue that technological progression has been the main driver of climate change.

I don't think that's even an argument tbh; it's a matter of scientific record. Tech development has messed up the environment in multiple ways.

 

However (and this is the point I was driving at above), tech can also fix those problems given adequate application, and without such progression we are just waiting for a "natural" method (supervolcanic eruption, asteroid impact event, end of natural interglacial period etc) to take us out instead. It's the choice between the probability of short-term disaster if we develop it, and the certainty of a little longer-term disaster if we don't.

Edited 20 June 2021 by leicsmac

[Buce]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I don't think that's even an argument tbh; it's a matter of scientific record. Tech development has messed up the environment in multiple ways.

 

However (and this is the point I was driving at above), tech can also fix those problems given adequate application, and without such progression we are just waiting for a "natural" method (supervolcanic eruption, asteroid impact event, end of natural interglacial period etc) to take us out instead. It's the choice between the probability of short-term disaster if we develop it, and the certainty of a little longer-term disaster if we don't.

 

It's somewhat ironic that your solution to a problem is to rely on more of the same to solve it.

 

Personally, I don't share your optimism; unless/until the species evolves its emotional intelligence, techology will cause more problems than it solves.

 

Actually, I think we are fvcked.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It's somewhat ironic that your solution to a problem is to rely on more of the same to solve it.

 

Personally, I don't share your optimism; unless/until the species evolves its emotional intelligence, techology will cause more problems than it solves.

 

Actually, I think we are fvcked.

It really is ironic, I know. And tbh we may well be fvcked, as you say.

 

But I think my logic is sound on this one about it being the choice I specify above, because I see those as the only two options available to us. Mother Nature wouldn't have to take much time out of her busy schedule to slaughter us; she's proven to be pretty damn efficient at it in four billion years of history. More efficient than humans at the present time, I daresay.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It really is ironic, I know. And tbh we may well be fvcked, as you say.

 

But I think my logic is sound on this one about it being the choice I specify above, because I see those as the only two options available to us. Mother Nature wouldn't have to take much time out of her busy schedule to slaughter us; she's proven to be pretty damn efficient at it in four billion years of history. More efficient than humans at the present time, I daresay.

Trouble is the more advanced our tech gets the more remote bits of the planet get churned up in the hunt for the rare metals that make it possible.  Are we even close to using technology that doesn't require a faraway cost to the planet?  I've not heard any talk of us moving in that direction and until we do I can't help agreeing with buce that we've ****ed it

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Trouble is the more advanced our tech gets the more remote bits of the planet get churned up in the hunt for the rare metals that make it possible.  Are we even close to using technology that doesn't require a faraway cost to the planet?  I've not heard any talk of us moving in that direction and until we do I can't help agreeing with buce that we've ****ed it

Yep, I have to agree. It's been theorised that the closer we get to advancing to the next part of the Kardashev Scale using technology, the higher the risk of getting it all wrong becomes, and I'd agree with that, too. However, none of this changes that going in that direction and taking that risk is a pathway we must take unless we want to simply accept and live with the certainty that at some point a natural event will deal with us instead.

 

For me, a slim chance of getting it right or having it all end over the short term is better than no chance at all over a slightly longer term.

[gerblod]

On 20/06/2021 at 10:25, leicsmac said:

I think I know the girl you are referring to here, and she has more maturity in her little fingernail than most of the "grown-ups" taking shots at her have in their entire bodies.

Yes - should have stated that it was Greta Thunberg I was referring to.

I had not heard of the Kardashev Scale as a marker for potential damage through technological development. 

I was searching for a word that wasn't indicative of any of the normally associated positives - "advance", "progress", "refinement", "improvement" are all indicative of some beneficial effect to humankind and it was difficult.

It's become synonymous to associate technology with 'progress', so much so that even atomic weaponry is still being touted as necessary as a 'defence', when it's clearly nothing but dangerous nonsense. 

I've been writing much more on this off-topic topic and have stopped for that reason. But this is the fundamentally important topic in the whole history of humans - in a small virtual segment of a football chat forum. A lot of us are truly bothered by these potential outcomes, yet it seems the leaders of our nations are simply scared to address it. The elephant in the corner of the room is about to stampede.

 

[Captain...]

55 minutes ago, gerblod said:

Yes - should have stated that it was Greta Thunberg I was referring to.

I had not heard of the Kardashev Scale as a marker for potential damage through technological development. 

I was searching for a word that wasn't indicative of any of the normally associated positives - "advance", "progress", "refinement", "improvement" are all indicative of some beneficial effect to humankind and it was difficult.

It's become synonymous to associate technology with 'progress', so much so that even atomic weaponry is still being touted as necessary as a 'defence', when it's clearly nothing but dangerous nonsense. 

I've been writing much more on this off-topic topic and have stopped for that reason. But this is the fundamentally important topic in the whole history of humans - in a small virtual segment of a football chat forum. A lot of us are truly bothered by these potential outcomes, yet it seems the leaders of our nations are simply scared to address it. The elephant in the corner of the room is about to stampede.

 

And this is where we go full circle and back to cancel culture.

 

If cancel culture was being used to boycott and shame the big offenders on environmental damage and not idiots with questionable views. Then we might get somewhere. We all know why governments fail to act, because they are beholden to big industry. Just look at how long it has taken to get a change on lightbulbs. A solution has been about for ages, yet some countries still refuse to ban "cheaper" less efficient light bulbs. See also plastic bags, wasteful packaging and the farce that our national recycling program is becoming. Cancel climate change, that should be the plan.

Edited 21 June 2021 by Captain...

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, gerblod said:

Yes - should have stated that it was Greta Thunberg I was referring to.

I had not heard of the Kardashev Scale as a marker for potential damage through technological development. 

I was searching for a word that wasn't indicative of any of the normally associated positives - "advance", "progress", "refinement", "improvement" are all indicative of some beneficial effect to humankind and it was difficult.

It's become synonymous to associate technology with 'progress', so much so that even atomic weaponry is still being touted as necessary as a 'defence', when it's clearly nothing but dangerous nonsense. 

I've been writing much more on this off-topic topic and have stopped for that reason. But this is the fundamentally important topic in the whole history of humans - in a small virtual segment of a football chat forum. A lot of us are truly bothered by these potential outcomes, yet it seems the leaders of our nations are simply scared to address it. The elephant in the corner of the room is about to stampede.

 

That's who I thought you were referring to as well.

 

Obviously agree with pretty much everything else you wrote here - I'll only add that I've read some literature and as civilisations approach a transition from one part of the Kardashev Scale to another through tech development, additional strain is put upon them through resource scarcity that allows a greater opportunity of disaster. I can forward some more information on that if you'd be interested, but yes, I'll stop the off topic discussion there too.

[gerblod]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I can forward some more information on that if you'd be interested, but yes, I'll stop the off topic discussion there too.

Sure, I'd be interested. Use a personal communication thru here.