Comments on: The Slow Crash http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:30:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-108996 Jason Godesky Mon, 21 May 2007 15:11:51 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-108996 There have been some innovations of kind, but they have become rarer. An increasing amount of innovation is of scale, rather than kind, and innovations of scale are becoming smaller and smaller in their scale. It's precisely what you'd expect in a situation where innovation is slowing down. There have been some innovations of kind, but they have become rarer. An increasing amount of innovation is of scale, rather than kind, and innovations of scale are becoming smaller and smaller in their scale. It’s precisely what you’d expect in a situation where innovation is slowing down.

]]> By: alan2012 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-107135 alan2012 Sat, 19 May 2007 15:51:02 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-107135 "The improvements of the 20th century have been of scale, not kind." They've been of both. But regarding scale, or quantity v. quality: past a point, quantity *becomes* quality. Blogs and youtube (and etc.) are different from 19th century self-publication not because of inherent and necessary differences **of given instances** of what is communicated, but because the huge increased volume of instances renders the "what" (the message itself) of a different nature. You'll note that I did not say that this is good, or an improvement. “The improvements of the 20th century have been of scale, not kind.”

They’ve been of both. But regarding
scale, or quantity v. quality: past a
point, quantity *becomes* quality.
Blogs and youtube (and etc.) are
different from 19th century
self-publication not because of
inherent and necessary differences
**of given instances** of what is
communicated, but because the
huge increased volume of instances
renders the “what” (the message
itself) of a different nature. You’ll
note that I did not say that this
is good, or an improvement.

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-104599 Jason Godesky Wed, 16 May 2007 13:36:31 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-104599 Thanks for letting us know--in general, if you're not sure where the best place for a comment might be, it probably belongs in the forum. I know it doesn't see as much activity as it should, but the only way that'll change is if people start using it. It's a Catch 22. Thanks for letting us know–in general, if you’re not sure where the best place for a comment might be, it probably belongs in the forum. I know it doesn’t see as much activity as it should, but the only way that’ll change is if people start using it. It’s a Catch 22.

]]> By: RedWolfReturns http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-104012 RedWolfReturns Tue, 15 May 2007 22:20:23 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-104012 Hey, I'm not sure where the best place to post this would be, but I figured your most recent string on collapse would be most appropriate. Folks here might be interested in checking out a new web page I just designed. Take a look at: www.guardianwarrior.org and let me know what you think. wild peace folks, Hey, I’m not sure where the best place to post this would be, but I figured your most recent string on collapse would be most appropriate. Folks here might be interested in checking out a new web page I just designed. Take a look at: http://www.guardianwarrior.org and let me know what you think.

wild peace folks,

]]> By: venuspluto67 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-87027 venuspluto67 Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:12:00 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-87027 Locke: I'm a member of that community on LJ. It seems that its articles these days fill up a good 80% of my "friends" page. Locke:

I’m a member of that community on LJ. It seems that its articles these days fill up a good 80% of my “friends” page.

]]> By: Locke http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-86621 Locke Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:24:27 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-86621 Not sure how many of you are already aware of this, but you can watch the collapse as it happens right here: http://community.livejournal.com/so_very_doomed/ Not sure how many of you are already aware of this, but you can watch the collapse as it happens right here:

http://community.livejournal.com/so_very_doomed/

]]> By: Jhyde http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-86171 Jhyde Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:01:15 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-86171 Could you lay out which inventions from the 1900s and earlier revolutionized the way we live our lives? And how they did so? If not, is there someplace else that discusses these ideas? Just so we can contrast them to the more recent inventions. Thanks. Could you lay out which inventions from the 1900s and earlier revolutionized the way we live our lives? And how they did so? If not, is there someplace else that discusses these ideas? Just so we can contrast them to the more recent inventions. Thanks.

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-86151 Jason Godesky Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:13:59 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-86151 <blockquote>Ever heard of sexual revolution? You think it did not change people's lives?</blockquote> No--the "sexual revolution" was a blip, it changed nothing. Sexuality in the U.S. today is pretty much the same as it was in WW2. <blockquote>Effective birth control gives people control over their procreation. You can have as much sex as you want without populating the Earth with your offspring. This is definitely new.</blockquote> This isn't new at all. We've had effective birth control, and recreational sex, since long before the dawn of civilization. What was it you think St. Augustine was proscribing with the missionary position? What were Augustus's laws against? Recreational sex and effective birth control are as old as cave paintings. "The pill" hasn't changed that much at all. <blockquote>The only reason population is growing still is that birth control is not yet affordable everywhere in the world.</blockquote> Flat out, undeniably wrong. Population is growing in the Third World <em>in spite of the fact that they already have very effective means of birth control</em> because more kids give you more wealth in an agrarian economy. The wealthiest people in any Mali village are the people with the most kids, because those kids provide free farm labor. Population is soaring in those countries because in their economic situation, children aren't a burden, they turn a serious profit. Now, make them more complex, and that balance will tip, and children will cost more than they bring in, but then you won't have a society to outsource to, so the complex counties won't be able to afford their lifestyles anymore, and <em>we'll</em> be the farmers with 17 kids. It's about the global balance of complexity; hasn't a thing in the world to do with birth control. Everybody has birth control, has for millennia, and its effectiveness hasn't really changed since the Paleolithic.

Ever heard of sexual revolution? You think it did not change people’s lives?

No–the “sexual revolution” was a blip, it changed nothing. Sexuality in the U.S. today is pretty much the same as it was in WW2.

Effective birth control gives people control over their procreation. You can have as much sex as you want without populating the Earth with your offspring. This is definitely new.

This isn’t new at all. We’ve had effective birth control, and recreational sex, since long before the dawn of civilization. What was it you think St. Augustine was proscribing with the missionary position? What were Augustus’s laws against? Recreational sex and effective birth control are as old as cave paintings. “The pill” hasn’t changed that much at all.

The only reason population is growing still is that birth control is not yet affordable everywhere in the world.

Flat out, undeniably wrong. Population is growing in the Third World in spite of the fact that they already have very effective means of birth control because more kids give you more wealth in an agrarian economy. The wealthiest people in any Mali village are the people with the most kids, because those kids provide free farm labor. Population is soaring in those countries because in their economic situation, children aren’t a burden, they turn a serious profit. Now, make them more complex, and that balance will tip, and children will cost more than they bring in, but then you won’t have a society to outsource to, so the complex counties won’t be able to afford their lifestyles anymore, and we’ll be the farmers with 17 kids. It’s about the global balance of complexity; hasn’t a thing in the world to do with birth control. Everybody has birth control, has for millennia, and its effectiveness hasn’t really changed since the Paleolithic.

]]> By: _Gi http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-86146 _Gi Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:02:32 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-86146 I'm not even convinced that we have any more effective methods of birth control than we did 100 years ago. Or, perhaps, more to the point, what good is effective birth control if the human population continues to grow? In what way has it profoundly changed our (collective) lives? Ever heard of sexual revolution? You think it did not change people's lives? Effective birth control gives people control over their procreation. You can have as much sex as you want without populating the Earth with your offspring. This is definitely new. The only reason population is growing still is that birth control is not yet affordable everywhere in the world. I’m not even convinced that we have any more effective methods of birth control than we did 100 years ago. Or, perhaps, more to the point, what good is effective birth control if the human population continues to grow? In what way has it profoundly changed our (collective) lives?

Ever heard of sexual revolution? You think it did not change people’s lives?
Effective birth control gives people control over their procreation. You can have as much sex as you want without populating the Earth with your offspring. This is definitely new. The only reason population is growing still is that birth control is not yet affordable everywhere in the world.

]]> By: Paula http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-86110 Paula Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:19:42 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2007/04/the-slow-crash/#comment-86110 Wow, looks like I really butchered the spelling of 'Giulianna' -- sorry about that. Wow, looks like I really butchered the spelling of ‘Giulianna’ — sorry about that.

]]>