Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Gandalf's Beard]

I appreciate your feelings on the matter, GB, but I think you're overstating things. For instance, there's this sentence, which I missed earlier:

As I said, this stuff isn't in some Future far away. We're living in the Future now. The 21'st century is HERE.

I don't think anyone would deny that the 21st century has a lot of grim stuff going on, and that it has the potential to get worse, but it's hardly a new age of darkness and despair. Compared to the gigantic clusterf*** that was the 20th century, a lot of things have improved. We're not living under constant fear of nuclear annihilation, and the current great power rivalries are very unlikely to lead to war, partially because of multinational corporations brining different nations' interests together through trade. We also don't have to worry about a lot of the diseases that were pandemic throughout earlier times, largely thanks to pharmaceutical companies.

That's not to say that these companies always do good or even that the good things they do are out of benevolence, but corporate actions are not always bad and evil. And frankly, if you want to talk about a nightmare of corporate governance, then you should be looking to the past, not the future, because it has happened in the past in places like India, but was then stopped. Will we see something like that again? Perhaps, but history is no more a consistent progression towards despair than it is a consistent progression towards utopia. There are pros and cons to all historical eras, and the 21st century is no exception.

EDIT: This works as a response to your most recent post, too.

You're joking right? You think stuff that happened in India has STOPPED??????

Now they do what they did in India in any number of Latin American countries including Mexico, the Phillipines, Haiti, The Middle East, South East Asia, China. It hasn't stopped , it's gone into F****** OVERDRIVE . What kind of bubble do you live in that you haven't heard about any of this? People are working under slave-like conditions manufacturing products for American and International Corporations under armed guard. Where did you think all of our outsourced manufacturing jobs went?

And the rivalries between various Consortiums to control the world's markets and resources are as intense as they ever were. Seriously dude, WAKE UP! (with all due respect ).

GB

[Eldorion]

You're joking right? You think stuff that happened in India has STOPPED??????

Yeah, the part about India was a reference to the British East India Company, which you may know once directly governed India. India is now commonly viewed as a rising power in the world Of course I know that corporations play a major role in the governance of third world countries around the globe, but my point was that some things are better while some things are worse. India (and other countries) is a case of some things being better, even though neo-colonialism persists. The Atlantic slave trade being outlawed is also a case of things getting better, even though slavery still persists. That doesn't mean things are good by an objective standard though, and I never said that it did. It also doesn't mean that things haven't gotten worse in other areas.

[Gandalf's Beard]

For the most part that list falls into two categories: advanced technology and stuff that has been around for ages. When I think of a cyberpunk future, I imagine something quite dark and gritty. The mere presence of advanced technology does not mean that. As for most of the rest of it - privatized military forces, death squads, decaying urban areas, shanty towns, literary and media censorship, sophisticated propaganda - if all that makes a cyberpunk world, than mankind has been living in a cyberpunk world for longer than 'cyberpunk' has been a word, which again doesn't fit with the ideas implicit in the word.

Regardless, I don't see how your list is incompatible with the crux of my earlier post, which is that all eras have pros and cons, and that the 21st century is not a radical departure from the rest of human history just because it has a dark underbelly.

Also, a few individual points jump out at me:

9) Cameras tracking our every move (ask Petty or any UK resident who lives in a big city about how ubiquitous it is there, and we're getting closer to that in the US too. George Orwell, eat your heart out).

As far as I know, the UK security cameras are posted in public places. We have a similar system in some places around where I live. However, that is a far cry from cameras tracking you everywhere. Besides, if the government wanted to track you everywhere, it would make more sense to use traditional intelligence methods which have been around for quite some time.

29) Battlefield sized Nukes--we are more in danger of Nuclear attack than we ever were in the 20th century

I'd really like to see your justification for that claim.

I qualified my statement about cameras tracking everything to being mostly in big cities. But actually it really IS everywhere. It's not all government S***. It's in Stores with security cameras, and it's in the palm of your hand, and gets uploaded to Youtube.

When people like George Bush say we need battlefield sized nukes, that means we already have them. Secret Tech is always more advanced than public tech.

And I think you're missing my whole point!!! You claimed that we don't live in a Cyber-Punk Era. Yet even you have tacitly conceded that we do indeed live in a Cyber-Punk Era. Whether you see it as positive or negative depends on which side of the tracks you live. People who live in a comfortable middle class or upper-class neighborhood rarely see the down-side of the Futuristic (Modern) Technology. People who live at the bottom of society rarely see the up-side of Modern Technology. And the Corporations are out to Downsize the Middle Class, and Up-size Poverty.

If you live behind the protection of Hi Tech weaponry you feel safer, If you live at the Muzzle end of Hi Tech weaponry (which is the majority of the world) you live in Terror. That's the very definition of a Cyber-Punk Society.

GB

[Eldorion]

And I think you're missing my whole point!!! You claimed that we don't live in a Cyber-Punk Era. Yet even you have tacitly conceded that we do indeed live in a Cyber-Punk Era. Whether you see it as positive or negative depends on which side of the tracks you live. People who live in a comfortable middle class or upper-class neighborhood rarely see the down-side of the Futuristic (Modern) Technology. People who live at the bottom of society rarely see the up-side of Modern Technology. And the Corporations are out to Downsize the Middle Class, and Up-size Poverty.

The same can be said for most technology. Heck, the same can be said for society in general going back thousands of years.

If you live behind the protection of Hi Tech weaponry you feel safer, If you live at the Muzzle end of Hi Tech weaponry (which is the majority of the world) you live in Terror. That's the very definition of a Cyber-Punk Society.

As above, this is not something that is unique to high-tech weaponry. My point is that what you call a "cyberpunk society" really isn't that different from human societies going back hundreds if not thousands of years. All have unpleasant aspects, particularly for the people at the bottom of the hierarchy. It is because of this that I do not understand the distinction you are making between modern "cyberpunk society" and the implicitly better past.

[Gandalf's Beard]

You're joking right? You think stuff that happened in India has STOPPED??????

Yeah, the part about India was a reference to the British East India Company, which you may know once directly governed India. India is now commonly viewed as a rising power in the world Of course I know that corporations play a major role in the governance of third world countries around the globe, but my point was that some things are better while some things are worse. India (and other countries) is a case of some things being better, even though neo-colonialism persists. The Atlantic slave trade being outlawed is also a case of things getting better, even though slavery still persists. That doesn't mean things are good by an objective standard though, and I never said that it did. It also doesn't mean that things haven't gotten worse in other areas.

The Atlantic Slave Trade was outlawed...and the Global Slave Trade has become a Legalized Business Practice. What do you call workers that live in concentration camp conditions under armed guard? What do you call trafficking in Sex Slaves that operates with the tacit protection of Intelligence Agencies (much as the Illicit Drug Trade does)?

I haven't overstated one single thing. This is the world we live in. We live in a William Gibson world. We live in the movie Brazil. We watch our TV's, listen to our I-pods, and everything the corporations tell us is the exact opposite of the way things are. Doublespeak is an Orwellian concept that has become just a Business Practice. When Orwell wrote 1984, he wanted to call it 1948, because the Global Order had settled into place after WWII and the US/UK order had won the controlling interest in the world's markets through NATO, and the Soviets had the minority share of the world's markets. But his publishers freaked out because that was too close to reality. By the time 1984 really came around, under Maggie and Ronnie, George Orwell's book had become even more relevant.

I don't see why you can't just admit it...We live in a Cyber-Punk world.

GB

[Eldorion]

I don't see why you can't just admit it...We live in a Cyber-Punk world.

See my immediately preceding post.

[Gandalf's Beard]

And I think you're missing my whole point!!! You claimed that we don't live in a Cyber-Punk Era. Yet even you have tacitly conceded that we do indeed live in a Cyber-Punk Era. Whether you see it as positive or negative depends on which side of the tracks you live. People who live in a comfortable middle class or upper-class neighborhood rarely see the down-side of the Futuristic (Modern) Technology. People who live at the bottom of society rarely see the up-side of Modern Technology. And the Corporations are out to Downsize the Middle Class, and Up-size Poverty.

The same can be said for most technology. Heck, the same can be said for society in general going back thousands of years.

If you live behind the protection of Hi Tech weaponry you feel safer, If you live at the Muzzle end of Hi Tech weaponry (which is the majority of the world) you live in Terror. That's the very definition of a Cyber-Punk Society.

As above, this is not something that is unique to high-tech weaponry. My point is that what you call a "cyberpunk society" really isn't that different from human societies going back hundreds if not thousands of years. All have unpleasant aspects, particularly for the people at the bottom of the hierarchy. It is because of this that I do not understand the distinction you are making between modern "cyberpunk society" and the implicitly better past.

Dude, you're just being stubborn and ridiculous. Pretty much everything that is a staple of Cyber-Punk literature has come to pass.

YOU claimed we don't live in a Cyber-Punk world, and I have just proven exactly the opposite.

Now you're just trying to fudge the issue by pointing out that Capitalism/Feudalism has always existed. That has ALWAYS been MY contention, but now you are trying to move the Goalposts of our conversation (which is because you're losing the argument ). We are discussing whether we live in a Hi Tech/Lo Tech Dystopic Reality that in Literature has become known as Cyber-Punk. And I have just pwned you.

GB

[Eldorion]

I don't see how the phrase "cyberpunk society" has any real meaning if it is applicable to all stages of human history. About the only distinguishing factor for the modern world is the level of technology.

Regardless, what really bugged me was the implication I read that the modern cyberpunk world is somehow worse than the past. That was the point of the last sentence of that post as well as a few earlier posts. If I misunderstood you, than I apologize.

[Gandalf's Beard]

I don't see how the phrase "cyberpunk society" has any real meaning if it is applicable to all stages of human history. About the only distinguishing factor for the modern world is the level of technology.

Regardless, what really bugged me was the implication I read that the modern cyberpunk world is somehow worse than the past. That was the point of the last sentence of that post as well as a few earlier posts. If I misunderstood you, than I apologize.

DUH! It DOESN'T apply to every stage of human history.

That was just you moving the Goalposts. Of course it has everything to do with the level of technology, plus the fact that the Corporations have created a Global Police State. That's exactly what defines cyber-punk literature and media--which can be retroactively applied all the way back to the classic Cyber-Punk film Metropolis (1927). There may be earlier stories about a dystopic hi-tech future, but that's probably the first one that became a part of Pop Culture.

GB

EDIT: Apology accepted.

[Eldorion]

That was just you moving the Goalposts. Of course it has everything to do with the level of technology, plus the fact that the Corporations have created a Global Police State.

I'm not terribly familiar with the cyberpunk genre, so I was going off of your list from earlier. That list mentions privatized military forces, but as I pointed out, that is not a development unique to the 20th or 21st centuries. If you meant to say "corporate global police state", you should have said that instead.

[Gandalf's Beard]

That was just you moving the Goalposts. Of course it has everything to do with the level of technology, plus the fact that the Corporations have created a Global Police State.

I'm not terribly familiar with the cyberpunk genre, so I was going off of your list from earlier. That list mentions privatized military forces, but as I pointed out, that is not a development unique to the 20th or 21st centuries. If you meant to say "corporate global police state", you should have said that instead.

Did my list have ONLY privatized military and police forces?

I believe I listed about 29 or 30 things that are a staple of the genre (which has come to pass in real life).

As you are an Anime fan, I assumed you'd be very familiar with the cyber-punk genre (a sub-genre of Sci Fi)--which includes films like Robo-Cop, Brazil, Johnny Mnemonic, and classic Anime like Akira. Cyber-Punk has also fairly been applied to films like the Matrix for obvious reasons, but strictly speaking, The Matrix is a combination of several distinct strains of sci-fi sub-genres, Film Noir, and Kung Fu flicks.

GB

[Eldorion]

Yes, and I responded to the rest of your list earlier. NB I don't watch a ton of cyberpunk anime, I tend to watch other kinds of shows, but that's a topic for another thread.

At this point I think we can chock up a fair bit of the discussion to a miscommunication. I repeat my earlier apology and will now bow out of this part of the thread.

[Gandalf's Beard]

Cheers and beers Eldo!

Thanks giving me a chance to spout on one of my favourite topics.

GB

[Ringdrotten]

Sorry Rindrotten, but you're very very wrong on this subject. See my above post and do some research before jumping to conclusions. GM Crops have NOTHING to do with feeding people, and EVERYTHING to do with Corporations controlling our food supply.

GB

I know there's plenty of GM foods around that's only been modified to make them more resistant to pests etc. I reread my post and I see how it looks like I mean that all GM food is good. However, what I mean is that with GM food there is a possibility that we could increase the food production and so be able to feed more people. Even if this is not the case today, and that GM food is "created so that Corporations can have total control over our food supplies and DNA patents that they use to push out smaller non-corporate and "non-compliant" farms.", I still think that there is potential in genetically modified food to meet the food crisis, if the food was genetically modified with the intent to do exactly that (modified to increase production).

I won't claim to know anything about the long-term side effects of GM food, as I don't know anything about it. However, we don't really know what the long-term effects of frequent use of cell phones are either, but that doesn't stop us from using them daily. What I'm saying is, if GM food (modified with honest intentions to increase production, and not to put cash into the pockets of the corporations that seem to be controlling everything) is the only way to meet the problem of food shortage, then it is at least worth a try.

[Kafria]

Ah me! and science is supposed to be such a pure subject, the study of what can be done!

I'm not sure what I want to respond to having read through the debate from last night so I'm just going to type what comes into my head.... you have been forwarned, this si not a reasoned rebuttal, just a gut response.

GM, firstly I have to comment on the fact that in many ways the horse is gone and the stable door is only now being bolted. As has been mentioned there is clear evidence that the genes from genetically modifeid crops have managed to find their way into the wild population and this does leave us with unknowns. In nature only closley related speicies can reproduce, so genes are from within the related family. In GM the gene can come from something wholly unrelated, so we have little reference for how it will react in situ. This was one of the fears that led to such fierce protests in the UK that tests pretty much do not happen anymore. Throughout the rest of the EU and USA there are a range of attitudes from only allowing testing to commercial growing. And GM crops are already in the food chain and very hard to track (GM maize is in allsorts of stuff and in the this country anything GM is supposed to be labelled, but how do you track every last ingredient to check?) There is no doubt that there is huge potential for good in GM, from foods with higher vitamin counts and shelf lives, to produce much needed medicines through crops (such as insulin form crops that could then be 'eaten' instead of injected, rather than using genetically modified yeast to produce it in the lab and then havesting/processing it) and even to make more effective biofuels.

(quick aside - Yes GM has been happening in microbes in the lab for decades, using DNA recombination scienctists have been putting genes in to bacteria and yeast for a long time, to make medicines or introduce new traits or to study the process itself, so many feel we have the knowledge to be confident about the risks, or lack thereof)

The problem as already pointed out is the way companes use the tech. My first intro to this was while I was still at school. Monsanto modified their wheat grains so they were resistant to their own pesticide (double money!) then went one stage further and modified the seeds so they were infertile. This meant that the farmer could not collect and use some of the grain each year for the new crop, but had to buy fresh seed each year!

This ethics of science links to the issue of gene patenting, which has also been going on since I was at school (nearly 20 years ago to my horror!) It has been common practice for the company that sequence the gene, (and so the protien), in a plant that was a medicine to be able to patent it so they can sell it to recap their investment in research. This is the basis of the phamacutical companies, it can often take 10 years for a drug to reach the market, so companies argue they need these patents to be able to fund the future developments. This was always a dodgy area to me, how can even a plant chemical belong to a company? So in this context it is easy to see how the patents have occurred. I believe it is fundamentally wrong, however to stop the human genes being patented alone as it says you will need to argue that te genome of humans is 'sacred' I'm not sure that will wash. This whole big business attitude leads to alsort of other questionable practices.
I spend a lot of time talking about not just could we, but also should we with my classess for these reasons.

My final thought (I am not touching the cyber-punk society debate - no not even with that handy barge pole) is that, as with a lot of modern science there can be real positives from the developments, but as always things will need regulating. We cannot put the genie back in the bottle, if we simply ban things or villify them we drive them underground. So we need to try to regulate, investigate and get the good from technology, not simply run screaming in the other direction

(sorry if none of this is new to anyone - teacher couldn't help herself again! )

[Ally]

While I'm sure there's truth in the companies are modifying the food for their own gain, not in the interest of Humankind, I agree with Ringdrotten and the scientists, who say say that GM food has the potential to increase the world's food supply and help combat world poverty. And while I don't think any of us fully trust Gov's and these large companies, sadly with out this massive profit potential the progress would be very limited. Plus, genetic modification has been around for hundreds of years- our world is moving forward- shouldn't this develop to? I'd take the risk of the the world's food production being in the hands of a few companies if it solved the problems in LEDCs and third world countries.

I'll leave Kafria's essay for someone else...

[Pettytyrant101]

Informative as always Kafria. I didn't know about the insulin- an excellent example of how GM can help.
I agree about corporations, no surprise there- for me the problem has never really been with the science. Its the pharmaceutical companies who need proper regulation, preferably through global regulation via the UN as its no good having different standards in every country.

Science often seems to have a problem communicating directly with the public, it always goes through a filter first, usually whoever is funding the research then the media, by which time the voice of the scientists is rarely heard.
I remember hearing a research scientist talking about funding in the 80's. He said if he asked for money to do a study on red squirrel populations in the UK, he'd get turned down. But if he asked for money to study the effects of global warming on red squirrels in the UK, he woulld get the money.
Scientists need funding, as for so long as they have to go to institutes and private companies to get it they will slant their research in the direction of whoever is paying. Even scientists need to pay the bills.
Somehow science needs to be free of corporate interest. Corporations should be able to make use of scientific discoveries, but they should not be in a position to dictate the direction of science for their own ends.

edit- sorry Ally posting at same time, missed yours- I largely agree except I really wouldn't trust so much responsibility in the hands of unelected companies with self interests.

[Gandalf's Beard]

Keep GM in the lab, and I have no problem. I'm certain that any number of benefits to medical science can come from the lab.

But there is no way that any company is going to produce something to benefit poor people. It's the bottom line for them. A healthy return for their investors. They are selling a story that is entirely bogus. The only reason for developing GM and patenting it is to control the world's food supply for profit.

They don't care about pumping toxins into the environment and forcing tax-payers to pick up the tab for clean-up. Why would they care about Genetic Drift? Because they can then claim that other farmers are "stealing" intellectual property rights, sue them and take away their farms to produce more GM crops. Genetic drift of GM crops is dangerous and irresponsible. Genetic Drift is a perfectly natural process in and of itself. But putting GM into the environment is not...it is genetic pollution. These are the facts of the matter--only ONE farmer (in Canada) has been semi-successful in challenging the lawsuits.

By the Goddess, I can't BELIEVE how you lot can be so naive.

There's still time to put the brakes on some of their plans. Suits against these companies to prevent them from patenting the Human Genome (which they ARE trying to do) are winding their way through the court system. Not every plant in the world has been turned into a patentable (hence profitable) product yet.

[b]GB[/b]

[Eldorion]

Returning to an earlier topic, the BBC News website has a neat interactive map of the all Middle East countries with protests recently. Bahrain in particular seems to be picking up steam.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12482313

[Gandalf's Beard]

Returning to an earlier topic, the BBC News website has a neat interactive map of the all Middle East countries with protests recently. Bahrain in particular seems to be picking up steam.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12482313

Good for them!

(Now if we could just get people excited here and the UK, we might at the very least be able to counter the Tea Party Republican Propaganda and the Tories BS ).

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

Maybe the whole world should go on strike and protest at once. Everyone, doesn't matter what country and what religion, or what type of government. Just down tools and say we've had enough. Enough lies, enough crap enough fighting and spending all the money on weapons. Sort it out!!!!
One can but dream!!

[Gandalf's Beard]

Maybe the whole world should go on strike and protest at once. Everyone, doesn't matter what country and what religion, or what type of government. Just down tools and say we've had enough. Enough lies, enough crap enough fighting and spending all the money on weapons. Sort it out!!!!
One can but dream!!

Indeed! (need the ubergeek smiley here)

GB

[Ally]

Could all revolutionists and potential revolutionists please delay all possible revolutions and overthrowing goverments etc, untill after the Bahrain F1 race?
Thanks!
Allynie Ecclestone!

Joking of course, glad to see people using their right to protest and demand democracy.

[Eldorion]

Speaking of Bahrain...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12495733

[Pettytyrant101]

Lets please focus on what's important here people!! Is the F1 race on or off?