SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Here's an example from the UN story:
[AC:] It is simple. Everyone gets a clean environment (free from lead, etc.) with safe clean drinking water.
The standards for what counts as safe have already been established. Here are water regulations for the US. Similar standards exist for other known toxins. Our issue is that you only get a safe clean environment if you can afford it. And, even then, the multi-million dollar houses in West LA turned out to be sitting on toxic waste that seeped over from the 'other' side of town / the toxic dumping predated turning formerly industrial areas into residential areas.
In other words, we want X so make a right to have X. Doesn't sound like the poster even cares how to do it or whether it'll even work because of course, it'll just work out of the box like all our other rights do. [Edit: cooler prose]
While I discussed that a bunch there, here's a summary of why I think just creating a right to something won't work.
In turgid's journal, we have an even sillier example:
[AC:] We have scarcity because right wingers like you desperately want the scarcity to exist. Your only objective is to exploit the working class as much as possible. To use the OP's analogy, you right wingers are the Ferengi.
Just like the Ferengi, you're not interested in scientific and technological progress that would raise the quality of life, reduce scarcity, and improve environmental conditions. Instead, you defend rent-seeking parasites who actively oppose scientific and technological advancements. A fine example is the fossil fuel industry, which should become obsolete as new technology develops and matures. Instead of allowing scientific progress to proceed, the fossil fuel industry engages in misinformation to protect a dying business model and oppose newer and better technologies.
We need less right wing rent-seeking parasites. We need to move past the lie that people are poor because they haven't worked hard enough, when the wealthiest members of our society tend to either inherit their wealth or build it through the exploitation of others. Left to your own devices, right wing psychopaths like you will cut corners with things like safety in factories, all the while demanding workers put in more labor for less pay. You right wingers are sick individuals, happy to let others languish in scarcity and work in dangerous conditions, all so you can line your pockets with more money.
There's a reason that Starfleet officers are warned about the Ferengi when they're at the Academy.
If only we could do something about the rightwingers, then we'd have post-scarcity right now.
What's missed in that verbiage is that you don't live in a society capable of either delivering a nebulous right to "access" to something nor supporting a post-scarcity economy. The cart is before the horse.
It's not rich people or failwingers holding you back. It's reality. That's why you didn't get your lollipop.
I think it's time to dispute such magic thinking. Our world didn't come easily. Just since civilization started, there have been hundreds of generations toiling - making our world what it is. But now, it's supposed to be simple. Just deliver the lollipops.
Well, just like those hundreds of other generations, you'll have to work for it. Maybe someday we'll never have to work to make our world a better place, but that hasn't happened yet.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:34AM (11 children)
There remains no post-scarcity economy. I've been quite interested in science and technology that has increased the quality of life, but not so interested in science and technology that doesn't do much of anything. Replacement technologies for fossil fuels have yet to fully replace fossil fuels (particularly for transportation).
Looking further in that thread, I see the ranting about the "hoarding" of wealth. Investment over the past half century indeed was very different from hoarding, lots of people who weren't traditional investors by 1970 are investors now - there's been a greatly liberalization of the stock markets, and stealing other peoples' stuff remains bad.
And snivelers remain snivelers.
Finally, there's the "The US tried it for the last 50 years and none of the rightwing claims have come true." As I've noted before, I'm not rightwing, that's just a fabrication. I don't know or care what you think rightwing claims are. What I've noticed are things like the ongoing failure of multiple US entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare for key examples). Those are indeed following the trajectory that was foretold for them decades ago. I've also noticed the power of business creation - things like the entire high tech industry happened in the last 50 years, which over the past 50 years has probably been necessary to preserve the US standard of living.
My skepticism about climate change has been borne out.
And the developing world keeps improving.
So claiming that "The US tried it for the last 50 years and none of the rightwing claims have come true." seems not to apply to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:02AM (10 children)
Cause you are stupid and only operate on confirmation bias. Truly you don't understand others, but most of us understand your slavish adherence to feudalism. The real breakthroughs as always came from scientists while capitalists took credit. Musk, Gates, and Bezos are prime examples of your pathology.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:07PM (9 children)
I'll note on the last statement, scientists invariably do nothing without funding. All three examples of my "pathology" were instrumental in the creation of their businesses. No scientist was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:48PM (1 child)
Said the corporate shill . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:26PM
Said the commie shill . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @06:32PM (6 children)
In fact, we could extend this to the arts.
Science and the arts, down to someone having the time to figure out how to make this fire thing useful, or drumming on a hollow log for the tribal pre-orgy dance, have always depended on some sort of patronage. In rare cases individuals with the wherewithal to support themselves have done it for the yuks, but all that happened was that they rolled patron and creator into the same by a confluence of capability and opportunity. Otherwise, everyone from the wedding singer to the rockstar is up against the pleasure of those who pay for them. In science, it's down to who's paying for the construction of all those laboratories and seminar rooms.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @04:38AM (5 children)
I doubt that. And not true now when most art is mass consumed.
You're using a definition of patronage which is inappropriate. Scientists aren't producing a mass consumed product or a gig. It's a very different sort of relationship than the rock star who earns their income from concerts and sales of music, or a wedding singer who earns their income from multiple gigs each to a different customer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22 2021, @04:05PM (4 children)
"I doubt that. And not true now when most art is mass consumed."
Actually it's more true than ever, precisely because of mass consumption because the patronage of a large audience, moderated and modulated by the actions of various middlemen such as labels and publishers and promoters is exactly where the support for your art comes from. The same applies to journalists and other writers. Patronage doesn't mean Lord Fartsmuch of Windy Towers tosses a few scraps of silver at a shivering artist; it's a range that includes a village passing a hat for a strolling minstrel, and a screaming horde of tweens raiding mom's purse for funds for a ticket to a heartthrob's show.
"You're using a definition of patronage which is inappropriate."
Fine. Pick a different word. Largesse on the parts of audiences, would-be users and curators. Funds provided without immediately remunerative responses in exchange for services of people who traffick in ideas. As a class of transaction it is functionally patronage - but if you want to call it mass sugardaddying, that works too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @06:43PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22 2021, @10:48PM (2 children)
I want create idea-stuff.
I lack ability to do it and feed myself.
I turn to people with (some) money and say: "Hey, yo, I can paint your portrait/futz around with dyes/write your porn/investigate the stars/play at your mom's funeral."
They hand over money, before during or after. To them it's a source of amusement/prestige/diversion. It may or may not be valuable after the fact (astronomy - navigation, marble carvings - respect) but in the moment it is functionally throwing money at someone playing with ideas. It is a gift, as much patronage as when the patrons of Rome gifted their clientes with small change. The dynamic is functionally the same whether it's Rapper mcStrivy cranking out rhymes for the label, or Professor Stripypants working for DARPA. At best it's payment for services rendered, but with a risk that the services won't lead where intended.
This is patronage. You say that they are "very different sorts of economic interactions" but how? What exactly is the functional difference between particle physicists going to beg for billions, or the busker touching the brim of his cap when someone tosses coins in his cap? The end result might vary in terms of cultural versus technological developments, but even there is overlap.
You seem to say that it's the scale of the funding group, but even there it's illusionary because as a general rule professional artists work for one client at a time, and in the specific case of music it's a label's manager.
Returning to the topic of scientists, this is specifically important because patronage, whether through groovy kickstarter or Gates Foundation, is central to the ability of the scientists to actually achieve anything, and a reflection on that fact is important for anyone who wants scientists to ... y'know, science it all up in favour of a scientific benefit. Same applies to those wanting deadmau5 to throw down those sweet trax.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @11:36PM
How is the number of people involved and their intent. There's a huge difference between mass funding and funding from a single sugar daddy. There's a similar difference between funding with detailed goals and funding from sources that don't really care what you do.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 25 2021, @01:31AM
This is the peril of getting funding from an apathetic government source. There's no serious reason why these guys were defunded, but there was no serious reason why they were funded in the first place. The funding was more about the theater of appearing to care about science than actually coming up with a fusion power revolution. And thus, it comes and goes without reason.
Meanwhile, a rock star gets paid for results. Their fans are buying real world product, not merely appearing to care about music.
That's the deep flaw of conflating these two approaches under the label of "patronage". One approach results in real world change, the other doesn't.