Good OP.

I use "left" and "right" as sometimes somewhat useful terms, less to describe than to 'place' very general political 'positions', persons, or 'groups'.

Political discourse would be impossible if left and right were the only terms that we had at hand. Some individuals politicians and groups are authoritarian or libertarian to some degree. Some are pro-socialist, others pro-capitalist, often measured in degrees. There are internationalists and nationalists. Some are religious partisans, some are secularists, and so on.

I would much prefer that politics would fit into nicely defined boxes, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Or the old box labels are often wrong.

How does one map "Democrat" and "Republican" onto other dichotomies? Are these two party names any more helpful than left/right, liberal/conservative?

One can call a plague on both their houses, IF one sets up one's position outside the usual arrangement. Communists, actual socialists, libertarians, and so on can do that, because in the United States at least, they are politically irrelevant. I know this from experience as a socialist. We may be 100% correct and virtuous, but we we don't win elections, and we don't have any power. So mostly nobody cares about what we say. True, some Democratic Socialists have won some local elections, lately. It remains to be seen how their office-holding will work out.

It occurs to me that prayer tends to be 'directive', in two ways. "Directive" in the sense that we want something specific to happen--to us or somebody else--and we say so--we give directions. Prayer is also "directive" in that we pray TO someone in particular. We don't pray to an indifferent cosmos.

Prayer can also be passive: one prays to accept the will of God, whatever that may be. One doesn't pray for a miracle cure of one's terminal cancer, one prays for the capacity to endure it until death.

Meditation, on the other hand, is becoming open and accepting without judgement. Paradoxically, one must take the initiative in becoming passive. When we meditate we strive to open our 'mental windows' and let the sounds of the world pass through. We don't aim to suppress mental chatter, we just accept it. We relax. We breathe evenly, more slowly. we focus on some point, or object, or nothing...

With patience, this very passive meditative practice results in less mental chatter, the sounds of the world become less intrusive, and the self may recede a little bit. I'm not suggesting the self disappears; if one can achieve a slightly less forward self for a while, that's a big deal.

For the 'adept', a state of deep trance can be reached; blood pressure, heart rate, metabolism, etc. drop significantly. The 'adept' meditator hasn't left the scene -- he or she can return to the normal alert state, voluntarily. I've only seen this on film.

I am usually suspicious of people claiming "my truth" or even "the truth". "Truth" or truth does exist, for sure, but it's not private.

BTW, you are correct about "my truth" becoming more common -- in print, anyway. Google Ngram uses the vast corpus of scanned texts to measure word frequencies over the last 400 years. Peak "my truth" was in the 1800s. Then it subsided down to a minimum level. Around 2000 it picked up again -- not to early 1800 levels, but still more than in 1980, say.

The concept of ego may have gone out of fashion, especially as the term consciousness has become used to cover so much ambiguity in meaning. — Jack Cummins

A lot (most?) of Freud has ended up in landfill, but his 3-cornered hat of id, ego, and superego still works when contemplating our species' behavior as individuals. The failure of an individual to build an adequate superego, the demanding force of the human sex drive (broadly defined, not just focused on orgasm), and the failure of the individual to figure out how to manage the whole mess (which is what the "I am" ego is supposed to do) shows up in court, headlines, wrecked homes, messed up carriers, unhappy people and so on.

There is more to our behavior, though, than Freud's 3 cornered hat.

There are also behavioral and group dynamics which guide 2 or 3 people on up to neighborhoods, regions, nations, and alliances of nations. The nuclear arms race wasn't a race between the Soviet Premier and the American President, it was a competition for global hegemony--just for one example among too many to list. Economics has a lot to do with how we behave, or don't. So does evolution, genetics, hormones, learning, and so on.

Call me old-fashioned, but I still find id, ego, and superego useful concepts.

those who were Roman were very civic-minded. But as the population grew, I think, as happened in the US, people became self-centered and less community-oriented — Athena

Rome was in business a long time; when do you think this change took place, and why? Same for the US. Europeans have been here for 500 years, give or take 15 minutes. When did we start getting self-centered, and why?

While I will readily grant that the zeitgeist changes over time, members of our species approach each shift with the same basic features. We always manage to be short sighted, self-centered, helpful, generous, vindictive, aggressive, loving, well-organized and chaotic, smart and stupid -- all that and more all at once. The zeitgeist is both a product of our efforts and an influence on us--it's circular.

Thanks -- I'm seen Albion's Seed on Amazon and have thought of getting it. Thanks also for the Kevin Phillips tip.

There is so much to learn! — Athena

I have an order in for the brain implant that will allow me to have an Internet feed into my brain, plus an AI account, Library of Congress feed, and so on.

@Athena A bit more on Yankees.

AI Overview

Yankee cultural influence, originating from New England and spreading through the Great Lakes region, profoundly shaped American society by establishing core values of education, entrepreneurship, Protestant work ethic, and civic activism. This "Yankeedom" culture emphasized public order, moral reform, and infrastructure development, largely influencing the Midwest, Northern, and "Left Coast" regions. 
Key impacts on American culture include:
* Values and Ethics: A strong emphasis on personal responsibility, hard work, frugality, and a "utopian streak" that promotes societal improvement.
* Education and Infrastructure: A commitment to universal education and public infrastructure, dating back to early town-meeting systems.
* Political Culture: A high degree of public participation, support for government regulation, and a belief in a "public interest" that transcends individual ambition.
* Reform and Mobility: A history of applying moral logic to social issues (e.g., abolitionism) and a focus on social mobility, though sometimes criticized for inflexibility or Puritanical intolerance.
* Regional Expansion: The, Northern Michigan University documents how Yankee settlers moved westward, bringing with them specific, Northern Michigan University cultural, Northern Michigan University traits,. 

Search for 'influence of yankee culture on ...", like Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Michigan; search for "yankee empire".

JSTOR has some articles on the topic, like Yankees and Teutons in Milwaukee, 1850 - 1890.

Yes, there are books that discuss the influence of puritanism and how the south got the way it is. It's been at least 10-15 years since I read them, and I can't now cite title and author from memory. Below is a screen capture of the cover of American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard, published in 2012. This is a cultural map.



Is this the gospel truth of hard core political and social science? No, but it isn't fiction either.

How did the south get the way it is? Well, one big factor is where the settlers of the south came from, vs. where the settlers of New England came from. As I understand it, the south was initially settled by people from the border regions of Scotland and England, in the 16th and 17th century, a fairly rough and violent area of conflict. Puritans came from the SE coastal region of England, a placid farming area.

Again, I can't cite a book for this, just off hand.

The Puritans began arriving in what would become Massachusetts around 1620. Significant westward migration from New England didn't get underway until after the Revolution. So the puritans had around 150 years to calm down.

Just to be clear, "Puritans" per se did not migrate westward and influence the cultures of the several states they settled in. It was the descendants of the puritans--New Englanders--who did that. So what happened to the Puritans? Removed from their original motivation--opposition to the "popery" of the Church of England and Catholics in England, replanted in a new land where they were dominant (a pretty small territory, actually), they gradually lost their oppositional edge--a perfectly normal process. Though they mellowed out, they still left a very strong imprint on the culture and politics of New England -- what some geographers call "yankeedom".

You've heard of "A city on a hill"--the shining beacon. The religious puritans believed that it was neetm right, and salutary for the State to be the primary contractor in building the city on a hill. They didn't invent the idea, but they made good use of it. "Yankeedom" is characterized by solid public works -- health, education, and welfare, generally speaking. Yankees didn't count on the most wealthy people to shell out. Instead they taxed and built to suit public purposes.

Yankeedom is in contrast to an opposing pattern of abhorring an active, taxing state, located in the south and the west.

Naturally, the yankees are not perfect. Some of the places they settled have at times been depressing pits of corruption, like modern Detroit, or Chicago. Boston is a wonderful city, but it has had episodes of gear-wrecking corruption too. And in contrast, a state like Mississippi which has performed abysmally for at least a century and a half, is currently experiencing an education revitalization that is quite remarkable, so I've heard. I still don't want to live there.

The Puritans in their North American colony did not practice religious freedom. They drove people out if they didn't conform. — Athena

True. The Puritans were pretty rigid for the first 100 years or so (starting in the early 17th century). Over time, though, they mellowed out becoming as one historian put it, "balmy congregationalists". The Puritans established the "yankee" style of New England, believing that the state could be harnessed for good results for the people. "Yankeedom" spread westward, with migrating New Englanders, contributing to the progressiveness of northern states -- Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio,Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. [see "The Nine Nations of North America"]

Yankeedom in general values public education, public health, public infrastructure, and so on--quite different than the pattern one sees across the southern tier of states.

So, what puritans did was use the state to build the secular 'city on the hill'.

What forces separated Sweden's Church and State? — Athena

I can't remember who it was that said this, or in what book, but back in the '80s when I was reading a lot of theology, the author mentioned the state of Christianity in Sweden. He referred to the 1963 Bergman film, Winter Light, about a church so dead that not even God showed up. I saw the film a long time ago - it's very dry.

By and large, 'the church' in Europe (like Sweden, Germany, England, etc.) tends to be 'established', state supported, and thus at least somewhat state controlled. When European immigrants arrived in the United States (after the Revolution) they brought their home churches with them and had to support them without state subsidies or governance. The absence of state control and support is one reason why American Christianity has been much more successful and vital, particularly in the 20th century, while European churches faded. American Christianity has hatched all sorts of sects, sub-sects, and sub-sub-sects over the years, which has kept religion more lively here (for worse, mostly, not better).

Vital or not, whatever it was that drained European churches of congregants, started draining American churches of members too. By the decade of 1960-1970, protestant denominations, particularly, lost millions of members who never came back, and the losses continue. In 2026, it seems like the US has become more secular -- but not in the manner of liberal Europe .

Politics in the churches has become much more polarized, leading to new sectarian splits -- the breakup of the United Methodist Church over accepting homosexuals is a good example; or the rip in the Anglican Church over homosexuality and the ordination of women.

Polarization tends to separate people with extreme views from those with moderate views, and the extremists tend to be very conservative, more authoritarian, and nationalistic -- leading to fertile ground for White Christian Nationalism.

Partial disclosure: I have never prayed all that often, and have not meditated in years.

Maybe so, maybe not. Meditation toward God might be indistinguishable from prayer toward God. If not toward God, then toward the ineffable.

Prayer can and maybe should be more than a shopping list of wishes and needs--depending on the religious sophistication of the person praying. "Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz" is not what I would call a worthy prayer. (Sorry, Ms. Joplin). I'm not Catholic, but I gather that people sometimes say the Rosary in a quite perfunctory manner, though that's only external appearances. The prayer series may help them in a meditative or prayerful way.

Prayer should certainly not be transactional -- "Dear God, IF I do not fornicate with (list names, even though the omnipresent God will be there each time) this week, would you send $3,000 for me to make the overdue mortgage payments?" Does God make deals like Donald? Does God care $3000 whether you fornicate with (list names) or not? Would God be moved by a successful henceforth and forever more vow of chastity? Perhaps your forfeiting the house to the bank is part of God's plan? Maybe He is making arrangements to house a homeless immigrant family? You want to help God, don't you?

Fortunately for our earthly reputations, most of pray silently, so we aren't leaving behind a string of public confessions.

I don't know how many people meditate for "spiritual" purposes. I found mediation most useful for maintaining mental health.

There are monks and nuns who pray for a living. They do pray for specific needs (usually not their own, but on behalf of others) and I gather that they pray toward God.

BTW, from my limited experience I find somebody else's prayers perfectly fine. If the Psalms have been in use for thousands of years, it's because they are effective--for us, especially.

Thank you for the post. White Christian Nationalism (WCN) may or may not be the harbinger of a future fascist United States, but if such a thing should happen, WCN will definitely be on the reviewing stand as the Männerbund stomps past singing

… In our own towns, we're foreigners now
Our names are spat and cursed
The headline smack, of another attack
Not the last, and not the worst
Oh my fathers, they look down on me
I wonder what they feel
To see their noble sons driven down beneath a cowards heel

Oh by God we'll have our home again...

Church and state can be, and have been kept separate a good share of the time (IMHO). What can't be, and hasn't been, kept separate are religious and secular cultural drivers. Sometimes that is a very positive thing -- think of the mix of religious and secular impulses in the mid-20th century civil rights movement. There is a long history of the religious-secular mix, from the Puritans to the present.

Add racism, nationalism, testosterone, resentment, etc., and you have a highly toxic brew.

I agree that there are very conservative Christian denominations and congregations that are hotbeds of authoritarianism. A lot of them are charismatic / evangelical. But the term "evangelical" also applies to mainline Lutherans, (it's part of their official name), who are far from WCN.

Prayer breakfasts at the White House are an abomination, for sure, and we should remember Jefferson's statement, "Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

Next Monday, I will continue explaining my view of the remaining tendencies of the System Earth — Seeker25

It isn't that the cosmos, and all it contains, isn't "beautiful". The problem (for us, not the cosmos) is that defining beauty and applying the term is a human activity. Now, humans are part of nature, sure nuff, but it is our sole unique position (as far as I know) to be able to reflect upon the cosmos. That sort of puts us momentarily apart from the cosmos.

You mentioned rot and decay. There are some really beautiful fungi, and some really ugly ones. Some glow in the dark. A young wood-shelf fungus I have seen start out as a bright cadmium yellow. On the other hand, corn smut is pretty ugly -- a big malignant black blob on an ear of corn, for instance.

"Awe" and "awesome" have been lost to slang, but much of what we might call "beautiful" is terrible and "awesome" meaning reverence mixed with fear and wonder. A supernova would be awesome, fearsome, wondrous and beautiful. That's where our personal atoms were created. A supernova is cool as long as we are not there when it happens. The kill zone of a supernova is between 100 and 160 light years across. So, at a great distance, supernovae are really cool. Get too close and it's sic transit gloria mundi.

Black holes are terrible, awesome, and amazing -- but maybe not beautiful. We can't see them directly after all.

I value freedom most highly. Depending on how you look at determinism, the universe may decide what we are going to do, whether we think we are in control or not. Conversely, maybe one thinks one has freedom, the universe be damned. I seem to be a compatibilist on the question of free will and moral responsibility.

The system has progressively generated intelligence. At the beginning it did not exist, but science shows us that living beings have gradually acquired different degrees of intelligence, and we also know that in humans it reaches its highest concentration. — Seeker25

An interesting side issue: Nature has developed many different modes of intelligence, one of which is ours. But birds (descendants of dinosaurs), animals that live in packs, sea creatures (thinking of octopuses) and even insects have highly effective intelligence--for their unique purposes. That goes for us, too. Intelligence abounds.

All this has been a very good discussion. I appreciate your views --they resemble the sorts of ideas I entertained when I was much younger. I guess I have gotten more reductionist over time.

A) that it does not end abruptly (for example, through a nuclear war or catastrophic climate overheating), and B) that life is not a continuous source of suffering for millions of people. — Seeker25

Both are difficult, but eminently worthwhile and do-able. Maybe we could say B) that CIVILIZATION (such as it is) not be a continuous source of suffering...

Famine, for instance, usually has political causes -- Sudan, for example, or Gaza.

A propensity for life; diversity; fragile and ephemeral life; beauty; balance; freedom; intelligence; socialization; mutual dependence; complexity; and consciousness — Seeker25

I agree with the first three items, plus balance. But 'beauty, freedom; intelligence; socialization; mutual dependence; complexity; and consciousness' are, in my opinion, NOT part of earth-trends. They belong to the sphere of human activity, and of course are also eminently worthwhile.

"Earth-trends" is your term, and you define it more inclusively than I would. We may not be able to agree on the fine print, but I seems like we are both on the same side.

We possess enormous capabilities that allow us to determine what kind of world we want and, if we choose, how to adapt it to the Earth system of which we are a part. — Seeker25

One of the things that emerged from our evolutionary progress is hubris.

On the contrary, they can imagine long-term futures, reconciling them with collective interests, and devising ways to act accordingly. — Seeker25

We can certainly imagine long term futures. Science fiction writers do a handsome job of this.

Let's say there were clear predictions in 1976 that the level of atmospheric CO2, methane, and other green house gases was expected to reach reach high enough levels to begin producing significant climate / weather changes by 2026. Whatever level was reached in 2026 would not be a peak. In 2026 we know that the greenhouse gas levels continue to rise and whatever consequences will derive from these gas levels will last far into the future (because greenhouse gases are long-lasting).

Did the ordinary people of the earth do much about global warming? Did governmental leaders, possessing considerable power, do much about global warming? Did the leaders of various industries who manufacture greenhouse gases (directly or indirectly) change any company policy? Did I, an ecologically concerned guy, change my diet to cut greenhouse gases? Did you? Did you do everything you could to assure a future for you, your siblings, you children, and your friends?

The answer to these questions is almost certainly "NO" in all cases. Why?

In 2026, the industrialized countries of the planet have not accomplished much in the way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They have met, made earnest speeches, signed treaties, and so on but nothing much has resulted. The main reason is that reducing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is highly inconvenient (it really is), it involves uncomfortable changes in life-style, (it really does), and it will cost a lot of money (it's expensive). AND we who will be the first to experience the inconvenience, the discomfort, and the cost will not see much benefit. The people who will see the benefit of our efforts haven't been born yet.

We may not agree about this, but I don't believe we are actually able to make major sacrifices for people who are not born yet. When we benefit future people, it is usually after we have benefitted ourselves. Hoover Dam was finished in 1936. It benefitted people right away. It still does.
We are still using the Brooklyn Bridge (1869), but it wasn't built for our benefit. it was built for the people who needed it in the 19th century.

Maybe there is not enough mass suffering for us to see the wisdom of working hard to eliminate greenhouse gas production. I know it is happening, but so far the climate in Minnesota has remained quite pleasant. People (with AC) still like living in awfully hot Phoenix, apparently.

Do you have thoughts about the end of our species? — frank

Damned if I know.

The major extinction events were the result of external catastrophic events. We could certainly have one of those -- a big rock hitting earth or a super volcano blowing, for example. Either of those could cause a precipitous drop in global temperature (sunlight greatly reduced by dust) long enough to starve us out along with a lot of other species.

We are a threat to ourselves. Global warming and nuclear war come to mind. The minds behind The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (thinking of their doomsday clock) are not optimistic about our future.

We should definitely face the possibility of extinction in order to protect ourselves from the delusion that we will just survive, no matter what. The space that was emptied in previous extinctions stayed empty. Chickadees are dinosaurs, but they are a far tweet from T-Rex. Our smart, conscious species might never be replicated. Mind might be gone forever if we are lost.

But who are we? We are not merely evolved animals that behave according to instinct, that is, beings that produce similar reactions in response to similar stimuli. — Seeker25

I think it was Richard Feynman (bongo-playing nuclear physicist) who said, "nothing is mere". We are evolved animals, and many animals who appear to run only on instinct have to operate in a real world where instinct is not enough. So do we.

Our brains are designed to operate in a similar way, and we see each other doing very similar things from infancy forward. If that is so, it takes nothing away from our uniqueness as a species or as individuals. Other species also have various kinds of intelligence, and must make choices -- even honey bees. Consciousness is something we apparently have. I am not sure that we can determine that no other species has it. Earth worms? Probably not. Dogs? I suspect (without knowing) that they may have some consciousness. Primates? Probably. Maybe elephants.

I like to emphasize that we are part of a continuum of life which has been created over a long period of time. Our evolutionary history is why "we are what we are" and every other species is what it is as well.

Given that the Earth system behaves in this way, do we truly believe that we can achieve stability and well-being by killing people and destroying habitats rather than preserving them; by allowing those with different skin colours to starve; or by imprisoning those who think differently? Do we really think that these ideas (simple to explain and justify) cannot be understood and supported by large segments of humanity? — Seeker25

One of the features which Mother Nature gave us (for reasons which she didn't explain to me) is a 5 generation attention span--at the very best--between our grandparents and our grandchildren--about 100 years. (That really is "at best". Way best.). A lot of us have difficulty laying out a 5 year plan. Hungry investors want to see bigger profits every 3 months. Football (baseball) fans can manage 3 or 4 hours of sustained attention. Politicians think in terms of 2, 4, or 6 year terms. Personally, in my old age I tend to think of a day or two ahead.

So, when it comes to the question of:

how much water we can safely pump out of an aquifer
how long will it take to pay off the national debt
how much soil can we afford to lose every year
should we build houses on this flood plain which has been dry for 40 years

and so on, we are totally out of our element. We just can't act over long time periods, most of the time. Sure, some people are good mid-range planners. Doctors, for instance, have to plan for 12 years of training to be a specialist. Oil company execs have to think about how long an oil well will be productive. But oil executives may be completely unable to think about the long-term consequences of burning the oil in the well.

Most of the time, most of us work with very short range plans, and feel we have to resolve our needs and wants in that short period of time. So, to use a current event, Donald Trump can't wait for diplomacy and negotiation to work out access to Greenland. No, we need to demand it RIGHT NOW. Vladimir Putin can't wait to work out some sort of security arrangement for Russia; he insisted on seizing bits of the Ukraine RIGHT NOW (starting with swiping Crimea 12 years ago).

We give lip service to peace and protecting earth's ecology. But when push comes to shove, peace and nature get tossed out the window. Why? Because our immediate concerns take precedence over more distant concerns (even if the consequences of ignoring ecology are grave). It's not that we are inherently evil, stupid, or insane. We simply are wired to prioritize the immediate over the distant when the immediate stakes are raised.

I don't like it, but that's the way it seems to be.

The “Earth system” to which we belong, generates life, diversity, intelligence, and other emergent properties. — Seeker25

As products of the earth system, we are what we are, for better and for worse. As you say, "The current state of the world is dangerous, generating instability and widespread human suffering." We are often authors of our own suffering--being what we are: primate descendants with a big brain and strong emotions. We can't help that we have the brainpower to carry out irrational (even insane) plans. We can't help it that our aspirations are not in sync across 8 billion people. The world at universal peace and contentment would require that we were in agreement about how to live good lives. It would require magnitudes of reduced friction in all aspects of life.

We being what we are, universal peace and contentment and friction free human interaction is remote, at best. That's unfortunate, but that is also reality.

life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom — Seeker25

I disagree with Schopenhauer: There is no swinging pendulum. Pain and boredom are not the sum of existence. There is also joy. happiness, sadness, pain, boredom, joy, grief, amusement, love, sex, indifference, hatred, longing, inspiration, brilliant insight, abysmal stupidity -- all manner of moods and modes make up the 'stew' of life.

We can understand ourselves fairly well -- but more understanding won't change us. We would just see our good, our bad, our ugly, and our beautiful with more clarity.

One of our several problems is that there are a lot of us, and we have difficulty staying out of each others way. But then, when there were only 250 million of us (about the year 1000 a.d.) we had the same kinds of problems we have now. So, fewer of us wouldn't make that much difference.

We may be doomed to suffer from our own faults, but we can do at least a little better.

As far as I can see, the Western democracy is mostly an illusion; the Western countries are ruled by the financial aristocracy. — Linkey

We aren't "ruled by the financial aristocracy"; we are ruled (so far) by civilian government. But as Marx said "The government is a committee for arranging the affairs of the bourgeoisie." So, a prime concern of the government has always been he needs and wishes of the wealthy class.

the workforce (labor) seems to have given up on fighting for stronger economic condition. — L'éléphant

It's less 'have given up' and much more "they've been defeated'. It is extremely difficult to overcome the legal barriers erected against unionization; equally difficult is attempting to organize a company when the workers are deluged by anti-union messaging and threats. Fewer and fewer workers have experienced work in an effectively unionized company.

Another barrier is cheap labor (unemployed people, immigrants--documented and not documented) are willing to work for less than the previously unionized workers were. For the newly hired striker-replacements, the lower wages paid are still a lot better than what they were getting at home south of the border.

I live in HCOL area, I just cannot understand how local governments can allow housing costs to go out of control without corresponding wages going out of control to match the housing costs. — L'éléphant

As far as I know, local governments usually do not have control over rental rates. It isn't just that they haven't tried; they can't. They have to be granted that power by their state legislature. Needless to add, property interests fight VERY hard against rent control.

For the most party, government does not have control over wages (except for their state employees). Not congress, not legislatures, not city councils lay out wage rates which companies have to pay.

Wages and rental rates are affected by labor markets and housing markets far, far more than any regulation.

we do not try to understand how our money held in banks and retirement accounts are being invested. — L'éléphant

Pretty much true. And we don't know enough to invest our own money in a complex equity markets.

The minimum wage is not a living wage. — L'éléphant

No kidding! $15k vs $90k.

The Federal Minimum Wage is absurdly low -- $7.25 per hour. That's about $15.000 per year, full time. Some states have set higher minimum wages. Minnesota's minimum wage is $11.41, almost $24,000 working full time. The minimum wage in Minneapolis is $$16.37, or a little over $34,000 a year. $34,000 might be ok for a frugal single person, but it certainly would not be much for a family of 4 (2 adults, 2 children) not matter how frugal they were. An estimated "living wage" in Minneapolis is considered to be about $43.11 per hour for a single earner supporting a family of four (2 adults, 2 children). That works out to be a little over $90,000 a year. $90k isn't luxuriant. A reasonably nice apartment for 4 people could easily cost $36,000 a year.

Five -- taxation of the wealthy the size of the galaxy. — L'éléphant

What is the size of the galaxy -- the wealth that isn't getting taxed or the state income if we taxed wealth at the formerly high rates?

Wait until you piss and shit your pants on a regular, or at least a semi-regular basis. — baker

Wow! So very glad you reminded me of that possibility.

Sticking with the OP topic of Technology and the future of Humanity...

Marx thought that the working class would acquire and use the technology of the capitalist class (owners and high level management) for their own benefit against the ruling class. The bourgeoisie would sell the rope with which the working class would hang them." They sold the "rope" but there haven't been many "hangings".

We (workers, 90% of the population) have acquired and adopted the technology, sure enough, but have mostly used it for personal goals -- entertainment, the home budget, sexual stimulation (porn), and so on--all good uses. True, resistance activities (such as organizing against ICE) do use tech resources effectively. But resistance activities are at this point a political niche activity.

Workers can use this technology to organize and form unions intended to give them power. — Athena

And capitalists can use this technology to subvert, prevent, and destroy worker organizations and unions, and they have -- quite effectively. It isn't just tech, though. Capitalists have been given effective legal tools to suppress workers.

Manipulation of public opinion doesn't depend on the latest AI. Joseph Goebbels did a fine job of it 90 years ago using old fashioned print, radio, and film. Because access to the traditional tools of communication [radio, television, film, print] are very asymmetric; and access to new communication tools [internet, chat apps, and so on] are democratically accessible, they are also highly dispersed. It's difficult to locate one's desired audience. Well funded users can swamp the population with a particular bias.

How AI is going to figure into this discussion is a bit unclear, to me anyway.

One of the great fears that haunt me is that ecological disaster will overtake technological and economic predictions and render them irrelevant. A heating climate, rising oceans, erratic weather events, unorganized population displacement, food production crises, and so on. It isn't that I expect the human species to be wiped out, but the carrying capacity of the planet could fall enough that all social, economic, cultural, military, political bets are off.

I'll be 80 this year; I won't be around to find out what happens by 2050, or 2100, but billions of other people will be.

Investors, capitalists, techno-optimists have a lot of faith that new technology will solve the problems of global warming, and produce an economic boom too. I'm not confident at all that there is any sort of technological fix in the offing.

And finally, humans themselves. What should they do? What should they do? Even in everyday life, machines already do our laundry, robot vacuums, and so on. — Astorre

I am grateful that I don't have to do my laundry by hand, beating it on rocks in the river.

Were I 18 instead of 80 this year, I am not sure what it is that I should/would/could expect for my future. I don't know what I would recommend to an 18 year old who wanted to find the best way forward for himself.

I'm not sure what I would advise my species to do, either. There may be ways to roll back global warming, but the fixes might be as intolerable as the problems. We should immediate cut consumption of resources in food production, clothing, housing, transportation, and so on. Mass transit instead of individual vehicles; apartments over individual houses; far less clothing production (both natural and petroleum based fibers); much less meat production; produce far less plastic; leave the oil in the ground, along with coal; refrain from introducing technologies which render large numbers of workers irrelevant--and so on.

I don't see any of this happening voluntarily. We'll stop producing steak when there isn't enough corn and wheat to feed us, just for example.

We need to replace the autocratic industrial order with a democratic order and return to education for democracy. — Athena

That's why I support "industrial democracy" and socialism. I'm not optimistic about the working class (90% of the population) self-organizing in the near or intermediate future. Provided that we did self-organize, the new order would replace fake democracy and autocratic control with democratic ownership and management of the economy. Don't ask! Nobody has worked out the details of how that would work. I believe it can work, will work; but 300 years of the capitalist management since the Industrial Revolution hasn't paved the way. Ursula Le Guin proposed a radical anarchism in The Dispossessed (a great sci-fi novel).

Right, the 9 Nations of North America -- one of which is Cascadia.

Another nation is the morally upright Yankeedom, which extends in a gerrymandered state from New England to Minnesota, leaving out large parts of PA, NY, OH, MI, IN, IL, WI, and MN. It isn't that the areas not included in Yankeedom are shameless immoral shit holes, or something; they just have different affinities.

But to be fair, there are pockets of shameless immoral shit holes which are close to, but aren't appropriate for Yankeedom--like southern Ohio, Illinois and Indiana. In the same way that Idaho, Wyoming, and Eastern Oregon / Washington have more in common than Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver have. Yeah, you don't need Los Angeles.

We Minnesotans are fond of our map's shape so we would regret losing Lake of the Woods. In the bigger picture, though, the southern 70 miles of Vancouver are undoubtedly worth a lot more than Lake of the Woods, which is just one more lake among many. It would be a good deal for the US. Vancouverians probably like the shape of their map too, so they'd be unhappy. In the end, it doesn't matter, since when we take over Canada, all of Vancouver will be ours, and maybe Minnesota and Manitoba will be merged. We'll lose our little chimney up there.

Hands off Greenland. And Canada, too.

if we simply start handing out money to people simply for living, inflation will instantly reduce this money to nothing. — Astorre

Is this true? Maybe not.

We already do hand out billions of dollars to people, actually. Welfare payments, social security, retirement (especially from under funded plans), unemployment, and so on. Inflation does occur, but government remittances aren't the only factor.

I don't know whether a guaranteed basic income for everyone would be highly inflationary or not; would it not depend on the size of these payments? Sure, a million bucks for everyone all at once would be intensely inflationary, but that's not likely to be the case. More likely is that the basic income would be closer to "not enough to live on, but a little too much to die" -- subsistence, in other words.

At any rate, I agree with you: rendering the working class redundant -- 90%+ of the population -- would be a species-wide catastrophe.

I've done tedious white collar work which I thought a computer really should be doing. On the other hand, it paid the rent. But the fact is that the working class has not seized control of the economy in order to protect itself.

That’s not to say it doesn’t squash people sometimes — T Clark

That's what our system of squash courts are for: upholding morality.

The Left are to blame for this because they prioritized corporate controlled identitarian politics, to make everybody fake and gay, over their older anti-corporate economic policy. All genuinely anti-corporate thought has been pushed out of the American Left ever since it was discovered how easily identitarian politics could transform dangerous left wing movements into becoming financially non-threatening. — BenMcLean

Right. "The only war is the class war" is probably incomprehensible now. Instead of the middle class constituting maybe 10% of the population, its membership is now stretched to 80%. I'm not sure how many people are aware of how dominant the "1/10 of 1%" at the top are. Working class? It's almost a slur.

I'm gay and it is a critical part of my identity. I'm also white; protestant; sort of educated (2 degrees not all that substantial); midwestern; retired; a socialist (pre-Bernie); classical music fan; history buff, and so on. All that is peripheral. Being a wage slave (that is, dependent on a job with a regular paycheck to survive) trumps everything else. None of my peripheral characteristics paid the rent. Being trans gendered; black, hispanic, asian, Native American, physically or mentally handicapped, autistic, dyslexic, neurotic, and everything else are very important to the individual possessors of these characteristics, but are peripheral the class war, which is the only war, so the slogan goes.

So yes, the politics of personal identity is a waste of time and very misleading. It might make one feel better in the short run, but it won't / can't change the way wealth and power are distributed.

there does need to be some limiting principle on how far to the economic Left I need to go in order to avoid Soviet style tyranny — BenMcLean

Try 'democratic socialism'. It's Marx with an emphasis on using democratic ways and means to replace capitalism. Does it work? I don't know -- it's a long game. Time will tell, but we certainly don't need more dictatorships.

we have not seen any progress in philosophy or in the arts for the past 50 years — magritte

For sarcasm I want to say it's been a lot longer than 50 years, but never mind that.

What would "progress in the arts" look or sound like? Same for philosophy. People are still debating Plato, for Aristotle's sake.

I'm not sure 'the arts' can 'progress'. A poem by Chaucer, Shakespeare, Keates, or Billy Collins, or you or me, is successful if it resonates with its contemporary audience, for whom it was written. Whether it resonates 500 years later is the responsibility of successive generations, not the original poet.

Filippo Brunelleschi (1377–1446) reintroduced linear perspective in drawing. That might be called progress. I'm not sure whether abstract expressionism is progress. (I like Pollock, for example) but are his works "progress"? I don't know. Must it be "progress?

All sorts of formal and informal musical styles flourished in the 20th century -- some of it minimalist, some of it very harsh, and some of it exquisitely beautiful. Progress? I don't know, but I like a lot of it.

It seems like in the arts "there is nothing new under the sun". True, between the medieval period and the present many new instruments have been introduced that didn't exist before (like the Theremin). I'm very glad the piano was a big success; it has useful features which harpsichords lack (like volume). But music is like poetry -- it has to please its immediate audience. Tastes change (do they progress?) and last year's opera hit is this year's opera bust.

I'm not sure we need to call every variation or invention in technology "progress" either. Computers were "progress". I'm not at all sure AI is progress. Airplanes were progress, perhaps; I don't think supersonic missiles are progress. Are mobile phones progress? Just about everything they do are things that other gadgets do -- cameras, telephones, radios, televisions, computers, etc. The "mobile" part might be progress. And miniaturization, We wouldn't like Apple's latest phone if we had to wheel it around in a heavy-duty cart.

Uhh ... no? Did you get that backwards? — BenMcLean

No. I was joking about space porn (AI will do the trick) but not about pregnancy.

We animals won't be going on multi-generational travels in anything but the remote future, if ever. We won't be going on months or a years-long trip anywhere unless we solve the problem of being bathed in ionizing radiation. It isn't just pregnancy that would be at risk -- the DNA in our animal cells would be at risk.

Maybe the radiation problem will be solved in an affordable manner; maybe not--I don't know.

Extra-solar system travel is pretty much out of the question owing to physics. We just can't get to the nearest star system (unless "worm hole shortcuts" appear) in any time short of many years. How about to a moon of an outer planet? That takes from 1 to 7 years, depending on destination, path, and planetary slingshot assists one might make. Getting back to earth is not something an unmanned spaceship has done; a human flight might be a one-way trip.

I love good science fiction, but in that genre all the problems of space travel have been miraculously solved--which is perfectly fine because it IS fiction, after all.

I think the concept of humans moving off planet is exciting, progressive and morally valuable (in the sense of morale, not morality as such). — AmadeusD

Sure; I'm proud to belong to the species that sent Voyageur beyond the solar system (and it's still ticking 50 years on). I'd be proud if we could and did establish successful stations on the Moon and Mars. I would not be so proud if a moon base just operated for PR purposes, and I wouldn't be thrilled IF a multiyear effort to establish a station on Mars ended in crashes, dead astronauts, and trillions of of wasted dollars (or Euros or any other currency). And there needs to be some real point to establishing these bases. If we can't manage to survive on a planet to which we are suited, it seems even less likely that we would survive or thrive on a planet to which we are NOT suited.

Sex in space absolutely needs to be explored for strictly pornographic purposes. Pregnancy in space we can do without.

Yes, we have proved that we can operate in near earth orbit, and that we can manage to send a very small number of people to the moon. Other than collecting moon rocks and bringing them back, I don't know of anything significant that the Apollo missions accomplished (other than bragging rights).

There are several problems with manned operations in space:

It's very expensive. We have more pressing problems which are also extremely expensive to solve.
There is a lot of radiation out there, and short of heavy shielding (even more cost), it's an unsuitable environment for animals.
Getting to destinations like Mars takes a long time. Establishing a real working base for asteroid mining would require many trips ($$$$$) and what could possibly go wrong?

IMHO, our best bet is using robotics. If robots can't do it, then it probably won't get done.

If a meteor needs to be deflected from a collision trajectory, a robotic mission will probably be faster, cheaper, and better than sending out some guys to blow it up. Orbiting manned vehicles are sitting ducks for easy destruction. A few bullets through the skin of the vehicle and PFFFT -- the whole thing is kaput. Better to have no military operations in space, but if we must, durable robotic equipment would probably be better.

are there any real good reasons to spend millions and millions of dollars on manned spaceflight? — an-salad

A "good reason" for manned spaceflight is that a given scientific enquiry can not be performed by remote equipment. For instance...

Robotic equipment can't tell us about the long-term effects of being in zero-gravity. We might want to have space stations orbiting the earth, and if we do, we need to know what zero-gravity will do to people on board. On the other hand, robotic equipment (satellites, rovers, etc.) have done a fine job on Mars. A manned exploration of Mars might be better than a robotic one, but not so much better to justify the high cost and extreme risks of sending people there.

Except for near orbit work and a few trips to the moon, everything we have done in space was done by unmanned mechanical devices (like Voyager, launched in 1977 and now beyond the far reaches of the solar system) or the successful comet sampling projects like STARDUST (NASA) and CAESAR (ESA).

It seems like manned space travel for research has been mostly unnecessary or impossible.

It's been a very long time since I read Milton; I just plugged 1 stanza into Google Search and copied/pasted what it spit out. I was surprised by what it put at the top of the results (pasted above). I'm afraid I'm one of those modern readers who lost the taste for very long difficult poetry -- or very long difficult prose, for that matter. As soon as they become available, I'll buy a set of those literature chips that are implanted in the brain, allowing the transfer of long texts (like all of Dryden or Milton) into one's memory without having to spend weeks actually reading the tedious texts. I hope they work in 80 year old brains.

AI Overview
The verse provided is from the poem "Paradise is not Lost", attributed to an author using the pseudonym Ecurb (which appears to be "Bruce" spelled backward).
The full poem was shared in a 2023 discussion thread on The Philosophy Forum:
The poem explores a reimagining of the traditional biblical narrative of Eve in the Garden of Eden. It suggests that when Eve was cast out of Paradise, she took with her not just the forbidden fruit, but also a multitude of plants and flowers from the garden, bringing the Earth's variety of flora into existence. The full poem can be found in the referenced document.
Paradise is not Lost - The Philosophy Forum
3m. PoeticUniverse. 1.7k. "The world was all before them..." Was paradise lost? Or gained? — Ecurb. With flora mystical and magica...

The Philosophy Forum
Paradise Lost | Summary & Facts | Britannica
Dec 1, 2025 — John Milton (born December 9, 1608, London, England—died November 8?, 1674, London?) was an English poet, pamphleteer, ...

Encyclopedia Britannica

Paradise Lost: Book 1 (1674 version) | The Poetry Foundation
O how unlike the place from whence they fell! Breaking the horrid silence thus began. In dubious Battel on the Plains of Heav'n, A...

Poetry Foundation

Show all

I guess the big elephant in the room I haven't talked about is immigration — BenMcLean

I have a non-socialist, non-leftist, non-progressive view: Sovereign states are obligated to control their borders. First, for the protection and security of its citizens, second, for the protection and security of its neighbors (also sovereign states). Uncontrolled immigration allows individuals from other countries to make policy on the hoof. A handful of unauthorized immigrants might have a negligible effect on society; 14,000,000 unauthorized immigrants is another matter altogether, having large consequences for citizens and governments at all levels.

Can they be removed? They can, of course. It's possible. The question is whether the citizens have the stomach for the kind of enforcement that would be required to expel large numbers of unauthorized immigrants from the country. I have no enthusiasm for mass roundups. So far, many Americans have found roundups, detention centers, and expulsions quite unappetizing when they shift from the abstract to the concrete. Then there are the militant pro-immigration groups who agitate against ICE enforcement. Besides that, ICE is hardly a sympathy-generating organization.

Besides removal, there is the matter of the economy. Immigrants become an important part of local and national economies--not altogether positive. A large number of unauthorized immigrant-workers willing to work at substantially lower wages than America citizens, undermines wages. It depends on whose ox is getting gored. Companies employing cheap labor don't complain.

On a global level, millions of people are already on the move, from areas of less opportunity and less favorable conditions to places where they can hope for better--like it or not. Managing global population movement is something that no government has tackled, other than to maintain tight borders.