NationStates Jolt Archive

With the growing influence of the idea of humanism in our ethos of economics and social interaction, the need for competitive development lessens more and more. As we see society beginning to discover - indeed rediscover - the benifits mutual cooperation as part of, and not in spite of, our individual economic development; this decade's mega-billion-dollar industries are becoming increasingly driven by volenteerism and this renewed commitment to mutual development. The sheer voracity with which individuals persue such mutal projects, such as You Tube, Wikipedia and the growing store of human knowledge available online, indicates a growing trend towards contributing to the global human race as a society, and recognising an individual's role in advancing that society, and not merely advancing themselves. This is not an end to the individual as a single unit within society, with its own unique goals, aspirations, achievements and failures, but rather an acceptance that each unit contributes to the long-term survival and advancement of our entire race, as one united community. The waining influence of competitiveness is seen as individuals become less and less focussed on material and individual gains and return to focus on the development and preservation of our physicial, spiritual, mental and political wellbeing. It is increasingly apparent that the next stage in our evolution is not a physical one, but rather a revolution of thought, a return - if you will - to the idea of community, globally.

That doesn't really work for me. I'll remain part of that percentage of humanity that is primarily motivated by self-interest.

And besides, one of the founders of wiki is an Objectivist, and the guys who started youtube are billionaires now.

Find me a free porn site and I might listen until then I ask you to keep in mind your posting on a forum paid by book sales and jolt advertising

while it's true that many people become more social and group oriented i fear it won't end capitalism. the most it will probably do is change marketing. like a lot of companies start blogs and forums on their site for instance (wasn't this site/community started to promote that book?).

Find me a free porn site and I might listen

There are plenty...

That doesn't really work for me. I'll remain part of that percentage of humanity that is primarily motivated by self-interest.

And besides, one of the founders of wiki is an Objectivist, and the guys who started youtube are billionaires now.
Yeah, same here.

By the way, grats on 10,000 posts.
but rather an acceptance that each unit contributes to the long-term survival and advancement of our entire race, as one united community
*snickers*
No, I don't really see that when I watch most YouTube videos.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Nobody is using youtube to better the world, most of them are doing it out of a thirst for the self-aggrandizement that comes from having millions of people watch you make a jack-ass out of yourself.
The rest are simply distributing other people's work that they don't have a legal right to anyway, hardly a great step forward for humanity.

And if your great, new future is going to be dominated by the sort of people who dominate wikipedia, I think I'd rather die.

I've used Wikipedia and YouTube before, and I didn't do it because I wanted to act on the behalf of the Borg collective. It was all about me.

you know what the guys who created Youtube did with it, right?

They sold it.

Haha, no.

Im sure ten thousand tiny violins are playing for you somewhere, OP.

One of the major drivers behind the emergence of open-source and collaborative media in the past few years is the fact that it's extremely profitable for its founders. These projects themselves are invaluable contributions to society and our culture, but we have to remember that money still has to be a driving force; you can't maintain a website without money, and you can't support a growing amount of information without money.

The difference is mainly that the sources of revenue are shifting from user fees to advertisement and venture capital; it's a more voluntary source of revenue, of course, but it's still motivated by the same profit drive and return on capital as previous methods of funding.

a growing trend towards contributing to the global human race as a society, and recognising an individual's role in advancing that society, and not merely advancing themselves.
But why would any rational human care about the society independent of their own needs?
This is not an end to the individual as a single unit within society, with its own unique goals, aspirations, achievements and failures, but rather an acceptance that each unit contributes to the long-term survival and advancement of our entire race, as one united community.
If this were actually to happen, each member of the community would have to care more about the community than for his own welfare. Can you explain why that might ever be true for anyone, let alone everyone?

That doesn't really work for me. I'll remain part of that percentage of humanity that is primarily motivated by self-interest.

And besides, one of the founders of wiki is an Objectivist, and the guys who started youtube are billionaires now.
Pretty much the same here. The sheep can be driven straight to the sacrificial altar. I wish people would stop confusing evolutions in how the market operates for the "end of capitalism"... Internet websites still exist on scarce means, which are inevitably paid for via advertising, contributions etc (so no, it is not being provided for free).

Nobody is using youtube to better the world, most of them are doing it out of a thirst for the self-aggrandizement that comes from having millions of people watch you make a jack-ass out of yourself.
The rest are simply distributing other people's work that they don't have a legal right to anyway, hardly a great step forward for humanity.
Indeed. It's merely a novel form of demand to capitalize on. And then, of course, we have xtube which allows a lot of free material, but requires payment for the better stuff.

And if your great, new future is going to be dominated by the sort of people who dominate wikipedia, I think I'd rather die.
Taking the easy way out? :)

But why would any rational human care about the society independent of their own needs?

Because all of society needs to be healthy for any of society to be healthy, in the long run. The same thing applies to the biosphere. NIMBYism and self-centeredness don't solve any problems.

I think that capitalism will not be destroyed by the individualist revolution of the internet, but it will be radically transformed. Giant corporations will be weakened and small business will become much more viable as competition is no longer limited by locational availability, as virtually anyone can shop virtually anywhere (for many sectors of the retail economy; certain things like groceries and services will still have to be localized). The whole system will become more democratic, more responsive, and more responsible. It will make it easier for consumers to insist on better corporate practices, for example.

I think that capitalism will not be destroyed by the individualist revolution of the internet, but it will be radically transformed. Giant corporations will be weakened and small business will become much more viable as competition is no longer limited by locational availability, as virtually anyone can shop virtually anywhere (for many sectors of the retail economy; certain things like groceries and services will still have to be localized). The whole system will become more democratic, more responsive, and more responsible. It will make it easier for consumers to insist on better corporate practices, for example.
It is true that perfect competition is much easier online that it would be in normal circumstances. This will not apply to the market on the whole, but e-commerce will definitely serve to make markets less concentrated as, amongst other things it a) lowers barriers to entry and b) makes information readily available. This, however, will certainly not undermine capitalism. It will make it more robust, if anything...

It is true that perfect competition is much easier online that it would be in normal circumstances. This will not apply to the market on the whole, but e-commerce will definitely serve to make markets less concentrated as, amongst other things it a) lowers barriers to entry and b) makes information readily available. This, however, will certainly not undermine capitalism. It will make it more robust, if anything...

Don't kid yourself. The internet is quickly becoming just as concentrated as the rest of the world. Though the barriers to entry were relatively low to start with, they are very quickly becoming much larger. On top of that, the excessive expansion of "intellectual property rights" is greatly slowing the flow of information through the creation of monopoly rights.

On top of that, the excessive expansion of "intellectual property rights" is greatly slowing the flow of information through the creation of monopoly rights.
Yeah, I'm not too friendly with a lot of those.

Yeah, I'm not too friendly with a lot of those.

Ask anyone under the age of 25 and they'll agree with you. But, unfortunately, people under 25 don't run the show. Makes me wonder how the next 20 years of political evolution will turn out. We'll probably have a video gamer in the White House. That'll be interesting...

Ask anyone under the age of 25 and they'll agree with you. But, unfortunately, people under 25 don't run the show. Makes me wonder how the next 20 years of political evolution will turn out. We'll probably have a video gamer in the White House. That'll be interesting...
Not just under 25 - I'm in contact with some of the more prolific libertarians, and IP is not too popular amongst such circles either. Unfortunately, the mainstream thinks otherwise. I find it funny how people like Hillary Clinton feel the need to embark on crusades against video games. :)

Not just under 25 - I'm in contact with some of the more prolific libertarians, and IP is not too popular amongst such circles either. Unfortunately, the mainstream thinks otherwise.

Well, at least we can agree on somethin...

Wait a minute! what's that rumbling noise! ZOMG, the Apocalypse is coming! ;)

We’ll probably have a video gamer in the White House. That’ll be interesting...
As long as they’re a Nintendo fanboi/girl, I’m fine with that.

Nobody is using youtube to better the world, most of them are doing it out of a thirst for the self-aggrandizement that comes from having millions of people watch you make a jack-ass out of yourself.
The rest are simply distributing other people's work that they don't have a legal right to anyway, hardly a great step forward for humanity.

And if your great, new future is going to be dominated by the sort of people who dominate wikipedia, I think I'd rather die.

Actually, there are many videos on YouTube that are designed to better the world, and the people in it. For instance, there are numurous campaigns centred around ecouraging eating disorder recovery. There are also many texts (not just on YouTube, but also communities, blogs and websites) that promote healthy body image. I can admit that there is a lot of propaganda and bullshit out there, but among it, you must realise that there are good people, trying to make the world a better place. It's not just eating disorders that are focused on, there are also anti-racism, anti-war, pro-choice, and other beautiful videos that I've encountered. Perhaps you should research before you comment.
-- Knowyourright. (Using Rotovia's account, because I sleep with him, haha.)

Ask anyone under the age of 25 and they'll agree with you. But, unfortunately, people under 25 don't run the show. Makes me wonder how the next 20 years of political evolution will turn out. We'll probably have a video gamer in the White House. That'll be interesting...

People under 25 don't run the show? Puh-lease...
If you haven't realised that the "children are the future" yet, allow me to re-itterate.

Children are the future.

If we excluding under 25s from the picture, we're stopping the world in its tracks. You're just bitter because you're old, am I right?
--Knowyourright (using Rotovia's account)

Ahahaha! Communism! Hooorrraaaahhhh!

Perhaps you should research before you comment.
-- Knowyourright. (Using Rotovia's account, because I sleep with him, haha.)

H N... research?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Find me a free porn site and I might listen

http://www.nationstates.net

Here Here!

Because all of society needs to be healthy for any of society to be healthy, in the long run. The same thing applies to the biosphere. NIMBYism and self-centeredness don't solve any problems.
Demonstrably false. The biosphere, for instance, operates almost entirely on self-interest. Because of this the biosphere, like the market, favors the "best" (most successful) and insures that the worst won't really be given as much a chance to influence things. This, in the long run, must logically create the best society. And stating that something is good for society is just stupid because society isn't able to be good or bad, it's just able to be.

I think that capitalism will not be destroyed by the individualist revolution of the internet, but it will be radically transformed. Giant corporations will be weakened and small business will become much more viable as competition is no longer limited by locational availability, as virtually anyone can shop virtually anywhere (for many sectors of the retail economy; certain things like groceries and services will still have to be localized). The whole system will become more democratic, more responsive, and more responsible. It will make it easier for consumers to insist on better corporate practices, for example.
Capitalism is completely entwined with individualism, and small businesses are probably the most vital part of the system.

Actually, there are many videos on YouTube that are designed to better the world, and the people in it. For instance, there are numurous campaigns centred around ecouraging eating disorder recovery. There are also many texts (not just on YouTube, but also communities, blogs and websites) that promote healthy body image. I can admit that there is a lot of propaganda and bullshit out there, but among it, you must realise that there are good people, trying to make the world a better place. It's not just eating disorders that are focused on, there are also anti-racism, anti-war, pro-choice, and other beautiful videos that I've encountered. Perhaps you should research before you comment.
-- Knowyourright. (Using Rotovia's account, because I sleep with him, haha.)

No one cares.

Honestly, its an illogical argument to say that the Internet will spearhead some kind of glorious social revolution. For most people globally, the internet is a novelty, for most people in the developed world it is merely a tool. Capitalism is going away any time soon.

Because all of society needs to be healthy for any of society to be healthy, in the long run. The same thing applies to the biosphere. NIMBYism and self-centeredness don't solve any problems.
That's not independent of the individual's needs. You're still appealing to enlightened self-interest.

Perhaps you should research before you comment.
-- Knowyourright. (Using Rotovia's account, because I sleep with him, haha.)
I have poked through YouTube in the past (that is, after all, how I know about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFbEBVuVHZc)), and while there might be some altruistic minority on YouTube, they're no more prevalent than you'd find in any other community.
Of course, if you're really determined to prove otherwise, we could have a contest. For every socially redeeming video or Wiki-entry you find, I can bring 10 4000 word entries about Knuckles the Echidna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuckles_the_Echidna) or videos of beer-can catapults.

With the growing influence of the idea of humanism in our ethos of economics and social interaction, the need for competitive development lessens more and more. As we see society beginning to discover - indeed rediscover - the benifits mutual cooperation as part of, and not in spite of, our individual economic development; this decade's mega-billion-dollar industries are becoming increasingly driven by volenteerism and this renewed commitment to mutual development. The sheer voracity with which individuals persue such mutal projects, such as You Tube, Wikipedia and the growing store of human knowledge available online, indicates a growing trend towards contributing to the global human race as a society, and recognising an individual's role in advancing that society, and not merely advancing themselves. This is not an end to the individual as a single unit within society, with its own unique goals, aspirations, achievements and failures, but rather an acceptance that each unit contributes to the long-term survival and advancement of our entire race, as one united community. The waining influence of competitiveness is seen as individuals become less and less focussed on material and individual gains and return to focus on the development and preservation of our physicial, spiritual, mental and political wellbeing. It is increasingly apparent that the next stage in our evolution is not a physical one, but rather a revolution of thought, a return - if you will - to the idea of community, globally.

I fear that even if you are right -- and we won't know if you are for another 10 years -- it will be to the detriment of society. Ideas and individuals are improved the most rapidly and the greatest amount when fired in the heat of conflict. While unadulterated intellectual war may not be desirable, cooperation is most definitely inferior to regulated and contained conflict.

With the growing influence of the idea of humanism in our ethos of economics and social interaction, the need for competitive development lessens more and more. As we see society beginning to discover - indeed rediscover - the benifits mutual cooperation as part of, and not in spite of, our individual economic development; this decade's mega-billion-dollar industries are becoming increasingly driven by volenteerism and this renewed commitment to mutual development. The sheer voracity with which individuals persue such mutal projects, such as You Tube, Wikipedia and the growing store of human knowledge available online, indicates a growing trend towards contributing to the global human race as a society, and recognising an individual's role in advancing that society, and not merely advancing themselves. This is not an end to the individual as a single unit within society, with its own unique goals, aspirations, achievements and failures, but rather an acceptance that each unit contributes to the long-term survival and advancement of our entire race, as one united community. The waining influence of competitiveness is seen as individuals become less and less focussed on material and individual gains and return to focus on the development and preservation of our physicial, spiritual, mental and political wellbeing. It is increasingly apparent that the next stage in our evolution is not a physical one, but rather a revolution of thought, a return - if you will - to the idea of community, globally.

All I see on wikipedia and Youtube are flame wars and cam whores, both of them fueled by self-centered attitudes.

I have poked through YouTube in the past (that is, after all, how I know about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFbEBVuVHZc)), and while there might be some altruistic minority on YouTube, they're no more prevalent than you'd find in any other community.
Of course, if you're really determined to prove otherwise, we could have a contest. For every socially redeeming video or Wiki-entry you find, I can bring 10 4000 word entries about Knuckles the Echidna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuckles_the_Echidna) or videos of beer-can catapults.

Don't forget the daily blogs of whining adolescent teens.

Capitalism is going away any time soon.

Karl Marx made the exact same claim 159 years ago and guess what... He's dead!:D

capitalism will not crumble until it has gone entirely awry (i.e Facism), and then at that point revolution will occur and shift the scope of world politics, most likely to anarcho capitalism or democratic socialism.

yet most of the things in our society, like 99%, are created through competition for demand and profit. i see it far from failing

Karl Marx made the exact same claim 159 years ago and guess what... He's dead!:D
I think Greeyenivol meant to say "isn't going away...", otherwise his sentence structure makes no sense.