Random Thread

[zompist]

While we're picking on socialist SF writers, here's one case I just noticed. In The Dispossessed, the scientist hero, Shevek has a hard time on Anarres because his scientific pursuits are inherently individualistic. But Le Guin is just going with our cultural expectation of the scientists as a lone genius there, and that particular expectation is a myth, with no basis in fact: scientific research is really a matter of teamwork. There's no way a lone genius could come up with the Grand Theory of Everything (a scientific commune run on anarchistic lines would really be better equipped for that!)

Nice point! Yeah, the Lone Scientist is ridiculously outmoded in many fields.

FWIW LeGuin's parents were anthropologists, and in their time anthropological fieldwork was mostly a one- or two-person job.

Also FWIW, it's hard to tell a gripping story about a large team. The only genre I can think of that focuses on a team is the heist movie.

[Edit: or the superhero team story, but those only work because they've built up each dude with standalone movies.]

[keenir]

The idea of companies owned by the employees who democratically elect their management is very attractive, but it is not without problems. Each employee joining the company would have to buy into it, which may be a serious obstacle for a fresh graduate who seeks his first employment. In a pre-industrial economy, where an employee needs only a handful of simple tools, this cost would be manageable; it would also work with some post-industrial businesses where he's only have to bring in a personal computer. But what about a capital-heavy industry where each employee works with machines costing more than he can expect to earn in his whole lifetime? That just won't work.

That would indeed stop employee applications, yeah. But what about a prospective employee buying into the workplace after he gets hired, with that purchase (and later ones which happen in the wake of a promotion of that employee) being a percentage that he or she could handle?

For example, an employee of CERN can't individually pay for all the equipment in use (unless they're a scion of the Rothschilds or Carnegies)...but they could pitch in toward the upkeep of one/some of the cooling tanks or a few lasers. (whether this is a deduction from their paycheck, like social security taxes here in the US, or its an active donation...i've no idea)

[keenir]

Now, w may not agree fully on if music is either of those...but musicians were definately a commodity -- like painters, kings would send them to other courts, to improve diplomatic relations.

There were musicians who made a living playing for the elite, of course. But you didn't have today's superstar economy.
1. The elite was small: there was no mass market for paid musicianship. You weren't going to become fabulously rich by playing music.

What would be the point? You lived at court or wherever your patron was, with your food and clothes all coming from your patrons, royal or otherwise.

2. It was not scaleable: even a top musician can only play for the people in one building.

...which reinforces their being a commodity in high demand, and thus a powerful diplomatic tool.

3. For the majority, if they wanted music, they had to make it themselves, and did.

I'm not seeing how that changes anything; i can dig a hole and ditch in my yard, but that doesn't mean I measure up against people whose job is installing sewers and drainage systems.

This is the first time I've ever heard or read anyone suggesting that we define what is/isn't a profession, by if it scales.

That's not what I said at all! Again, does "barely" mean "not" to you? If someone is "barely alive", do you put them in a coffin?

if its me who is "barely alive", then yes; I've got it written in my Quality Of Life that if it comes to that, then yes.

This is the circle I've been trying to square: you stated that, in the pre-modern era, music was barely a profession, and for anyone who wasn't elite, they had to make their own music.

I individually can make a cake. But that should not change the quality of cakes being made by expert, professional cake-makers and bakers....nor should that be seriously changed by how many people can use Betty Crocker mix (or any other mixes) to make their own homemade cakes.. But I didn't think that you threw that bit in (about how non-elites had to make their own music) just "to be random" as my nephew says, so since then I've been trying to reconcile it with the earlier conversation.

Scaleability is just a matter of how much reach your work can have. Can you apply it to millions of people with not much more effort than the dozens you can reach personally?

you keep pointing out that its a moot point: it doesn't matter how many people I can reach, whether I'm an expert or not, whether I'm in the elite or not...because everyone else can do it for themselves.

The problem with scaleablity is the class structure it creates. Only a minority can be at the top, so you get a small number of fabulously rich people, and a vast long tail of struggling people and hobbyists.

If the scale is both limited and requires experts, like surgery, then yes. But when you have your example of musicians and mine of bakers, where everybody can do it themselves, then technically scale should be moot.

But a superstar culture has other non-egalitarian effects, like all the art sounding or looking the same, and not being open to new influences.

Wouldn't a superstar culture always be looking for the next superstar?

[keenir]

(I can't really comment on that. I personally believe running is something you should do only in dire circumstances, like being pursued by a bear.)

I guess that's one set of circumstances where it won't do you much good...

I don't know if you're faster than a bear.

But I am certain you're faster than me.

[zompist]

I'm not seeing how that changes anything; i can dig a hole and ditch in my yard, but that doesn't mean I measure up against people whose job is installing sewers and drainage systems.

I'm not getting what these strange comparisons are supposed to prove. I mean, letting go a helium balloon is a little like the Apollo program, but not much and not in any interesting way.

I individually can make a cake. But that should not change the quality of cakes being made by expert, professional cake-makers and bakers....nor should that be seriously changed by how many people can use Betty Crocker mix (or any other mixes) to make their own homemade cakes.. But I didn't think that you threw that bit in (about how non-elites had to make their own music) just "to be random" as my nephew says, so since then I've been trying to reconcile it with the earlier conversation.

You seem to be hung up on experts, as if any type of expertise and any type of cultural system works exactly the same way. And my point is that they don't. Music is not like baking, baking is not like ditch-digging, ditch-digging is not like being an astronaut. Music in 1600 is not like music in 2023. It confuses me why you want to mix them all up. By talking like everything is the same and nothing has changed, you fail to see the change I'm talking about.

Scaleability is just a matter of how much reach your work can have. Can you apply it to millions of people with not much more effort than the dozens you can reach personally?

you keep pointing out that its a moot point: it doesn't matter how many people I can reach, whether I'm an expert or not, whether I'm in the elite or not...because everyone else can do it for themselves.

That's pretty much the opposite of my point. Scaleability creates social inequality. Maybe you don't care about it (I can't tell), but when a job becomes scaleable, it changes how society is structured. (Not necessarily for the worse! But it definitely changes things.)

Wouldn't a superstar culture always be looking for the next superstar?

Look at the world we're in. You've got movie producers explicitly saying that they only want to develop existing properties, or that they want to digitize stars so they can use the same ones forever. Or here's a factoid for you: the #3 top selling band last year was the Beatles (500,000 albums), despite having broken up 50 years ago.

FWIW I think this inertia would be an even stronger tendency in the Culture, where people live for 4 centuries or so.

[keenir]

I'm not seeing how that changes anything; i can dig a hole and ditch in my yard, but that doesn't mean I measure up against people whose job is installing sewers and drainage systems.

I'm not getting what these strange comparisons are supposed to prove. I mean, letting go a helium balloon is a little like the Apollo program, but not much and not in any interesting way.

Then why did you say that part about how anyone can do those jobs?

I individually can make a cake. But that should not change the quality of cakes being made by expert, professional cake-makers and bakers....nor should that be seriously changed by how many people can use Betty Crocker mix (or any other mixes) to make their own homemade cakes.. But I didn't think that you threw that bit in (about how non-elites had to make their own music) just "to be random" as my nephew says, so since then I've been trying to reconcile it with the earlier conversation.

You seem to be hung up on experts, as if any type of expertise and any type of cultural system works exactly the same way. And my point is that they don't. Music is not like baking, baking is not like ditch-digging, ditch-digging is not like being an astronaut.

They are alike in the sense that someone who is at the top of their field, is not the same as someone who is far from the top. When Mozart died, had he grown more skilled than a kid who never advanced further than banged pots together. When Einstein was on his deathbed, was he more accomplished than other patent clerks of his day?

That is my point - I agree with you that some things are scaleable...such as skill and experience.

Music in 1600 is not like music in 2023. It confuses me why you want to mix them all up. By talking like everything is the same and nothing has changed,

Has your statement of "anyone can make music" changed between 1600 and 2023? Music is being played for more people, yes, and more people can financially support themselves making music, yes...so those parts of your argument are indeed different between the points in time. But the rest of your statement has not changed.

you fail to see the change I'm talking about.

Then I fail to see your point -- you yourself were making a very good point about scaleability, with how many people any given musician can reach with their work or at any given point in time, and added how technology allows even more people access to Mozart than the man could have ever performed for ever.

...but you also mentioned that, because non-elites couldn't have audiences with the closest things to professional musicians of their day, everyone could play music. And that, so far as I can tell, shoots scaleability dead, at least with professions that anyone can do, like your example of music.
...but it doesn't shoot scaleability dead in the right way.

Scaleability is just a matter of how much reach your work can have. Can you apply it to millions of people with not much more effort than the dozens you can reach personally?

you keep pointing out that its a moot point: it doesn't matter how many people I can reach, whether I'm an expert or not, whether I'm in the elite or not...because everyone else can do it for themselves.

That's pretty much the opposite of my point. Scaleability creates social inequality.[/quote]

Then find a way to either remove scaleables, or to make it universal or near enough, so as to remove inequality. If that was why you pointed out that anyone can make music, it was very opaque to me and I couldn't tell that this is what you meant.

Maybe you don't care about it (I can't tell), but when a job becomes scaleable, it changes how society is structured.

I do care, very much. But to my eyes, the solution is to increase the number of skilled individuals, not to say "well anybody can do it on their own". It sounds worryingly like something from the colonial era, which I know isn't your intention.

(Not necessarily for the worse! But it definitely changes things.)

Except if everybody can do something, then that ceases to be scaleable, at least as far as I can tell. And to me, thats a good thing - particularly if everyone is doing that something with great skill.

[zompist]

I'm not getting what these strange comparisons are supposed to prove. I mean, letting go a helium balloon is a little like the Apollo program, but not much and not in any interesting way.

Then why did you say that part about how anyone can do those jobs?

To explain what has changed due to scaleability!

Music is just the most salient case. Before recording technology, for 90% of the population, if they heard music they were making it themselves. Now we can hear it any time we want, but it's almost always recorded commercial music.

(These are general statements, so please don't think I'm saying court musicians didn't exist, or that amateur musicians don't exist today.)

When Mozart died, had he grown more skilled than a kid who never advanced further than banged pots together.

Yes, and also the sun rises every morning? I don't understand why you want affirmations of the obvious.

I agree with you that some things are scaleable...such as skill and experience.

That's not how I'm using the word. If that's the confusion here, let me try one last time to clarify.

It's a technical term, used by Nassim Taleb in The Black Swan. It does not mean skill, it does not mean experience. It refers to the reach of a job: when it's done, can it affect a million people almost as easily as it can affect one, or a dozen?

A surgeon is the prototype of a highly skilled job that is not scaleable. Technology has not come up with a way to let surgeons operate on a million patients at once. Or even two.

In general, technology is needed to produce scaleability. Printing did this for books; recording technology for music. So these arts used to be non-scaleable, and now they're scaleable.

Again, it's not a matter of skill. There is no idea that Mozart lacked skill. He couldn't reach a million people, not because he wasn't skilled enough, but because he couldn't make CDs. Now he can, even though he's dead.

Non-scaleable things can make money, but in general scaleable things can make shitloads of money. You can make a few hundred thousand with a long-running Broadway play; you can make billions with a hit movie. The end result tends to be a vertiginous class structure, with top producers making a fortune Mozart could never aspire to. (Mozart was a professional musician, but had constant money worries. By their nature court musicians could associate with the court, but they were not just a tad poorer than Paul McCartney, but way way poorer.)

For balance, I hasten to add that scaleability also has benefits. It has certainly enhanced the democratization of music: anyone can enjoy the best music at any time. Very likely the proportion of professional musicians is way higher as the market is so much bigger.

Then I fail to see your point -- you yourself were making a very good point about scaleability, with how many people any given musician can reach with their work or at any given point in time, and added how technology allows even more people access to Mozart than the man could have ever performed for ever.

That is the point. (Of course I was applying this to the Culture, a civilization a thousand times our size, where this process can be expected to be a big problem.)

...but you also mentioned that, because non-elites couldn't have audiences with the closest things to professional musicians of their day, everyone could play music. And that, so far as I can tell, shoots scaleability dead, at least with professions that anyone can do, like your example of music.
...but it doesn't shoot scaleability dead in the right way.

Everyone playing music doesn't "shoot scaleability dead", it comes from being in a non-scaleable system.

That's pretty much the opposite of my point. Scaleability creates social inequality.

Then find a way to either remove scaleables, or to make it universal or near enough, so as to remove inequality.

Yes, to remove the effects you need a different culture, different attitudes. I mentioned above that an advanced civ might simply refuse to endorse celebrity culture. Just in music, maybe that means lots of people create music, local and live performance is preferred, and people disdain galactic-scale acts.

(This sounds kind of hippie-idealist in our society. But this is the sort of thing sf writers should address, I think: not just what US society would look like if extrapolated 500 years in the future, but what kind of society we want to live in, and how to solve the problems of bigness.)

[keenir]

ah, I see now, and believe I understand fully now. thank you for this.

To explain what has changed due to scaleability!


That's not how I'm using the word. If that's the confusion here, let me try one last time to clarify.

It's a technical term, used by Nassim Taleb in The Black Swan. It does not mean skill, it does not mean experience. It refers to the reach of a job: when it's done, can it affect a million people almost as easily as it can affect one, or a dozen?

A surgeon is the prototype of a highly skilled job that is not scaleable. Technology has not come up with a way to let surgeons operate on a million patients at once. Or even two.

In general, technology is needed to produce scaleability. Printing did this for books; recording technology for music. So these arts used to be non-scaleable, and now they're scaleable.

...but you also mentioned that, because non-elites couldn't have audiences with the closest things to professional musicians of their day, everyone could play music. And that, so far as I can tell, shoots scaleability dead, at least with professions that anyone can do, like your example of music.
...but it doesn't shoot scaleability dead in the right way.

Everyone playing music doesn't "shoot scaleability dead", it comes from being in a non-scaleable system.


Yes, to remove the effects you need a different culture, different attitudes. I mentioned above that an advanced civ might simply refuse to endorse celebrity culture. Just in music, maybe that means lots of people create music, local and live performance is preferred, and people disdain galactic-scale acts.

(This sounds kind of hippie-idealist in our society. But this is the sort of thing sf writers should address, I think: not just what US society would look like if extrapolated 500 years in the future, but what kind of society we want to live in, and how to solve the problems of bigness.)

*applauds explanation*

ps: and if anyone thinks that being in favor of educating and increasing the skills and capabilities of everyone, so as to defeat scaling...then let me grab my picture of Churchill giving the Peace sign.

[rotting bones]

KathTheDragon: Thank you for your critique of the profit motive.

zompist: I don't agree that the people who care about such things are socialists. E.g. Taleb is an open Trumpist, capitalist, traditionalist and "Phoenician" supremacist. Why should socialists concern themselves with critiques of society pushed by fascists? As a member of the economic underclass, I enjoy being outclassed in singing and chess playing (both being activities I participate in badly and joyfully), and I demand to be outclassed even more profoundly.

[rotting bones]

It's nothing exceptional either; there are plenty of self employed people, and plenty of small business owners. Only a tiny, tiny minority will get to be Elon Musk... but running, I don't know, a small scale construction business is nothing exceptional. (And I should add, a lot more important in the grand scheme of things.)

Fascists ride in almost entirely on the backs of struggling small business owners who are too stupid to understand the economy as a system, and believe their natural inferiors are stealing their limelight.

[zompist]

zompist: I don't agree that the people who care about such things are socialists. E.g. Taleb is an open Trumpist, capitalist, traditionalist and "Phoenician" supremacist. Why should socialists concern themselves with critiques of society pushed by fascists?

Because it's not a fascist critique, and someone can make a useful observation even when their other opinions are despicable.

[rotting bones]

Because it's not a fascist critique, and someone can make a useful observation even when their other opinions are despicable.

These are the kinds of people who are nostalgic about non-woke traveling minstrels. I don't understand how opposing "globalism" would benefit me. The way I see it, provincialism would only impoverish my life.

[rotting bones]

I suppose that's a good example. But that wasn't what I was referring to anyway. Why direct energy saving at South Africa when could direct to a specifically rich one like Elon Musk?

Restrictions on rich individuals won't have a significant impact on power consumption.

[zompist]

Because it's not a fascist critique, and someone can make a useful observation even when their other opinions are despicable.

These are the kinds of people who are nostalgic about non-woke traveling minstrels. I don't understand how opposing "globalism" would benefit me. The way I see it, provincialism would only impoverish my life.

Did someone dare you to only speak in meaningless stereotypes today?

[rotting bones]

Because it's not a fascist critique, and someone can make a useful observation even when their other opinions are despicable.

These are the kinds of people who are nostalgic about non-woke traveling minstrels. I don't understand how opposing "globalism" would benefit me. The way I see it, provincialism would only impoverish my life.

Did someone dare you to only speak in meaningless stereotypes today?

Interpret them as implicit questions and push back:

Just in music, maybe that means lots of people create music, local and live performance is preferred, and people disdain galactic-scale acts.

Do you disagree that this entails provincialism? Either way, how would this actually benefit me?

[zompist]

Just in music, maybe that means lots of people create music, local and live performance is preferred, and people disdain galactic-scale acts.

Do you disagree that this entails provincialism? Either way, how would this actually benefit me?

Usually I'd expect a leftist to oppose ultra-rich, monocultural corporations and champion diversity, but I guess it's opposite day.

[rotting bones]

Usually I'd expect a leftist to oppose ultra-rich, monocultural corporations and champion diversity, but I guess it's opposite day.

I do, but I'm in favor of state-sponsored art chosen by popular vote.

[Raphael]

Restrictions on rich individuals won't have a significant impact on power consumption.

You might be right. Or those who say the opposite might be right. Do you know about anyone who has actually done the math on that?

[rotting bones]

You might be right. Or those who say the opposite might be right. Do you know about anyone who has actually done the math on that?

Google something like: power consumption by industry

Then see which classes the products of those industries primarily benefit.

[rotting bones]

Let me give a concrete example of how reducing energy consumption will hurt the working class: If energy becomes more expensive, then so will transportation. If transportation becomes expensive, then economies of scale will recede. If economies of scale recede, then essential goods will become drastically more expensive. This will hit workers more powerfully than any other class.

Saving the planet is important. I'd just like to do it without committing yet another genocide that gets swept under the rug.