> Wait, you're saying racism has ended?

I'm more so getting at the quantity and type of racism, over time.

> Even if you're talking about some small enlightened enclave somwhere.. you're really comparing the invention of the aircraft to racism?

Not really, I am more so using them two examples of humans making incorrect predictions about the future.

I could compare the invention of the aircraft to racism, but that is not what I'm doing.

> SMH.

Why?

> "the end of racism", that's quite a nice little bubble you've constructed for yourself.

Was it I who constructed that bubble, or you?

Here is a technique for checking: try to identify the portion of my text that contains that idea.

edit: voting on Reddit is often very counter-intuitive.

We don't need Heidegger to have this relationship with nature---just look at how Native Americans or pretty much any indigenous group looks at nature vs. modern society.

>Collective is just lots of individuals acting in concert

>Definitely not in concert.

Don’t leave me hanging! lol

Collective

> done by people acting as a group.

In concert

> acting jointly.

>That is very much not the point and as I said before it is also not the point to give a personal manual for any person to follow.

In your opinion. As I think I might have mentioned this begs the question. The writer if the article may think that ( though I’m not sure that necessarily true). But he’s disputing what Singer might think. You don’t get to decide the point when that’s in contention.

My point is that real, precise actions for real individuals to do that can make a difference is precisely the point. Such action could be direct or indirect through persuading others to take an action. But what action matters? It’s difficult for individuals to do anything - so don’t take any personal responsibility?

Like I said , it may be that lots of individuals changing their behaviour or indeed acting to persuade others to change their behaviour - is useful. But even more so if they attempt to work out precisely what behaviour needs changing and how.

Technology is only as valuable as the convenience it brings us

I didn't say it isn't. I said it's kind of a cop out to say "hey well he puts his money where his mouth is, other people have it easy because they have cushy jobs". Yeah he does too, and he can put his money where his mouth is because of that. Most other people can't do that.

>because he puts his money where his mouth is

In what way? Really don't know this part about him.

heidegger prooved that Tme equals Being - and dropped the mic

Isn't that kind of Singer's argument, though? That people who are well-off should choose to give away most of their assets in ways that benefit the poor.?

I think the abundant fossil fuels led to advancement, but without coal, oil and nat gas, very few innovations are possible. Steel, silicon wafers, ICE tech - all BECAUSE we had cheap fuels, not because we had technology. There have been innovations, but if you were dealing with wood chips for fuel, most of what we have today is not possible.

>but really what we want is a more romantic relationship with nature again

When did that ever exist on a large scale?

It's always feels like that's part of the "noble savage" mythos which didn't actually ever happen.

Poets/writers talking about it? Sure. But not at large.

Martin Heidegger, literal Nazi philosopher.

Wait, you're saying racism has ended? Even if you're talking about some small enlightened enclave somwhere.. you're really comparing the invention of the aircraft to racism? SMH. "the end of racism", that's quite a nice little bubble you've constructed for yourself.

>Collective is just lots of individuals acting in concert

Definitely not in concert.

>Does collective action just mean “if I make enough fuss someone else like the government will sort it out” so my only personal action is to protest?

That is very much not the point and as I said before it is also not the point to give a personal manual for any person to follow. The whole point is that "what do I specifically do" is not really a good question because, who are you? And whatever it is that you do end up doing, what does it matter if it's only you doing it? It's like saying, what do I do to create a good blockbuster movie? There is no answer to this, it's a lengthy process that goes through a number of institutions and involves many different bodies of people going back and forth. If the question is, what are the elements of a good blockbuster movie, then the question makes a little bit more sense. It also makes more sense to ask "I am involved in x aspect of y movie, what do I do to do my part well?", and that also makes more sense. Otherwise it doesn't.

Social progress is not something that can be framed individually in the abstract.

To me you are identifying the problem with all ideologies. The contrast between theory and practice. While no doubt some are more thoroughly worked out than others - Is there a political ideology which hasn’t been open to exploitation and hypocrisy by those with the power to implement it?

I think I’d say with that in mind that it’s true that powerful believers in charge use authoritarianism as a method to try to compensate for the system failing , while powerful free loaders do it to keep themselves in a privileged position? Though that makes my wonder the balance between those two groups in any specific example of an ideology.

But I’m only thinking aloud.

Exactly, and the same misunderstanding is happening again now with regards to Russia and the anticommunism of Putin.

Doesn't look like the poster is going to answer, but such people forget how ruthlessly anti-Communist the Nazis were. From the beginning of Hitler's power, Heinrich Müller, head of the Gestapo, was appointed to hunt and imprison Communists. That was soon changed to include Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and whoever else the Nazis declared an enemy. Nazis have nothing to do with leftist international socialism. A lot of Americans are too dense to appreciate the difference and see the word "socialist" and go crazy.

Haha, yeah I figured as much. It's really hard to claim that fascism is critical of capitalism in any imaginable way.

Old men are the masters of the status quo, it should be no surprise. I'm 44, and my mind is as fluid as ever. I hope I can stay like this into old age. My guess is this guy isn't challenged in his ideas enough, and so he's settled into a stage where he repeats what he believes and everyone in the room nods so he keeps saying it.

Collective is just lots of individuals acting in concert. I don’t see it makes a difference. Lots of people giving to or volunteering for the same charity is a collective action. Just saying “act collectively” isn’t very useful without specifying precisely what to do.

That’s rather my problem with a protest which is of a “stop being bad” nature without doing the more complex work of planning for and persuading for necessity concrete specific steps. Does collective action just mean “if I make enough fuss someone else like the government will sort it out” so my only personal action is to protest?

I think what can I and I should do that will make a difference is not beside the point at all. Including working out how what I can do to influence those with more power to take action. But so is precisely what actions they should undertake.

Think Nazism is likewise different to your original point though, because as well as the deliberateness, there is a lack of cohesiveness to the ideology, making it more of an excuse for what was done than an example of what can unexpectedly happen if following ideology -that was mentioned in the first post I think-, it was with considerable public support, not just imposed from above.

Lack of coherence and consistency suggests lack of sincerity - eg. demands for pre-marital chastity combined with a sexual double standard where all the emphasis is on the demand that women should be modest, but intimate examinations are apparently acceptable, and rapists are enabled. People may not think of themselves as the bad guys but that's not what good faith looks like either.

Yeah I'm not the person who you replied to. Sorry I was just being facetious.

Sure, but that's not a critique of capitalism, that's just anti-semitism. They purged the Jews and ran a hypercapitalist society that was backed by capitalists around the world. Meanwhile they also purged the socialists and communists (to them a Jew, a "cultural Bolshevik", and a communist were all the same thing).

Meanwhile, Heidegger's philosophy contains elements that are inherently critical of capitalism, though it's never explicit.

I feel like the author of this never really cared to understand Singer's philosophy. It's not only focused on individual actions. Singer has written books advocating for policy change in areas such as animal experimentation. He founded a non-profit that works on inspiring public awareness for animal welfare. He campaigned against tbe Vietnam war. Let me just quote this passage from Wikipedia

Singer has criticised the United States for receiving "oil from countries run by dictators ... who pocket most of the" financial gains, thus "keeping the people in poverty." Singer believes that the wealth of these countries "should belong to the people" within them rather than their "de facto government. In paying dictators for their oil, we are in effect buying stolen goods, and helping to keep people in poverty." Singer holds that America "should be doing more to assist people in extreme poverty". He is disappointed in U.S. foreign aid policy, deeming it "a very small proportion of our GDP, less than a quarter of some other affluent nations."

The ignorance of the author also shows when he calls Singer a preference utilitarian, a position that he has backed away from almost 10 years ago.

Calling Singer a supporter of the status quo is dishonest. What the author is really trying to criticize him about is for not being communist. It is Jacobin magazine, after all. For the author, anybody that comes short of flatly rejecting capitalism is a supporter of the status quo

I tend to agree that the article is a clown-fiesta past the introduction, but I think it sets the stage for more reasonable criticisms. Questions like:

1. Is effective altruism too quick to rush to the immediate aid of people? That is to say, by chasing success in short-term numbers is it missing opportunities for greater long-term improvement of the human condition, which would fall in-line with its own foundational objective?
2. Is Singer’s viewpoint too inclined towards resignation? How do you set valid and sustainable boundaries between pipe dream objectives and meeting people’s immediate needs?

There’s more to be said, but TL;DR I think there are valid criticisms nested inside this biased and off-the-rails article.

Like the joke, "The good news is that I found no typographical errors in your article".