Mickey7Pretty interesting when you really think about it.
IlovethebombThis dude really is a pompous ass sometimes.
Agreed he can be pompous but I think since he’s an astronomer he is making the point that if you were in space and looked at earth you would wonder why are there borders
MudManBecause it turns out sociology, anthropology and politics also exist.
If you were in space and looked at Earth you wouldn't see any people.
macnielBut you can see lights on the dark side!!
You probably would though, there are no single manned space missions far as I know.
I’m going to point out that you edited without editing.
Next level pedantry.
junizzThe whole point is that it doesn’t have to be this way. We can change it if we wanted to, we are participants of sociology anthropology and politics. Oh well social constructs
Yeah, but that's my point. There's a tendency, particularly on STEM people, but also on your average normies, to think that "social constructs" aren't "real". This is a very bad take that often causes a lot of problems.
Ofc it’s real. Money is a construct and it’s real.
But what we made creates so much suffering and takes lives away. That’s just not necessary. And ofc changing it will probably take some power away from the previliged, that’s the point. Ideally we want everyone to be satisfied, but not when there’s still people dying of starvation.
I don't know that I claimed it'd take power away from the privileged. If I had to make an educated guess, the idea that "it's a social construct so we can change it" tends to lead to proposing easy solutions to complicated problems that only work if we all agree they work.
They normally don't work.
And if the people proposing them are powerful enough to get convinced that all they need to do is force everybody to agree with them regardless it often ends in tears.
Hell, catch me in a good day I'll tell you changing natural realities is easier than changing social constructs. On par at best, and nature at least won't argue about it.
Proposing easy solution to complicate problems is never my point.
My point is we can stop actively reinforcing the construct that hurts people, or at least be open to be more lenient about it. And see where that leads us to. We don’t want to just drop in a complete new construct and have everyone agree to it, I don’t think that’s even possible. But change in a direction we want to and let the rest develop naturally, just like how we developed the current system.
Obviously it’s not easy, it’s complicated as you said. But the current system requires active reinforcement. Doing a little less is a whole lot better than doing more to hurt.
You know continents and rivers exist?
Your point is?
Earth is beautiful!
There are heaps of examples of those that aren't political borders, though. I live between a river and some mountains. The other side of the river is another county but still the same country, and the other side of the nearest mountains isn't even another county. Egypt is on both sides of the Nile and also on both sides of the Africa-Asia border, Russia is on both sides of the Urals and the Europe-Asia border (wherever you draw it, if you draw it at all), America is on both sides of the Rockies and so on
WeirdGoesProEl Paso?
No, I'm in Scotland. Isn't the other side of the river from El Paso across the Mexican border anyway?
Part of the other side of the river is Mexico, another part is New Mexico, the nearest mountains have Texas on both sides—it just happened to also fit your description. Kind of wild that there is a part of Scotland that has the same unusual artificial and natural barriers.
ElPussyKangarooWhat about this tweet reads as pompous to you?
ddh“If everyone was as wise as me, I wouldn’t suffer this tiresome charade”
Well, he’s ridiculing the fact that everything we have setup for governance is, in fact, made up. I don’t see why that’s pompous.
I know his tweets tend to be a bit too pedantic for certain topics, but that is his persona. He is one of the few peopeople responsible for this generation finding science cool. He’s allowed that much.
It’s sophomoric.
If you close your eyes and imagine a future Star Trek utopia, are you still imagining borders? It’s a pretty standard opinion that borders are an outcropping of our worse natures and should eventually be left behind.
Borders are absolutely in the star Trek utopia. Everything has borders. What we do about those borders is the difference.
Each quadrant, solar system, etc has borders. These are even more arbitrary as the current state, county, and country borders across our world tend to follow natural terrain or longitude and latitude. None of these exist in space. But the quadrant borders are as easy to cross as for me to drive to my next US state. However, the Kardassian border is not so easy to cross, just like it’s not so easy for me to cross into North Korea.
Borders are not the inherent issue here. Conflict is the inherent issue, and borders are how we try to minimize that conflict.
They should really issue some sort of identification showing to which quadrant you belong so that friendly quadrants will accept you as a visitor with open arms.
To judge others so, you must be the personification of kindness and benevolence. Surely?
HoimoWe live in a society
Sadly.
We live in a patchwork of societies, I think is the thing
TheImpressiveXBottom text
I take it you’re not from the US as we’re trained from birth to be overtly hostile to the concept, as well as each other.
Yes borders are bullshit, but he really doesn’t have to come across all high and mighty about it
I'm not convinced that he knows how to come across in any other way
Imagine what it would be like having a disagreement with him
He would be absolutely insufferable
In fact, forget the disagreement
It’d be like arguing with a lemming, soooo smug and self-important.
Hits the joint “borders man”
This is not interesting.
I’m not saying NDT isn’t a smart guy, but yeah he does tend to do that thing a lot where you describe a normal concept in a sort of detached anthropological way so it sounds profound even if it isn’t.
NDT the goat of saying rly dumb shit but everyone thinks it’s somehow enlightening. he’s like Jaden smith but Twitter likes him
I mean I agree with him here. It’s ridiculous how we are still this tribalistic species while basically everyone would be better off when we would work together (e.g. climate change would be non-existent)
Passports weren’t a general concept until the end of the 19th century. Before they were mostly to allow passage to certain areas inside one country, rather than for movement between countries. There have been Identifications for Nobels and Diplomats though.
Anyways the whole concept is mostly a concept of modern nation states not of ancient tribalism.
I think the point is that the tribalism led to the creation of the nations/states in the first place. I don’t know enough to know if that’s true, but that was my interpretation of their comment.
Drag has seen criticism of the term “tribalism” as it normalises the idea that tribes were bad. Tribes were actually way more sensible than modern governments. Blaming the unique problems of developed societies on indigenous tribes is kinda messed up. Sectarianism is a better word.
I blame everything on people that speak about themselves in the 3rd person.
robocallI typically read your comments in Barney’s voice
The state is formed by the historical mode of production, its like a contradiction that is the resolution to all of the other contradictions present in market social relations. In other words the state is based on how stuff gets made, and who accumulates the value inherent in the stuff, which is in essence the congealed work that went into making that stuff.
Politics and culture is always a factor in what shape the state takes, since politics and culture are social structures and sources of power themselves, bug politics is downstream from production
CodexArcanumEh, that’s one view. In The Dawn of Everything, Graeber and Wengrow propose that the State arises from the intersection of three forms of social power. These are sovereignty (control of violence), bureaucracy (control of information), and politics (control through charisma and culture). Historicaly each of these has existed as the basis for societies alone and in combination without the concept of a state.
The State is a meme, a technology like religion or money, which provides a framework for the distribution and application of those 3 forms of power. It isn’t the only possible framework for that, but it’s outwardly destructive nature and self-propogation have ensured that the modern world is structured around a narrow set of configurations of the State.
I really wanna read that book, maybe this year :) I almost stole it from my wife’s cousin at Thanksgiving this year
I don’t think what you’re saying contradicts me, I agree my explainer is one view, one which addresses political economies, and the GrabGrow view is another more anthropological view. Unfortunately Marx never finished his anthropological works although there are a lot of notes from the end of his life that are worth parsing.
Saying it’s this one thing, when it can be scientifically understood as either or both things, is more like orthodoxy which I try to avoid. Both views help to understand a complicated topic made of historically shifting dynamics and changing aspects.
What your explanation doesn’t address that mine does, is what is the “social power” that congeals into these forms? It takes different shapes throughout history, but can be understood coarsely as “wealth”, which is the accumulated value of human labor. My explanation better reflects the class character of the state. However if we are to try and actually affect the world for the better, as we should, we would be better equipped with both views (and likely a few others) with which to determine truth in the functioning of political economy, than one or the other alone.
This was also my understanding and I begrudgingly agree with NDT that borders and states and tribalism are bad. I don’t agree with complaining about lines. Damn dude, sucks to have to be a regular participant in society, maybe of bureaucrats got paid better or there were more people working the passport desk.
Or… and i know this is fucking wild, he made up that story because in the US you get passports in the mail. Yeah, you have to maybe wait in a short line for some steps but overall you just send in your info and wait 6 weeks.
To be fair, trusting mail with my passport still terrifies me, even though it maybe shouldn’t
IronKrillIt is possible to agree with something and still believe it is terribly presented.
In tribal times, there were no maps and the borders moved a lot, but when you crossed them, you generally got driven back or killed.
This goes back to before there were humans, and all other territorial animals do it, too.
This goes back to before there were humans, and all other territorial animals do it, too.
Just evolve into a homo without tribalism then and outbreed the rest of us
Bold claim stating that climate change wouldn’t be real if we just worked together. As if we didn’t live in an ice age as the same species we are now.
Saying dumb shit with smart words is pretty tight tho.
Expressing the basest of notions with the loftiest of words is the pinnacle of wit.
RBGYes, but… did you know, if you kiss a mirror you will always kiss yourself on the lips. How’s that?
actually schizoposting before it was popular