Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Extinction Rebellion

Yeah, go on. I wasn't sure about the significance of "truly" random (as opposed to pseudo-random, which would do well enough for selection of this kind), and why you needed to blindly trust a (presumably unaccountable?) technological elite for such a thing to work.
it's of course easy to select people ostensibly at random - you could pop yourself at kings cross and select every seventh person departing the mainline station in the morning rush hour, for example, or take the first customer to enter every pub named the red lion (the commonest pub name, btw) in the country. but as you'd doubtless tell me there are problems with the pool of people in each case you'd be selecting - probably people with jobs in the first instance or possible problem drinkers in the second. the genuinely random selection of people, selecting from all possible members of the public, can't be so easily done and would require a computer. this increases the probability, imo, that those selected are more likely to rely on advice from a technocratic elite, whose apparently impartial advice would form the basis for the evidence on which decisions would be taken. i don't myself think the method of random selection is as important as this second factor, but frankly i was bored and wondered what would happen.
 
it's of course easy to select people ostensibly at random - you could pop yourself at kings cross and select every seventh person departing the mainline station in the morning rush hour, for example, or take the first customer to enter every pub named the red lion (the commonest pub name, btw) in the country. but as you'd doubtless tell me there are problems with the pool of people in each case you'd be selecting - probably people with jobs in the first instance or possible problem drinkers in the second. the genuinely random selection of people, selecting from all possible members of the public, can't be so easily done and would require a computer. this increases the probability, imo, that those selected are more likely to rely on advice from a technocratic elite, whose apparently impartial advice would form the basis for the evidence on which decisions would be taken. i don't myself think the method of random selection is as important as this second factor, but frankly i was bored and wondered what would happen.

Pseudo-random generation of numbers is what computers do (they can produce variation that looks random until you *really* scrutinise it). Where you said *truly* random I thought you meant something more like a mathematically 'pure' randomness, such as the timing of radioactive decay). The main issue with randomly selecting people is more a matter of having a complete list of everyone you need to select from imo. I think there is plenty of variation in what people would consider 'close enough', though, and a lower margin would be easily settled upon.

But I don't see why a computer is likely to choose people who are more likely to rely on advice from a technocratic elite (aside from the fact that people who live 'off grid' are going to try and stay off the databases). Maybe that's not what you mean, but it reads a bit like that.

I do think that the framing of any questions put to such groups is going to be at issue, though.
 
it's the first question i've asked (the ? gives it away, you see) so i think it is relevant to my question. i haven't suggested you are advocating it.


selecting people at random - truly selecting people at random - can only really be done in a technologically advanced society and would imo mark your actual control of society by a technological elite because the people randomly selected would be reliant on their advice for what to do.

To my mind a technocracy refers to the people making decisions, not the general level of advancement in society. But I'm not looking to argue the point.
 
Have we had this bizarre Telegraph piece where the leaders of extinction rebellion admit one of them made a mistake in being a revolutionary, and then they go into a bizarre rant about how just-in-time inventory practices are the real problem?

I'm sympathetic to so many people involved in XR but these two are such a liability and I fear they will end up letting a lot of people down.


Sounds like they're bricking it after the Policy Exchange report tbh
 
Just because you found something doesn't give you any right to dictate its future.... one of the greatest feelings is watching something you create take its own path. Maybe RH and GB need to step back a bit...
 
Suspending my deep cynicism and uncomfortable feeling at any displays of public emotion for a moment...

Some of this comes from the ideas of deep ecology, which is/used to be more of a thing in the US than here. I can see how it might have some validity and use psychologically, and XR do have this principle of creating a regenerative culture which I can see that fitting in to here.

Anyway, back to cynicism and cringing, the fucking hippies.
 
Suspending my deep cynicism and uncomfortable feeling at any displays of public emotion for a moment...

Some of this comes from the ideas of deep ecology, which is/used to be more of a thing in the US than here. I can see how it might have some validity and use psychologically, and XR do have this principle of creating a regenerative culture which I can see that fitting in to here.

Anyway, back to cynicism and cringing, the fucking hippies.
Hmm. But. This filmed performance of "look at my deep sorrow for the land".

I hadn't thought that Earth First! was into such self-looking, performative drama as that.
 
,
I am a (sorta) hippie I have worn (shudder) cheesecloth, am kind(ish) to small children and animals, and bloody love trees...but fuck me - not in a million years would you find me in such a gathering of snivellers
Why do you shudder at cheesecloth? :confused: I liked cheesecloth. I liked the whole "not bother to iron it" thing about it. It was perfect for a summer top. By the time my Mum bought me a cheesecloth smock (very "Wurzels), I suppose the fashion had gone but I liked it lot - cool (I mean in terms of temperature, not trendy cool),

I do keep hoping that there will suddenly be a retro fashion, then the shops might be flooded with it, then the charity shops would. Then I can buy it. It's is great. Plus you can, of course, use it in making crowdie, cheese etc. :)

(Oops. I don't mean that people are meant to eat it)
 
Hmm. But. This filmed performance of "look at my deep sorrow for the land".

I hadn't thought that Earth First! was into such self-looking, performative drama as that.

Bits of the US Earth First! scene were in the 1980s. It faded away quite quickly.
 
Why do you shudder at cheesecloth? :confused: I liked cheesecloth. I liked the whole "not bother to iron it" thing about it. It was perfect for a summer top. By the time my Mum bought me a cheesecloth smock (very "Wurzels), I suppose the fashion had gone but I liked it lot - cool (I mean in terms of temperature, not trendy cool),

I do keep hoping that there will suddenly be a retro fashion, then the shops might be flooded with it, then the charity shops would. Then I can buy it. It's is great. Plus you can, of course, use it in making crowdie, cheese etc. :)

(Oops. I don't mean that people are meant to eat it)
If you'd seen what cheesecloth gets up to when it thinks no one is looking you'd shudder too
 
Why do you shudder at cheesecloth?

possibly because i looked like a misshappen lump of ambulant cheddar (yes, I too had smocks...possibly muslin). That crinkly texture wasn't very nice to wear and shredded at the drop of a hat and I was a complete fail at the 70s emaciated, breastless, straight centre parted hair look. Crepe de Chine was a more upmarket but equally grisly version of the rumpled, just climbed out of a haystack look which I mostly recall from the 70s.I haven't ironed anything for 4 decades.

OMG - panne velvet and wet look cire. 70s textiles were absolutely in the vanguard of the artificial fabric revolution. I do not miss them.
 
Back
Top Bottom