Tumgik
#because those are arguments i see people use to prove theyre not brothers
sonknuxadow · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
youtube
collection
848 notes · View notes
anonym0usl0vers · 9 months
Text
The bug collector
I hardly write in this anymore, but maybe I should make more of a conscious effort to, A lot has happened recently. Well, I guess not recently. It has been over the span of about 10 months now. So much change, transforming, learning, anger, dread, anxiety and lastly, depression.
No one seems to know what to say when it comes to this. Most people that experience heartbreak and abuse have experienced it in romantic relationships. But it seems that I am so used to heartbreak in romantic relationships that I have learned how to cope with those, and navigate through them. A fear of that doesn’t hold a place in my heart.
For a very long time, I wanted to be friends with everyone. I wanted to show up for people even if they didn’t show up for me. I had strict boundaries in place for everyone around me, but somehow never my friends. I never understood why I could never be fully open with some people. I was always angry with myself for not being open or feeling comfortable around certain people. But now I realize there was a reason for that. These people all have single-handedly betrayed me. I still cannot wrap my head around it. Certain situations, like the one with Jess do make sense to me. But in terms of Celeste and Josie, I don’t really get it. I want to understand why Jessy did what she did, but I still can’t totally wrap my head around it. I also am so tired of being hurt from it. I don’t want to be anymore. I don’t want to feel like this anymore at all. But sometimes I feel as if everyone around me is against me, and cannot just see that I am literally trying so hard to just exist in this word and do at least something slightly meaningful to make it worth while. I’m not trying to hurt anyone or do anything to anyone.
I crave connection with friends. Real connection. Rebecca is so far away. All of my other friends are pretty far too honestly. And everyone else.... I’m realizing arent really friends but something of a facade. What do they really know of me? What do I really know of them? Why do we hang out when we both don’t really enjoy it or talk about anything other than whats surface deep? Why have I wasted so much time on shallow friendships? Was it another way to prove value to myself? Was it me trying to feel likeable? Was I just so bored with myself that I needed some sort of company rather than being alone? (Unlikely honestly, because I love being alone probably too much.)
I have so many emotions. I have these sea-sawing emotions of feeling happy one second, to irritated, to depressed and hopeless. I feel like there is something wrong with me and I keep trying to diagnose myself with something. Am i bi-polar? Do I have BPD? I mean I know I have PTSD. But why can’t I just give myself a break and realize there is a LOT on my plate. Then there is the impending doom to save my money and buy a house. But I don’t even know if I want to buy a house because I’m not even sure where I want to live or be.
Theres the situation with my dad where he is literally decaying and basically being neglected by everyone around him. We are all drowning to do our best with our normal lives, and then there is him. And now I see all that is actually going on by living here. He shouldn’t be here. He needs more care in every aspect of it and I keep trying to let my family know what I think needs to be done, and I KNOW I am right in this. I am so confident in it but they don’t care. My brother won’t even come out here and my sister almost seems to like having to take care of my dad. As if it validates her as being some sort of hero, and gives her more of a reason to talk down to me.
I can’t even believe I thought that my sister and I were passed all of the petty arguments. She is the same as she always was, and sometimes I feel as if both of my siblings just like me to be around to step off of me and feel as if theyre on higher ground. I’m so tired of it. They always say how much they care for me and love me but then somehow can never really show it. And yes, in some ways they help me like getting me a job or lending me their car. But where were they when I needed someone to lean on emotionally? Or when i needed help moving the two times I moved within a month? When I needed help redoing my dads basement to make an appropriate place for me to live or when I had issues with the house here? And then I have Laura still telling me how I don’t do enough. But can she not see I am also drowning? We’re all just fucking drowning and how can they help me if their heads are just above water? Most importantly, why am I still trying to help other people when my head is just above water? Why am I pouring my last drops in my cup into other peoples cups? But how do I say no? How do I not be there for someone else?
I want to fill up my cup. I’m trying so hard to find a steady rock, a piece of wood to float on. I’m trying to get out of this but the thing is, do I keep struggling to find something sturdy to hoist myself out of the water? Or should I just let the current take over. Should I stop struggling and let the water fill my lungs.
Do I go out more? Do I stay in more? Do I ride out the pain? I need answers and I really need someone to help me navigate through this.
0 notes
tapdancinglorax · 6 years
Text
A Rant
Ohhhhhhh I love how phantis go "you fetishizing str8 girls just want everything to be all 'real life yaoi' don't you" even though the phandom is so diverse and most phannies I've met aren't straight.
Can we please stop the shipping = fetishizing narrative because it just furthers hetreonormativity by making any gay relationship seen cute by anyone "unacceptable" and furthers the idea you can't see gay and straight relationships as equal. Straight relationships are acceptable to ship no matter what but shipping something gay will get you called a "fetishizing idiot" and that's not ok. It furthers the idea straight relationships are somehow less problematic than gay ones.
We don't want it to be "real life yaoi." I fucking hate yaoi. It over sexualizes gay men for the enjoyment of straight girls, forced hetreonormativity onto gay men, and is often abusive. I don't ship it because I think it's "hot" I ship it because I can see two men who genuinely love and care for each other and I think that's beautiful.
We all know if one of them was a girl there wouldn't be these conversations going on. But they may have also been openly together from the start. Another thing phantis don't seem to understand (probably cause they haven't ever dealt with it) is coming out is fucking hard. It takes me months sometimes to come out to people who I know will take it well. Coming out to my family- it'll be years. The entire internet? Where anyone in the world can know I'm LGBTQIA? Even the people who would kill me or beat me or rape me to "fix me." I don't think I could do it. So yes, they aren't out, but also, that's a fucking terrifying thought, being out, and I know Dan at the very least plays that through his head all the time. Hes starting a journey of being out and more open and I'm giving a shit ton of applause. That's hard as hell. Hes screaming "Hey I'm LGBT" to what's potentially 7 billion people and that's fucking metal as hell. He doesn't know how those 7 billion people think. He can't control them. But he's braving it for the chance he'll help his fans or others and to be an open person who can give the people what they want.
Maybe phan is real and maybe it isn't. But either way it's not ok to be an asshole to people who just have an opinion on the topic. And it's not ok to actually bully people online. You can't send death threats and be an asshole to Phantis. But Phantis have to do that to. Stop calling all shippers "fetishizing yaoi loving straight girls" and stop calling them delusional or naive. I'm not fucking naive. I've stared death in the motherfucking face several times. I know what's happening in the world and that's hard as hell. So stop making fun of me for using Dan and Phil as an escape from the fact I was huddled under a table telling my friends I loved them in case I died, carefully calculating how easy it would be to shoot me, missing the girl I loved because I chose today to go to the late lunch with my other group of friends and if she dies and I never get to tell her- or if I die- I'll never forgive myself. I don't have a lot of escapes. I can't because I can't really enjoy two things at once because my brain has to fucking hyperobsess over minute little things. And yet I've somehow had Phan through it all though. Even when I'm sobbing I can open up this stupid app and read a silly fic about Dan and Phil washing dishes and I can smile again.
People love in this fanbase and I'm so glad of that. But we're big, and that means our 1 percent is big too. And it's on both ends- the one percent is. The Demons and the Phantis. Both are bad, but in different ways. The Demons stalk Dan and Phil to prove they're gay (hint hint, if anyone's fetishizing, it's these asses) and are the ones who refuse to admit they might be just friends. I've seen Demons harass non shippers, but not near as much as I've seen Phantis harass shippers. Phantis do the same shit. They twist everything to be heteronormative and fit the idea that Dan and Phil are best buds. They refuse to admit they could be a couple. They in turn ridicule and harass shippers who ask simple things, like why they think that, by mocking them and telling them they aren't mature and grown up. I've seen Phantis asked to keep the hateful comments they make about shippers out of the phan tag to which they respond, "i don't care how you feel I'm going to do what I want because it's the internet and I have rights" but then insist that shipping on the internet is harmful and it's not ok, even thought that argument you just made about why you can be an ass can be turned on it's head and used against you.
99% of shippers would never take it off the internet, because shockingly they love Dan and Phil for who they are and don't care about Phan as much as Phantis make them out to. If Dan and Phil randomly dropped a video talking about they're signifigant others joe and sue I'd congratulate them, support then 100%, and stop shipping. Because I love Dan and Phil. They've gotten me through a lot. They haven't done that, though.
They haven't explicitly ever said to stop shipping. Hell, Cornelia, Martyn's girlfriend, asked for the link to a phanfic KNOWING IT WAS A PHANFIC. They don't really seem to care or they'd tell us to stop. They wouldn't be posting "Phil's Sugar Baby" as Dan's Alternative Job if YouTube Crashes at II.
Ultimately, I'm just mad shipping two men becomes fetishizing because it's two men being shipped. That's homophobic. If they were if the opposite sex (this is in general) it wouldn't be fetishizing- it would be problematic at worst. PROBLEMATIC is much less aggressive and bad sounding than FETISHIZING. Problematic makes you think it's a split ship, 45% like, 45% don't, 10% don't care. Fetishizing makes you think your making this ship into your kink, that you don't care about the ship for anything but their sex life. And yes, people fetishize, but it's actually a thousand times worse with lesbians. Lesbians are mostly played off in movies as sexy to men. That's fetishizing. Thinking two men (or women) make (or would make) a cute couple isn't fetishizing. But I never see people yell about fetishizing straight relationships- it's simply problematic. I'll see people shipping brothers and sisters and yet that gets a nicer title than two unrelated men. I hate that.
Phantis- one more thing. You so often argue that Dan and Phil are straight because they don't yell their sexualities for the world. 1) read the above about how the internet can influence people's view of you. 2) They've stated they're bi but don't like labels at one point or another. Implying that to be LGBT you have to keep us all updated on your sexuality isn't ok. Implying not saying "I'm gay, ok" once a year makes you straight is fucking homophobic. If they don't like fucking labels than let's not label them BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM STRAIGHT. People can take pride in who they are and dance about in tutus at pride parades, but some people want to keep that in. In their families, in their friend groups, maybe just in them. That's ok. People have a right to privacy, and to imply they're any less LGBTQIA because of that is homophobic. Why? Two reasons. One, it's implying all LGBTQIA people have that privilege and want to flaunt their identities to the world, and have constantly talk about it. Two, you're saying to be a gay or trans or bi person you have to tell the world and fuck that. We can take pride in that we can be who we are, but we also shouldn't be told we have to flaunt it to be LGBT because straight people don't have to do that. They get to walk by and be presumed to be who they are because they have that privilege. That's not fair. That's heteronormative and I really want it to stop. But first we need to stop saying if you haven't said what you are your straight. That's not fair. To closeted people, and to people who don't feel like being flamboyant, and to people who dont want death threats over their sexuality because theyre in the public eye. It's ok to not want to scream about it.
Bottom line- don't be an asshole. Don't make fun of others. Shippers aren't inherently fetishizing. Don't invade others privacy. Don't presume people are straight. Phan may or may not be real and it doesn't really matter because we'll love them no matter what. And- once more for good measure- DON'T BE AN ASSHOLE.
32 notes · View notes
maspwinj2 · 7 years
Note
hey! I just wanted to say upfront that this definitely isn't an argument or anything. I know sometimes things sound rude bc it's text and not spoken, so I just wanted to say that ahead. your one of my favorite bloggers, so I just wanted to get your thoughts. you said #what will those kids feel when they find out the truth? but, maybe they already know. not the whole story, but j2 seem like their raising them like their all collectively as their children. and I don't think (1/2)
(2/2) they’d pretend in front of the kids. like when they went on that island vacay for new years and the wives weren’t there, I can’t imagine they kept their hands off each other the whole time, not even holding hands. and they prob sleep in the same bed when in Austin. so wouldn’t the kids would know that? I can’t imagine them not acting like husbands and fathers of all the kids in front of the kids, you know? what do you think?
Oh my god anon i’m so sorry! you sent me this like 7weeks ago and i’m only answering now… the thing is that when you sent it istarted answering with a very long messy rambling and i didn’t post itimmediately to reread and correct it but the day after that, all the lolliebullshit started (i’m still so pissed about all that ugh) and it sucked all myenergy so i couldn’t get back to your ask and when that babygate shit was moreor less over i tried to make a better answer but i just couldn’t??? ireally tried but i never could make a satisfying answer and so i think it’stime i give it up because i’ve been thinking about all the different aspects but im never pleased with what i write… i just don’t know!! i think i’ve lost any ability tomake a proper understandable explanation of what i think and i’m even moresorry because this is actually a very nice ask! thanks! you were very nice and i failedyou! im sorry and maybe now you’ve unfollowed me so there’s no way you’d seethat i actually wanted to answer you T-T
But im gonna answer about the first part of your ask.You’re talking about what i wrote in the tags of this post, when i said “the truth” i wasn’t talking about the kids knowing that jared and jensen are together but more about the kids realising they’re being used to sell the straight image of their fathers, im pretty sure they don’t know about that truth yet haha
like for example with this pic of shep making J/G “kiss”. shep must have been like “why should i make you kiss when you never do it in real life???” and when he’s older he’ll get that he was just being used like a tool for his parents’ bearding. that’s why i wonder how will that make him feel? or with that ad jared did where he used tom and shep to prove he has the perfect straight family (and now you can add the popandsuki video with poor odette being used right after her birth with her brothers) or with this jj pic that she will remember as a nice birthday with her parents but when she’s older she’ll see they used it to project this fake idea to the world that they have a totally traditionnal family 
that’s what i was talking about, if i were those kids i would feel really hurt/upset when i understand i was unknowingly being involved in all those lies and fakeness for the benefits of my parents
And now about the rest of your ask and about the truth of the kids knowing j2 are together well, to be very short :no i don’t think the kids know about j2 nor do they have doubts and i don’tthink j2 have any kind of romantic gesture towards each other in front of thekids either and i put under the cut the reasons why i think this way because it’sa very long rambling and no one should suffer the pain of reading all of it, i don’t evenknow if any of it make sense and again im sorry because this is a veryinteresting question and i should have answered way earlier, honestly mea culpa
but just a warning that at the end there’s the usual j2 negativity because they’re using their kids and that’s just gross and also i make a comparison with cristiano ronaldo cos i think he’s the perfect example of a closeted gay man succeeding in having a family. 
So… about if the kids know the truth : i believe theydont
 i think that j2 are letting the kids assume they’re inlove with the moms, we see with the pictures and video they post in which thekids witness their parents acting like a couple and the kids , just like thegeneral public, believe it. They are letting our heteronormative society do thejob so the kids think « i have a mom and a dad who spend time togetherwith me so they must be in love » it’s the logical thought process mostpeople have
J2 are lying by omission to their kids so that the kids willnever go and talk to their friends or teachers like « mom and dad aren’t inlove but dad is in love with my uncle » . If the kids believe their bio parents are in love theyll never be able to sell j2’s secret so its notsurprising j2 do that to protect this secret they’ve had for so long, ruiningit by letting their guards down around their kids would be a waste. They’re notgonna take such an unecessary risk and it’s way easier to let the kids form thesame opinion that the public has because what can they possibly say to explainsuch a situation « so kids if you see dad kiss and cuddle with your uncleand sleep in the same bed , while you never see dad do the same with mom whenthere are no cameras around : it’s PERFECTLY normal ! don’t worry !But there’s  one very important thing youmust remember : it’s that you must NEVER EVER talk about that toanyone !! EVER !!! » ??? it would be so confusing for thosepoor kids ! and if they ever see j2 kiss it’s 100 % sure that they willtalk about it to someone imo.
-About acting like fathers : J2 love their kids likefathers and act like fathers BUT they are the « uncle » (NOT the dadaor papa) to 3 of them so if the kids saw their dad and uncle kiss, they are obviouslygoing to mention it to someone. It’s SURE. To me calling the other jay uncle isa proof that the kids don’t know
-About not keeping their hands to themselves : if j2 canhandle not touching/kissing during filming and conventions and everytimethey’re in public im more than certain that they don’t have any troublebehaving when with their kids and even if they did act very touchy and allwhile not acting this way with the mom there’s still no reason for the kids tobelieve that « my dad and my uncle are in love » because again wereally are in a heteronormative society where same sex people doing very lovingand tender stuff are just « guys being dudes » and « galpals » (and j2 take advantage of that to hide so that even with ALL thetime they spend together people still think they’re straight and that includestheir kids) And they’re not pretending in front of their kids, they don’t kissthe wives when there are no cameras around but that doesn’t mean that they’dkiss each other in front of the kids either you know ? it’s not becausethey don’t kiss or hold hands that they’re pretending. Again to me it’s justletting the kids assume that it’s the mom and the dad who are together and notthe dad and uncle because the most common occurance is the hetero couple evenif those two guys spend all their time together and go to vacations alone withthe kids (and im sure j2 sleep in the same bed, they could simply forbid the kids to go there because adults are allowed to ask for their privacy even from their kids imo)
-about acting like husbands, well when you’re building yourlife with someone and spending all your time together, being touchy and cuddly(in public and in front of their kids) seems pretty anecdotic to me. I f theymanage time to work on their intimate relationship or act romantic in private,Im sure they can handle keeping their hands to themselves when they’re takingcare of their kids, they’ve been doing that for 12 years and it must be hardsometimes but it’s the price they chose to pay to keep working on spn and theywon’t take the risk of being outed by their kids or of messing with their kids’heads just so they can hold hands
-About raising the kids as family : Im sure the kids cansee that j2 love each other but they don’t get the extent of this love and imsure they see j2 love all of them but i think j2 spend more time with their biokids than with the others for bearding purposes and if you went to jj and askher if tom and shep are her brothers im sure she’ll be like ??? no theyremy best friends or something like that and if you ask her who her parents areshe won’t include jared and same for tom and shep with jensen
What really makes me believe they hide their truerelationship to the kids is that it’d really confuse them because if the kidssaw j2 kiss , j2 would have to discuss and explain this situation (because ontv and in their lives the kids never see other peoples dad and uncle kiss, orpeople who are not married and not officially dating kiss each other, or ifthey do see that they must know it’s cheating and dishonest and overall weird,if j2 did that the kids would know it’s not a normal situation and would askquestions either to j2 or people around them which would lead to j2 beingouted) but the kids are way too young to understand what’s at stake and if j2let the kids see them kiss and still NOT explain what’s the deal. It would beSO confusing and very unhealthy to leave the kids with unanswered questions andadd the risk of outing to all that
-end with the usual j2 negativity whenever the kids arebrought up :
Let’s be real the way j2 use their kids like tools to hidetheir lifestyle and like « proof » of their straightness iscompletely DESPICABLE . You can argue all you want aboutthem « not having a choice », « but they really love theirkids », bla bla bla at the end of the day i don’t see how j2 can feelanything but shame for using their kids like that
And togo back to the tags i wrote « how would they feel » well i thinkthey’ll feel awful and used by their fathers because of their terrible decisionmaking skills. And it must be awful to find out when you’re older that yourparents have lied to you for YEARS 
Im pretty sure no one in the lgbt community would condonewhat j2 are doing, the lies they are furthering THANKS to their kids. Even ifj2 came out, i doubt the community will be proud of what they’ve done, thelenghts they went to (involving kids) to hide their sexuality
And if you want a comparison to know how a closeted gay man can have a kid without using said kid to further his straight image just look atCristiano ronaldo. He’s working in THE most homophobic business EVER and yet he’snot married to a woman, he has beards but he’s not pretending to raise his kid (thathe had with an anonymous surrogate) with a woman. Hes not affraid of postingfamily pics and being constantly seen with his long term partner ricky regufe.He’s not trying so hard to sell the perfect family image like j2 have done andhe did not get stupidly trapped by greedy beards like j2 did
J2 are incredibly nice and hard working guys and they don’tdeserve to live like this but involvinginnocent kids in this mess is just wrong
11 notes · View notes
vitalmindandbody · 7 years
Text
If not my surname or my husband’s, could we call our child after a New Zealand volcano?
Franki Cookney and her husband didnt much like each others surnames, so now theyre having a baby theyve decided to pick a new one
When my husband, Rob, and I wedded last year, the question of what to do about our surnames scarcely enrolled our debates. We are both novelists, so our mentions are on every piece of work we do. That we would obstruct our own seemed a demonstrated. There was just one niggling incredulity. What would arise if “were having” children?
I had always had considered that we would just stay both our appoints on the birth certification, but I knew this didnt quite solve the problem. Whose refer would go first? And which refer would end up being used?
We could use a double-barrel call, but didnt feel our surnames, Cookney and Davies, gave themselves to hyphenation. Whichever ordering you choose, the result is clunky and we were reluctant to saddle small children with it.
We could have just picked whichever name reverberated best with our babe first name. But in that scenario, one mother resolves up not sharing a surname with their child and neither of us required that. Plus, Id heard too many fables of mothers being stopped at airport defence because the names on their passports didnt match that of their children.
The conventional option of taking my husbands surname was never on the table. Fairly apart from the feminist principle of not wanting to relinquish my identity for his, I wasnt keen on the figure. Rob supported this and was by no means offended. The fus was, he wasnt a fan of my refer either. Its merely a little bit unwieldy, he enunciated. Its almost Cockney but not quite. Youre forever having to spell it out. We looked at our mothers maiden names and our grandparents names but always pointed up back in the same lieu, feeling that it wasnt equal, that picking one line-up of the family over another wasnt fair.
We hit on the idea of taking a new name about a year ago when before our wedding we went to write our wills. As we chitchatted to one of the attorneys, it transpired that he and his wife had done precisely this. Theres a fair bit of admin, but its good, it toils, he did , nodding decisively. Abruptly, it didnt seem so preposterous. This wasnt some foolish rebellion or bohemian pretentiousness, this was something advocates did!
We mooted it with sidekicks, who were largely unfazed. What identify will you go for? was the thing they were most strange about. Good question. Could we combine the letters of our appoints and cause something new, we meditated. Directories were constructed: Nicks, Cave, Devine, Kinsey, Dacovnicks Cookies? Nothing of them quite hit the mark.
As our marry attracted nearer, we made the mention tournament on a back burner. But when I became pregnant three months later, we were forced to look at the situation anew and decided to change tacking. How about a target? I suggested. Somewhere weve visited that we desired. A backpacking stint before we got married had left us with batch to choose from but most sounded reasonably strange when attached to a couple of everyday Brits. Rob and Franki Tongariro possessed a certain vitality, but appointing yourself after a New Zealand volcano would be ridiculous. And Zhangjiajie might conjure recollections of spectacular Chinese mountains, but imagine having to sorcery it every time you booked a hair appointment or called your internet provider. For a while Salento and Chaltn were on the list, after places in Colombia and Argentina. But we werent convinced we are to be able pull off the undoubtedly Latino-sounding former and believed the latter would lead to a lifetime of redressing people who pronounced it Charlton.
Then Rob added, What about Stone Town? The beautiful old-fashioned township of Zanzibar City is where he had asked me to marry him. It instantly experienced right. Stone was straightforward but important. It resounded good with both our first names and after a few weeks of trying it on with other identifies would work well with almost anything we decide to for our newborn. It was perfect: a solid call( with a possibilities for pun “thats really not” lost on us) that felt like a constructive solution to our question. We would maintain our original surnames for act and accept this new family name for our personal lives.
By law, all you need to do to change your figure is, well, change it. Simply adopting and using your new figure is enough. Informing your accountings and enters, nonetheless, requires a document of proof such as a union certificate or, in such cases, a deed poll. “Were not receiving” official style of acquiring a deed poll. You can write one yourself employing free templates from the internet, but lack of lucidity about the process ensues in some institutions challenging an original credential despite the fact that no such thing prevails. You can either fight it out or you can do what we did and offer 15 -2 0 for a company such as the Deed Poll Office to draw up the letter on your behalf and print and stamp it on watermarked newspaper. Passed the list of bodies and organisations you have to notify and the health risks arguments over what constitutes an original credential, this seemed a reasonable compromise.
Perhaps “its been” naive, but we didnt expect to meet with defiance. Uncertainty, perhaps. Intrigue, for sure. When it came to getting married, we had ditched virtually every institution proceeding, barring the wedlock itself, and no one had wondered us. Surely this too would be seen as a modern update on an outdated custom-made. But where reference is announced our decided not to our families, the reaction was mixed.
Franki and Rob. Image: Christian Sinibaldi for the Guardian
While they understood our quandary, the common restraint was that the child would lose the connection to its family history. Try as I might, I cant know what this is. To me, family history becomes far deeper than ones identify. Its in accordance with the rules “were living”, our values, the profundity and shared experience passed down through generations. It is part of the storytelling our parents did and its in the fibs we, more, will tell and the beliefs we will share.
Our beginnings are not in our mentions, they are in our hearts. My grandmother, whose surname was Jones, is important to me not because of her name but because of her adore. My great-grandmother, a midwife I never even assembled, let alone shared a name with, forms a part of my gumption of identity. Why? Because of the channel my loving mother talks about her, because of the pictures she has covered in my heads of state of that life, that lineage, that time.
Interestingly, the name itself has also proved a sticking point, with a few people commenting that its tolerating. Youre doing this really unusual thing but youve picked a really ordinary appoint, said one colleague, as though by doing something different we are obliged to go the whole hog and call ourselves Rob and Franki Thundercats.
In fact, the accessibility of the refer was something we contemplated would be used sell the idea. It turns out we were naive there, more. My baby, a former primary school teacher, insisted that someone called Stone would be razzed. Another relative describing him as a dead weight of a name.
In my experience, boys will come up with nicknames no matter what. I invested much of my school years known as Franki Cookie while my given name was regularly elongated to Frankenstein, Frankincense or Frankfurter.
Never tell people your call picks in advance, advised one friend( too late ). Its as if telling people in advance is requesting a exchange or consultation!
While my familys apprehensions certainly matter to me, I believe she might be right. Ultimately, this is our decision, based on our wants, and I hope they will come to see it as a practical and positive step , not an irresponsible one.
Its almost impossible to get everyone on board, counselled another friend, who changed her surname by deed referendum in 2004. The impression upset my granny but my pa, her son, understood. When I married my husband, he took my mention. Im still not sure his brother was 100% behind us, but when we had our first son, he was the first to be born into our dynasty. Im so excited that we are the first in our tree!
This is exactly how I find. I adoration the idea that our baby will be born into this new, specially choice and carefully thought-out last name. And if the working day he or she decides to change it either to something new or to one of our old-time last name we will fully support that.
Even when you change names, pedigree can still be traced and, if nothing else, I like to think we will be looked back on as all those people who tried something new; who instead of attaining do with an unsatisfactory place, reputed creatively about how to solve it. Thats their own families bequest Im glad with.
Read more: www.theguardian.com
The post If not my surname or my husband’s, could we call our child after a New Zealand volcano? appeared first on vitalmindandbody.com.
from WordPress http://ift.tt/2iDTFwW via IFTTT
0 notes
trendingnewsb · 7 years
Text
The coming of a fully automated society has led some Silicon Valley execs to extreme measures
Image: tristan quinn / bbc
Until a couple of years ago, Antonio Garcia Martinez was living the dream life: a tech-start up guy in Silicon Valley, surrounded by hip young millionaires and open plan offices.
He’d sold his online ad company to Twitter for a small fortune, and was working as a senior exec at Facebook (an experience he wrote up in his best-selling book, Chaos Monkeys). But at some point in 2015, he looked into the not-too-distant future and saw a very bleak world, one that was nothing like the polished utopia of connectivity and total information promised by his colleagues.
SEE ALSO: This is for you, Elon Musk: 5 threats to humanity greater than artificial intelligence
“Ive seen whats coming,” he told me when I visited him recently for BBC Twos Secrets of Silicon Valley. “And its a big self-driving truck thats about to run over this economy.”
Antonio is worried about where modern technology especially the twin forces of automation and artificial intelligence is taking us. He thinks its developing much faster than people outside Silicon Valley realize, and were on the cusp of another industrial revolution that will rip through the economy and destroy millions of jobs.
“Every time I meet someone from outside Silicon Valley a normy I can think of 10 companies that are working madly to put that person out of a job.”
Antonio estimates that within 30 years, half of us will be jobless. “Things could get ugly,” he told me. Its very scary, I think we could have some very dark days ahead of us.”
Think of the miners strike, but in every industry. People could be be driven to the streets, he fears, and in America at least, those people have guns. Law and order could break down, he says, maybe there will be some kind of violent revolution.
So, just passing 40, Antonio decided he needed some form of getaway, a place to escape if things turn sour. He now lives most of his life on a small Island called Orcas off the coast of Washington State, on five Walt Whitman acres that are only accessible by 4×4 via a bumpy dirt path that just about cuts through densely packed trees.
Instead of gleaming glass buildings and tastefully exposed brick, his new arrangements include: a tepee, a building plot, some guns, 5.56mm rounds, a compost toilet, a generator, wires, and soon-to-be-installed solar panels. It feels a million miles from his old stomping ground.
Former Facebook executive Antonio Garcia Martinez at his remote island hideout, ready in case automation causes social breakdown
Image: tristan quinn / bbc
Antonio isnt the only tech entrepreneur wondering if were clicking and swiping our way to dystopia. Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn and influential investor, told The New Yorker earlier this year that around half of all Silicon Valley billionaires have some degree of apocalypse insurance. Pay-Pal co-founder and influential venture capitalist Peter Thiel recently bought a 477-acre bolthole in New Zealand, and became a kiwi national to boot.
Others are getting together in secret Facebook groups to discuss survivalism tactics: helicopters, bomb-proofing, gold. Its not all driven by fears about technology terrorism, natural disasters, and pandemics also feature but much is.
According to Antonio, many tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are just as pessimistic as he is about the future theyre building. They dont say it in public of course, because whats the point. Its inevitable, they say; technology cant be stopped. Its a force of nature.
Even just a couple of years ago, this would have sounded like just another exhibit in the long-tradition of American dystopian paranoia. But the robot jobs apocalypse argument is starting to sound more reasonable by the day.
“Ive seen whats coming, and its a big self-driving truck thats about to run over this economy.”
The Economist, MIT Review, and Harvard Business Review have all recently published articles about how the economy is on the brink of transformation. President Obamas team suggested driverless cars would dispense with 3 million jobs pretty soon. According to the Bank of England, as many as 15 million British jobs might disappear within a generation.
I blame Hollywood for our lack of preparedness. Thanks to Blade Runner, Terminator, Ex Machina and the rest, artificial intelligence is now synonymous with sentient robots taking our jobs, our women, or our lives. Forget all that.
The A.I. revolution comes in the less sexy form of machine learning algorithms, which essentially means giving a machine lots of examples from which it can learn how to mimic human behaviour. It relies on data to improve, which creates a powerful feedback loop: more data fed in makes it smarter, which allows it to make more sense of any new data, which makes it smarter, and on and on and on.
Antonio thinks were entering into this sort of feedback loop. Over the last year or so, various forms of machine learning technology, teamed up with robotics, are making inroads into brick-laying, fruit-picking, burger-flipping, banking, trading, and driving. Even, heaven forbid, journalism and photography. Every year will bring more depressing news of things machines are better than us at.
New technology in the past has tended to increase markets and jobs. In the last industrial revolution, machinery freed up humans from physical tasks, allowing us to focus on mental ones. But this time, A.I. might have both covered.
Machine learning can, for example, already outperform the best doctors at diagnosing illness from CT scans, by running through millions of correct and thousands of incorrect examples real life doctors have produced over the years. Potentially no industry will be untouched.
Stefan Seltz-Axmacher, 27 year old founder of Starsky Robotics who are using $5 million of investment to develop self driving trucks.
Image: tristan quinn / bbc
The latest wave of machine learning is even smarter. It involves teaching machines to solve problems for themselves rather than just feeding them examples, by setting out rules and letting them get on with it. This has had particularly promising results when training neural networks (networks of artificial neurons that behave a little like real ones), using an approach called deep learning.
Recently, some neural network chatbots from Facebook were revealed to have gone rogue and invented their own language, before researchers shut them off. These simple chatbots were given a load of examples to spot basic patterns in human communication, and then conversed with themselves millions of times in order to figure out how negotiate with humans. What followed appeared as a stream of nonsense:
Bob: i can i i everything else.
Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to
Bob: you i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alice: balls have a ball to me to me to me to me to me to me to me
No human, with the possible exception of one Chuckle Brother, talks like this. But the failed experiment proved an important point. It seems these chatbots had calculated, within the parameters of their task, and without human intervention, a more efficient way of negotiating. This is the essence of deep learning: coming up with new ways to tackle problems that are beyond us.
In the same week, Elon Musk (who believes A.I. is a great threat to humanity) and Mark Zuckerberg (who does not) got into a public row about the risks of letting A.I. like this loose. Zuck said Musk was irresponsible. Musk said Zuck’s understanding of the subject was ‘limited.’ But this misses the point.
A.I. is not about to go Skynet on us. These chatbots hadnt developed some sinister secret language. But mega-efficiency or neural network problem solving might be just as disruptive. True, some of the recent fear about the coming age of the robots is probably overdone. Were not all about to be turfed out by bots. And weve always had disruption: people were warning about a jobless economy 50 years ago too. Weve always found new jobs, and new ways to entertain ourselves.
Around half of all Silicon Valley billionaires have some degree of apocalypse insurance.
Let’s not forget the wonders of A.I., such as dramatically improving how doctors diagnose, which will certainly save lives. It will stimulate all sorts of exciting new research areas. Replacing people with machines will have other benefits, too: driverless lorries would almost certainly be safer than exhausted driver-full ones.
The most likely scenario, reckons Antonio, is a gradual dislocation of the economy and an accompanying escalation of unrest. David Autor, an MIT economist, reckons we could be heading toward a bar-belled shaped economy.
There will be a few lucrative tech jobs at the top of the market, but many of the middling jobs trucking, manufacturing will wither away. They will be replaced by jobs that cant be automated, in the low paid service sector. Maybe there will be new jobs who imagined app developer would be a profession but will they be the same sort of jobs? Will they be in the same places, or clustered together in already well-off cities?
Drivers alone taxi or truckers make up around 17 percent of the U.S. adult work force. Taxis are often the first jobs for newly arrived, low-skilled migrants; trucking is one of the reasonably well-paid jobs for Americans that are not highly educated. What are they going to do instead? Are the cashier operators, and burger flippers going to retrain overnight, and become software developers and poets?
At the very least it seems economic and social disruption and turbulence as we muddle through are likely. The whole shape of the economy could change too. Some worry about the possibility of growing inequality between the tech-innovators who own all the tech assets and the rest of us. A world where you either work for the machines or the machines work for you.
What does that mean for peoples sense of fairness or agency or well-being? Or the ability of governments to raise taxes? The Silicon Valley survivalists fear that, if this happens, people will look for scapegoats. And they might decide that techies are it.
Jamie Bartlett outside Apples new $5 billion HQ
Image: Tristan quinn / bbc
One of the questions I asked as part of this programme is whether we are prepared. We dont even know how little we know; and our politicians seem to know even less. I found one mention of artificial intelligence in the 2017 party manifestos.
When asked recently about the future of artificial intelligence and automation, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin replied that its not even on our radar screen and that hes not worried at all. A couple of months back his boss climbed into a huge rig wearing an I love trucks badge, just as nearly everyone in Silicon Valley agreed that the industry was about to be decimated.
Antonio told me in the race between technology and politics the technologists are winning. They will destroy jobs and economies before we even react to them.
Still, guns and solar panels? Survivalism seems like overkill to me. “What do you have?” Antonio asks, fiddling around with a tape measure outside his giant tepee. “Youre just betting that it doesnt happen.”
Before I can answer, he tells precisely me what I have: “You have hope, thats what you have. Hope. And hope is a shitty hedge.”
WATCH: This beautiful 32,000-square-foot mural was just unveiled in Rio
Read more: http://ift.tt/2vEzXqe
from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2ufzeHP via Viral News HQ
0 notes
topsolarpanels · 7 years
Text
The Tea Party leader taking a stand for solar energy: ‘I will do what’s right’
Debbie Dooley is a self-described crusader for solar power in Florida, where she is up against major public power utilities. But she has already won a similar battle in Georgia, and she says her message is that of a true conservative
Debbie Dooley is a firebrand Republican and an outspoken founding member of the Tea Party. But in a fast-intensifying battle over the future of solar power in Florida, she is not on the side you might expect.
Along with a diverse grassroots citizens coalition including environmentalists and other left-leaning activists, Dooley is taking on Big Energy and its big-spending conservative backers in an intriguing fight that puts her toe-to-toe with her onetime political allies.
She is at the spearhead of a campaign to place an initiative before Florida voters next year that would give consumers the freedom to choose to buy their solar energy from smaller private companies and bypass the mega-bucks utilities.
Its Floridas solar eclipse, says Dooley, who points to statistics she claims are proof that the Sunshine State is trailing the nation in utilising its most plentiful natural resource.
If the initiative is successful, Florida would no longer be one of only four states that prohibits so-called third-party power purchase agreements (PPA), which, in basic terms, refer to a consumer allowing a company to install solar panels with no upfront cost, then paying the company for electricity that the panels generate.
As things stand, only those who can afford the substantial initial outlay can power up from the sun, a situation Dooley says is unacceptable. With Florida 14th in the country in terms of installed solar capacity, only $63m was spent on new installations statewide in 2014, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.
Lets remove the barriers, remove the shackles that protect the monopolies and allow consumer choice and freedom, said Dooley, whose Green Tea coalition of environmentally conscious conservatives is a key component of the Floridians for Solar Choice amalgam.
Unsurprisingly, the big public power utilities dont like the message being pushed by the activists as they tour the state attempting to collect the 683,000 signatures needed by February to get the initiative on Novembers ballot. So companies including Florida Power and Light, Duke Energy, Tampa Electric and Gulf Power are among the donors who have ploughed millions of dollars into a rival group, Consumers for Smart Solar, which is promoting its own initiative that would enshrine in the states constitution their exclusive right to sell solar power.
Their argument is that opening up the industry the way the citizens coalition wants would lead to less regulation and extra expense for traditional consumers in subsidies for the solar industry.
As the duel has become more caustic in recent months, so have the attacks from rightwingers on Dooley, who has driven thousands of miles across Florida with her partner Jason to speak at rallies, lunches and other engagements in support of a new direction for solar power. Some have called her a fake conservative and say she has betrayed her Republican roots. Others have branded her eccentric and dismissed her travels as a solar-powered clown show as she shills for the industry.
I dont worry about the attacks because I understand the political reality, which is theyre afraid of you, Dooley told the Guardian after a recent speaking engagement before the League of Women Voters of Palm Beach County.
If youre not being successful, theyre going to ignore you, so Im really getting under someones skin. I have to laugh at that.
Back in 2009, feeling that the Republican party had lost its way, Dooley joined up with 21 like-minded supporters to give the Tea Party movement its first organised structure. I was tired of politics as usual, tired of big money controlling everything, she said, explaining why she became a director of the Tea Party Patriots.
Now, she says, she finds it ironic that much of the criticism comes from rightwing groups who shared her beliefs, including the Koch brothers-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, but which take an opposite stance on clean energy.
True conservatives champion free-market choice, not government-created monopolies that stifle competition. she said. Trying to protect monopolies from competition is not free market. You should be bound by your principles and develop your position on issues based on your principles, not who your financial donors are.
The presence of Dooley, a pastors daughter from Bogalusa, Louisiana, in the midst of the Florida battle could prove to be a trump card, according to Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
Here in Florida, the political leadership is conservative, so having a voice like Debbies and others on the conservative side to be able to stand up for solar is very critical to the success of running this ballot initiative, he said.
Additionally, this is a conflict Dooley has fought and won before. She says the arguments in Florida, and the tactics employed, are similar to those that existed two years ago in Georgia, another red state wrestling with the solar power issue. Despite heavy opposition from the utilities there, and what she says was its $10m war chest against the organisation, Dooleys grassroots coalition won the day, with a third-party solar bill clearing the legislature this April.
If you mentioned solar in Georgia, it was always, No way, no how, but we won that fight with people power, Dooley said. We couldnt match them in money, so we built a coalition, we got free media, we got our message out there. It was easier for us to get press coverage because people were amazed you had these conservative groups, Tea Party groups, the Sierra Club, elected officials, all joining forces to oppose this.
We all had different messages, the different groups, but we were working for the same goal. If we agree solar is the way to go, we come together and ignore issues we may disagree on while respecting the right of everyone to believe and advocate for them. But come together and stay focused. There are many different roads into Atlanta, where I live, and you make your choice depending on which direction youre coming from. What matters is that you end up there.
Debbie Dooley in Atlanta: We won that fight with people power. Photograph: Tom Pietrasik for the Guardian
Even as a little girl, Dooley refused to be put in a box. When her grandfather bought her a dress-up cowgirl costume as a Christmas gift when she was just seven, the self-confessed tomboy complained loudly.
I dont want that. I dont want be a cowgirl. I want a cowboy outfit, Dooley recalls shouting at her relatives. I was so upset, they took it right back and got me the cowboy outfit. Theyd assumed because I was a girl that was what I wanted. But I was not afraid to challenge the norms.
Dooley says her early years following her fathers preachings in Louisiana, Tennessee and Florida helped to shape her political leanings and turned her into the driven character she is today at the age of 57.
I learned at a very early age to speak up and not be taken advantage of. I had no issue doing that, she said. My daddy prepared me well: he was strong, not afraid to take a step out, and I get a lot of my traits from him.
I will do whats right and damn the torpedoes kind of thing. If you know a preachers kid, you know they can be rebellious. People have preconceived notions about you and you fight to show its not like that. You grow up tough, you grow up to be independent.
Any pastor will tell you, you can have 100 in your congregation and only a portion of them will be happy at any one time. You understand that not everyone will be happy; you just do your best and stand for whats right.
Dooley, however, insists that taking a stand does not always have to be a politically charged move. I became a crusader for solar and Im appealing to conservatives, [but] I believe being good stewards of the environment God gave us should not be a partisan issue, she says, pointing out that it was the ultra-conservative president Ronald Reagan who championed the 1987 Montreal Protocol that phased out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from aerosols to protect the ozone layer.
I believe in clean energy. Ive always cared about clean air and a clean environment. Ive always been like that, she said.
I have a grandson, Aiden, who is seven. Hell know I fought for energy choice and freedom, hell know I fought for a clean environment for him, so he wouldnt have a polluted world. I see it is my legacy to him.
Unfortunately, the legacy of some of my fellow Republicans is that they simply denied that we were damaging our environment because they were greedy for economic reasons.
Read more: www.theguardian.com
The post The Tea Party leader taking a stand for solar energy: ‘I will do what’s right’ appeared first on Top Rated Solar Panels.
from Top Rated Solar Panels http://ift.tt/2oCckXU via IFTTT
0 notes
trendingnewsb · 7 years
Text
The coming of a fully automated society has led some Silicon Valley execs to extreme measures
Image: tristan quinn / bbc
Until a couple of years ago, Antonio Garcia Martinez was living the dream life: a tech-start up guy in Silicon Valley, surrounded by hip young millionaires and open plan offices.
He’d sold his online ad company to Twitter for a small fortune, and was working as a senior exec at Facebook (an experience he wrote up in his best-selling book, Chaos Monkeys). But at some point in 2015, he looked into the not-too-distant future and saw a very bleak world, one that was nothing like the polished utopia of connectivity and total information promised by his colleagues.
SEE ALSO: This is for you, Elon Musk: 5 threats to humanity greater than artificial intelligence
“Ive seen whats coming,” he told me when I visited him recently for BBC Twos Secrets of Silicon Valley. “And its a big self-driving truck thats about to run over this economy.”
Antonio is worried about where modern technology especially the twin forces of automation and artificial intelligence is taking us. He thinks its developing much faster than people outside Silicon Valley realize, and were on the cusp of another industrial revolution that will rip through the economy and destroy millions of jobs.
“Every time I meet someone from outside Silicon Valley a normy I can think of 10 companies that are working madly to put that person out of a job.”
Antonio estimates that within 30 years, half of us will be jobless. “Things could get ugly,” he told me. Its very scary, I think we could have some very dark days ahead of us.”
Think of the miners strike, but in every industry. People could be be driven to the streets, he fears, and in America at least, those people have guns. Law and order could break down, he says, maybe there will be some kind of violent revolution.
So, just passing 40, Antonio decided he needed some form of getaway, a place to escape if things turn sour. He now lives most of his life on a small Island called Orcas off the coast of Washington State, on five Walt Whitman acres that are only accessible by 4×4 via a bumpy dirt path that just about cuts through densely packed trees.
Instead of gleaming glass buildings and tastefully exposed brick, his new arrangements include: a tepee, a building plot, some guns, 5.56mm rounds, a compost toilet, a generator, wires, and soon-to-be-installed solar panels. It feels a million miles from his old stomping ground.
Former Facebook executive Antonio Garcia Martinez at his remote island hideout, ready in case automation causes social breakdown
Image: tristan quinn / bbc
Antonio isnt the only tech entrepreneur wondering if were clicking and swiping our way to dystopia. Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn and influential investor, told The New Yorker earlier this year that around half of all Silicon Valley billionaires have some degree of apocalypse insurance. Pay-Pal co-founder and influential venture capitalist Peter Thiel recently bought a 477-acre bolthole in New Zealand, and became a kiwi national to boot.
Others are getting together in secret Facebook groups to discuss survivalism tactics: helicopters, bomb-proofing, gold. Its not all driven by fears about technology terrorism, natural disasters, and pandemics also feature but much is.
According to Antonio, many tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are just as pessimistic as he is about the future theyre building. They dont say it in public of course, because whats the point. Its inevitable, they say; technology cant be stopped. Its a force of nature.
Even just a couple of years ago, this would have sounded like just another exhibit in the long-tradition of American dystopian paranoia. But the robot jobs apocalypse argument is starting to sound more reasonable by the day.
“Ive seen whats coming, and its a big self-driving truck thats about to run over this economy.”
The Economist, MIT Review, and Harvard Business Review have all recently published articles about how the economy is on the brink of transformation. President Obamas team suggested driverless cars would dispense with 3 million jobs pretty soon. According to the Bank of England, as many as 15 million British jobs might disappear within a generation.
I blame Hollywood for our lack of preparedness. Thanks to Blade Runner, Terminator, Ex Machina and the rest, artificial intelligence is now synonymous with sentient robots taking our jobs, our women, or our lives. Forget all that.
The A.I. revolution comes in the less sexy form of machine learning algorithms, which essentially means giving a machine lots of examples from which it can learn how to mimic human behaviour. It relies on data to improve, which creates a powerful feedback loop: more data fed in makes it smarter, which allows it to make more sense of any new data, which makes it smarter, and on and on and on.
Antonio thinks were entering into this sort of feedback loop. Over the last year or so, various forms of machine learning technology, teamed up with robotics, are making inroads into brick-laying, fruit-picking, burger-flipping, banking, trading, and driving. Even, heaven forbid, journalism and photography. Every year will bring more depressing news of things machines are better than us at.
New technology in the past has tended to increase markets and jobs. In the last industrial revolution, machinery freed up humans from physical tasks, allowing us to focus on mental ones. But this time, A.I. might have both covered.
Machine learning can, for example, already outperform the best doctors at diagnosing illness from CT scans, by running through millions of correct and thousands of incorrect examples real life doctors have produced over the years. Potentially no industry will be untouched.
Stefan Seltz-Axmacher, 27 year old founder of Starsky Robotics who are using $5 million of investment to develop self driving trucks.
Image: tristan quinn / bbc
The latest wave of machine learning is even smarter. It involves teaching machines to solve problems for themselves rather than just feeding them examples, by setting out rules and letting them get on with it. This has had particularly promising results when training neural networks (networks of artificial neurons that behave a little like real ones), using an approach called deep learning.
Recently, some neural network chatbots from Facebook were revealed to have gone rogue and invented their own language, before researchers shut them off. These simple chatbots were given a load of examples to spot basic patterns in human communication, and then conversed with themselves millions of times in order to figure out how negotiate with humans. What followed appeared as a stream of nonsense:
Bob: i can i i everything else.
Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to
Bob: you i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alice: balls have a ball to me to me to me to me to me to me to me
No human, with the possible exception of one Chuckle Brother, talks like this. But the failed experiment proved an important point. It seems these chatbots had calculated, within the parameters of their task, and without human intervention, a more efficient way of negotiating. This is the essence of deep learning: coming up with new ways to tackle problems that are beyond us.
In the same week, Elon Musk (who believes A.I. is a great threat to humanity) and Mark Zuckerberg (who does not) got into a public row about the risks of letting A.I. like this loose. Zuck said Musk was irresponsible. Musk said Zuck’s understanding of the subject was ‘limited.’ But this misses the point.
A.I. is not about to go Skynet on us. These chatbots hadnt developed some sinister secret language. But mega-efficiency or neural network problem solving might be just as disruptive. True, some of the recent fear about the coming age of the robots is probably overdone. Were not all about to be turfed out by bots. And weve always had disruption: people were warning about a jobless economy 50 years ago too. Weve always found new jobs, and new ways to entertain ourselves.
Around half of all Silicon Valley billionaires have some degree of apocalypse insurance.
Let’s not forget the wonders of A.I., such as dramatically improving how doctors diagnose, which will certainly save lives. It will stimulate all sorts of exciting new research areas. Replacing people with machines will have other benefits, too: driverless lorries would almost certainly be safer than exhausted driver-full ones.
The most likely scenario, reckons Antonio, is a gradual dislocation of the economy and an accompanying escalation of unrest. David Autor, an MIT economist, reckons we could be heading toward a bar-belled shaped economy.
There will be a few lucrative tech jobs at the top of the market, but many of the middling jobs trucking, manufacturing will wither away. They will be replaced by jobs that cant be automated, in the low paid service sector. Maybe there will be new jobs who imagined app developer would be a profession but will they be the same sort of jobs? Will they be in the same places, or clustered together in already well-off cities?
Drivers alone taxi or truckers make up around 17 percent of the U.S. adult work force. Taxis are often the first jobs for newly arrived, low-skilled migrants; trucking is one of the reasonably well-paid jobs for Americans that are not highly educated. What are they going to do instead? Are the cashier operators, and burger flippers going to retrain overnight, and become software developers and poets?
At the very least it seems economic and social disruption and turbulence as we muddle through are likely. The whole shape of the economy could change too. Some worry about the possibility of growing inequality between the tech-innovators who own all the tech assets and the rest of us. A world where you either work for the machines or the machines work for you.
What does that mean for peoples sense of fairness or agency or well-being? Or the ability of governments to raise taxes? The Silicon Valley survivalists fear that, if this happens, people will look for scapegoats. And they might decide that techies are it.
Jamie Bartlett outside Apples new $5 billion HQ
Image: Tristan quinn / bbc
One of the questions I asked as part of this programme is whether we are prepared. We dont even know how little we know; and our politicians seem to know even less. I found one mention of artificial intelligence in the 2017 party manifestos.
When asked recently about the future of artificial intelligence and automation, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin replied that its not even on our radar screen and that hes not worried at all. A couple of months back his boss climbed into a huge rig wearing an I love trucks badge, just as nearly everyone in Silicon Valley agreed that the industry was about to be decimated.
Antonio told me in the race between technology and politics the technologists are winning. They will destroy jobs and economies before we even react to them.
Still, guns and solar panels? Survivalism seems like overkill to me. “What do you have?” Antonio asks, fiddling around with a tape measure outside his giant tepee. “Youre just betting that it doesnt happen.”
Before I can answer, he tells precisely me what I have: “You have hope, thats what you have. Hope. And hope is a shitty hedge.”
WATCH: This beautiful 32,000-square-foot mural was just unveiled in Rio
Read more: http://ift.tt/2vEzXqe
from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2ufzeHP via Viral News HQ
0 notes