When will we finally be free of irony/post-irony, /lit/?

>>9001105
When capitalism dies (it won't).

>>9001105
I will consider it after my SUCC arrives in the mail

>>9001114
this

posting because of the full body wince i just went into thinking of the implications of culture in 20ish years

>>9001114
>(it won't)
it will but it'll take humanity down with it

>>9001105
when the last man dies and the last machine falls apart

When the internet falls. It has made it so that instant feedback and criticism will always be available for every single thought, action, or piece of work. Therefore irony becomes a natural defense mechanism - stalwart sincerity has become unbearable due to omnipresent scrutiny, so irony is employed to immunize oneself against all judgement through the implication that you are in om the joke. You were only pretending to be retarded, as it were.

>>9001114
Why not? We are nearing post scarcity societies, once enough jobs become automated and everyone is out of work capitalism will need to die.

>>9001105
lmao

'collection 02 - the lel'

>>9002203
It's conceivable that the Internet could eventually go down/fail sometime down the line in human history and we'll revert technologically. I'd like to imagine scholars in the 34th century studying ancient symbols like Pepe and Wojak

>>9002320
>nearing post scarcity

Not even close. Accounting for the increasing rate of consolidation of wealth, yet undeveloped economies will take at least thousands of years to supply their least intelligent and least educated with whatever fantastic luxuries we've yet to invent.

All the abbos becoming obese on a diet of offbrand Kraft Dinner(tm) does not indicate a post scarcity society, you dumbass.

>>9002496

>All the abbos becoming obese on a diet of offbrand Kraft Dinner(tm) does not indicate a post scarcity society

that's exactly what post scarcity looks like, you dumbass

>>9002505
So long as there is a single person to invent, market, and sell a single object to a single person, capitalism exists.

Only when human imagination is exhausted of what luxuries it can create, and everyone who can imagine some benefit of owning some object already owns all such objects, can there no longer be a scarcity of any commodity.

Why in the fuck are you stupid enough to think that human beings will only endeavor to survive, despite every civilization's efforts otherwise?

Only respond to this message if you are a naked african who is living in a post-scarcity society where you eat from fruit trees and sleep under the open sky.

>>9002516
>everyone who can imagine some benefit of owning some object already owns all such objects, can there no longer be a scarcity of any commodity.

any yet with all the Star Trek technology owned today people still choose to live like 17th century artisans with 17th century artisan morals

>Why in the fuck are you stupid enough to think that human beings will only endeavor to survive, despite every civilization's efforts otherwise?

hive minds are way better at surviving than individuals

>>9002550
Ah, so you're not addressing the reality of the situation at all by pretending that capitalism is defeated when a tiny minority of people aren't concerned with it. Actually, capitalism exists as long as even a tiny minority of people are concerned with it, and it becomes a concern so soon as anybody wants anything they do not have.

This is pretty much the quality of answer I'd expect from an uneducated african. Thanks for entertaining me.

>>9002557

>pretending that capitalism is defeated

who said that, but whether thats 100 years from now or a thousand, capitalism isn't immortal, markets and capital, however you choose to do a definition dance of them, aren't an inherent tenant of biology or physics

>>9002557
you seem like a racist cunt.

>>9002565
>who said that

>>9002320

This person, who I'm talking to, said
>We are nearing post scarcity societies, once enough jobs become automated and everyone is out of work capitalism will need to die.

You're welcome.

File: hqdefault.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>9001105
LMAO
dude irony died in 1983
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_kN_DJQJ3U

>>9001114

Or, you know, raise its standards by becoming competitive.

File: Nicklandroid.gif (2MB, 440x440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 440x440px

>>9002576

I don't disagree that capitalism as we know it won't be going for the door for a long time

however you should consider the ramifications of it if you are right;

there are actors with infinite appetite, and your biomass and conciousness has possibly infinite utility, and for time immeasurable your biomass will be regrown, harvested, manipulated, your conciousness milked, warped, and molded for the consumption and enjoyment of whichever elite actors (that you are not a member of) can sustain this process in the most stabilizing manner, for all eternity

>>9002598
Yeah, I don't disagree that what you are implying could occur. The allegation that we are entering a "post scarcity society" or that this will be the end of capitalism is ridiculous regardless of this though.

>>9002598
but muh blog chain

>>9002609

>The allegation that we are entering a "post scarcity society" or that this will be the end of capitalism is ridiculous

I don't think so on the grounds that collective security powers are growing faster (and more defensively paranoid) than private ones

whatever skynet that emerges from DARPA or wherever seems more likely to be socialized than whatever some capitalist mad scientist comes up with, until humans came along biology trended towards hive minds surviving better, and diversifying more, than K-selectors

Will it come up with some algorithm to assign a cost function to suitability towards the rest of us? Sure The question becomes then can human remain meek enough in AI economics to ride it into space for the rest of time (or till it crashes).

My point relevant to yours is then this: there is not much evidence that humans will avoid falling into a techno hive mind; there may be castes and certain biomass may be more secured and pampered than others, but it won't look anything like capitalism, unless pheromone infinitesimal ratios can be considered "capital"

>>9002644
You are expecting there to be fundamental differences in power structures between human beings on a scale that is unprecedented in our knowledge of organisms. There is no reason to believe that we would suddenly change the way we exchange things between ourselves. The things we see as alien would to those of their own time be seen as native, a logical progression according to the role that those things serve.

We use the commodities of our prehuman ancestors to explain the topic of commodities to children because the commodities that we now trade are too abstract for them to understand.
What breaks this constant in human understanding and why do you have more evidence to believe that it will occur than you do to believe it will not occur?

>>9002666

>There is no reason to believe that we would suddenly change the way we exchange things between ourselves.

there is nothing sudden about this, humans have become increasingly more socialized and less Darwinian (the head monkey doesn't get to screw all the females anymore) as society has depended more and more on its members diversifying as such

>We use the commodities of our prehuman ancestors

like drinking grounds? very few modern people understand where their water comes from much less the nature of the machines that process it for them, I don't think you understand how far we've come or where we're going

but I revert to the point that you're anthropomorphizing the state of affairs in the universe too much, everything from particles to bugs to fish behave in such a distributed, orchestrated, spontaneous manner and humans are the rare, temporary exception only in our own minds because of how much commodity fetishism is a part of our current psychology:

as monkeys we've only just recently brought the pretty fruit that the alphas apes hoard into our cognitive powers and have barely considered the notion that we might have to literally fuse with the fruit, on a basis that has no parallels with a hierarchical paradigm, just to survive the void

>>9002699

When I speak of the commodities of our prehuman ancestors, consider the fruit as one. Selling a pair of a currency on Forex (especially if you have not done any prior purchase of it) is an example of a modern commodity exchange where our understanding of the fruit as a commodity can still be used as an analogy without any commonality in form.

We have never moved along the vector that you are assuming we have been moving on, and that you allege we will move on to a point where our undergoings would be irreconcilable with that of all known organisms.

>>9001105
That pic isn't ironic. It's sincere and retarded for it

>>9002730
Posting it for (a kind of nihilistic, elitist) humor certainly is a matter of irony.

>>9002711

>Forex

a perfect example of the direction of human exchange

at the top it's a hypervolatile pip at the mercy of your computers latency, at the bottom its: at worst a delta in the volatility of a nation's well being, at best "financial liquidity", whatever that means in terms of fruit talk

here's a shocking thought: whether 100 years from now or millions, humans will probably have to deal with species wide events that cannot be at the mercy of computer latency, communication latency, societal action latency, and system entropy simultaneously, it's just too slow and too buggy to survive, if you think that's being extreme I don't think you understand how extreme the universe can be (and has been, from current cosmological models)

>undergoings would be irreconcilable with that of all known organisms.

most known organisms (bacteriums and bugs) don't know what a commodity is, they work with chemical exchanges and if they don't get the absolutely correct chemicals under the absolutely correct circumstances they dissolve: entropy in the universe is ticking

>>9002738
The fact that converting the issue of modern currency exchange to "fruit talk" is a complex matter that can't be handled by establishing direct equivalencies, and yet both the fruit and currency are commodities, illustrates my point.

In the same sense, we can see that if bacteria A and B both require chemicals X and Y that it would be in their best interests if bacterium A (perhaps finding itself in excess of X and lack of Y) exchanged some of chemical X for some of chemical Y with bacterium B, which for the sake of my example will have an excess of chemical Y and a lack of chemical X.

Our understanding of the nature of commodities therefore extends beyond our own prehuman history as apes and even into the realm of single-celled organisms. The inability for bacteria to exchange chemicals with one another is analogous with our own current inability to exchange the commodities of the future with one another (primarily because we must understand what those commodities are first).

Therefore commodity exchange as it exists in human understanding transcends humanity as a constant. You've yet to outline why whatever transhuman entities replace us wouldn't exchange anything.

>>9002763
>The inability for bacteria to exchange chemicals with one another is analogous with our own current inability to exchange the commodities of the future with one anothe

but fluids are exchanged, our ability to judge them on economic terms are inconsistent with our ability to judge bacteria and the supersystems and subsystems involved with them on individual actor (capitalistic) bases

>primarily because we must understand what those commodities are first

this, in survival this takes precedent over /any other system feature stated previously/, commodity exchange exists only because the entities that do it are better at increasing their own intelligence (survival) than the ones that don't exchange efficiently

this steeps into conspiracy-tier "what if scenarios", but if the primary feature of the universe /was/ commodity exchange, /the first thing an infinitely successful species or sub-field of the universe would do would be to disguise itself as a commodity to be reproduced and maintained along standardized forms of entropy (consumption)/

>You've yet to outline why whatever transhuman entities replace us wouldn't exchange anything.

they would understand their existences as beings of exchange with the surrounding environment first, and with entities (within their recognition as such) in this shared environment only secondarily

>>9002801
Oh, so they would practice capitalism secondarily to their own survival, as we do. Thanks.

>>9002811

>they would practice capitalism secondarily to their own survival, as we do

humanity has never been more socialist, nor required that socialization more, than at this point and trajectory in history

if superbugs continue to evolve in parallel with human ability to combat them, our immune systems and bodily activities (that is, EVERY SINGLE THING WE DO EVER) themselves will become socialized, distributed, and paralleled across the least latency and highest counter-computational system ever

>>9002516
>So long as there is a single person to invent, market, and sell a single object to a single person, capitalism exists
lul wut
what do you think capitalism is and when do you think it started