It is good to encourage people to save money and invest them, but 8 out of 10 people out there don't earn enough to gather so much capital to live off it.

To refute assertion you need to claim negation of that assertion, which is assertion in itself, as every negation can be rewritten to become affirmation, and vice versa.

Yes. Private companies are capable of the same, with addition of having profit as a sole purpose of existence.

Yes, violence shouldn't be the first resort, and when violence is unleashed innocent suffer as well, but there is a great difference between choosing not to use violence due to whatever consideration, and being so toothless and tamed that a sight of dog that finally bites when being constantly beaten sickens you.

Article mentions Searle and Chalmers, but we literally have at least two centuries of critical thought that expressed itself through Nietzsche, Marx, Horkheimer, Adorno, Weber, Durkheim, Foucault, Debord, Baudrillard, and many others (obviously I am mentioning those I am most familiar with). If you read Dialectic of Enlightenment, you'll find that slop isn't something that had arisen in last few years. If you read Discipline and Punish you'll find that surveillance and coercion isn't a problem that was born with internet or Palantir. And Baudrillard had few words to say about simulation and reality.

But STEM crowds for decades cried we don't need such thinking, and science and technology are all that we need. Historians, philosophers, culture critics etc. supposedly have nothing to offer us. Who needs to read Marx or Marcuse if sci-fi novels offer all you need, maybe sprinkled with some PG essays and blogpost from you favorite tech blogger, and we happen to live in the best of possible worlds with the best of possible economic systems.

Keep your poison. If everyone adapted this way, we would not have worker rights, and our children would still work in mines and factories for pennies.

Point me to something real that happens rights now that would support such optimistic vision.

I always read on how much power AI can bring to common people, and it it always without any evidence whatsoever.

If anything, if people hadn't invented weapons, they would not use weapons to enact violence, and this in turn will impact the practical nature of violence.

> The claim that AI is itself dangerous has no merit.

My claim is that considering any technology by itself is pointless. There is no such thing as thing by itself. Technology always exists in structural setting, and in turn shapes this structure.

Of course, it is popular to deny it. People constantly tell themselves "it is people, not tech". They make valid, yet banal and inconsequential statement. This distinction has no bearing on reality.

It is funny when such claims are put with an aura of harsh, but brilliant insight, yet they are nothing more than expression of ideology.

Of nature, maybe. Of human social arrangements, not really - otherwise elites would never feel the need of justifying themselves, yet they always do.

> Native Americans didn't choose to be moved onto reservations, enslaved people didn't choose to be enslaved, and colonized cultures did not choose to be colonized. And the ones making those choices always had the upper hand.

You went from social hierarchy to interaction between societies and cultures. Slaves were almost always sourced from outside the group, and by nature of slavery they were not part of social.

> But you put the facts together that it was nearly ubiquitous around the world

This is exactly the data we don't have. We simply don't know social arrangements of most tribes or cultures in human history.

Moreover, there is a huge gap between assertion that most societies in history had male leaders and rulers, and assertion that lack of merit always led to being left behind.

> what other conclusion can be had?

Using your spectacular reasoning one can similarly argue that it has to be necessary that males in all cultures live in polygamous relationships, because nature made sperm cheap, and optimal breeding strategy is to breed with as many females as possible.

And yet, for some reason, monogamy exists in patriarchal societies.

Who could have thought?!

Because since mass armies are the case it always was so, and all can men do now is whine on the internet, because they are not going to do anything.

> Does that sound equal and civil to you?

Not really, but however it sounds has no impact of it being the case.

> note we are not living in middle ages

In middle ages most men had no obligation to fight wars.

As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied.

> Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal?

There is no data to assert that.

Because the answer is obvious - Ukraine fights war.

One curious thing. My country was erased from maps for 123 years (Poland). During that time, universities in all three occupied parts could freely teach engineering, physics, math or biology. Occupiers didn't care, they even wanted to have access to talent pool of specialists educated on these universities. On the other hand, teaching of history, philosophy etc. was highly controlled and restricted.

One can wonder - if humanities are so useless for the society, why did they even bother?