The Best Can't Win. Here's Why. скачать в хорошем качестве

The Best Can't Win. Here's Why.

00:00:00 - Start 00:00:14 - Basic Bitch Genius 00:13:01 - Blue Marker 00:16:43 - Basic Bitch Excellence 00:19:11 - Nì’eng Kalweyaveng AVATAR 00:33:45 - Basic Bitch Horse 00:39:36 - Basic Bitch Socius 00:50:49 - Basic Bitch Internet 01:05:24 - Basic Bitch Revolution 01:10:33 - Basic Bitch Diagram Elon Musk cannot explain his own tech at any depth. Donald Trump speaks at a fourth grade reading level. Mark Zuckerberg spent forty billion dollars on a metaverse with Wii graphics. These are the most powerful people alive. You were told the best rise to the top. You were told this is what fitness means. You were told Darwin said so. Darwin did not say so. Herbert Spencer said so. And that one mistranslation broke an entire civilization's ability to understand why it keeps producing exactly the leaders it produces. Featuring: a fish that looks like God gave up halfway through, the two greatest science fiction films of all time (both which I have been close to), a Nietzsche quote that the tech accelerationists have been botching for a decade, and the Director of AI Safety who watched an AI delete her emails while she screamed STOP at her phone. This is Object 2 of the Partial Objects Series. Companion concept essays are linked in the description. They are standalone. You do not need to watch them to follow this essay. You will want to watch them anyway. COMPANION ESSAYS:    • Partial Objects   OBJECT 1 Series:    • Literacy: The Partial Objects   Books: Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray, 1859. Spencer adopted “survival of the fittest” after reading this; Darwin incorporated the phrase reluctantly in the 5th edition (1869). Spencer, Herbert. Principles of Biology. Williams and Norgate, 1864. The actual origin of “survival of the fittest.” Mentioned in the essay but worth citing properly since the misattribution is the whole argument. Oyama, Susan. The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution. 2nd ed. Duke University Press, 2000. (Orig. Cambridge University Press, 1985.) The fitness-as-relational argument. Central to the essay’s core biological claim. Her Evolution’s Eye (Duke, 2000) extends the same arguments and is worth pairing with it. Klossowski, Pierre. Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle. Trans. Daniel W. Smith. University of Chicago Press, 1997. (Orig. Nietzsche et le cercle vicieux. Mercure de France, 1969.) The equalization of surplus forces, the representative type, and the quoted passage on Nietzsche rejecting Darwin. Smith’s translation is the only good English option. Klossowski’s Living Currency (Bloomsbury, 2017) is the companion text on exchange and the body, worth having in the bibliography even if not directly cited here. Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane. University of Minnesota Press, 1983. (Orig. L’Anti-Oedipe. Minuit, 1972.) The three social machines, axiomatics vs. codes, decoding and recapture, and the Nietzsche acceleration line at the end. The standard companion is A Thousand Plateaus (Minnesota, 1987) for the diagrammatic sign and deterritorialization material. Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. The Religion of the Future. Harvard University Press, 2014. “Deep freedom,” “greatness of the ordinary,” experimental coexistence, and the institutional fetishism argument. The adjacent possible framing of incremental radicalism is most developed here. Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. False Necessity: Anti-Necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy. Part I of Politics: A Work in Constructive Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1987. The systematic account of institutional fetishism and frozen politics. Denser than Religion of the Future but more theoretically complete. If you only cite one Unger book, cite this one; if the essay is going to reference “frozen politics” as a concept, this is the primary source. Kauffman, Stuart A. Investigations. Oxford University Press, 2000. The adjacent possible, which the essay uses via Unger but which originates here in its biological form. Kauffman develops it as a constraint on what can happen next from any given state. His earlier At Home in the Universe (Oxford, 1995) is more accessible.