(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:this is a good moment to refresh about this: I wonder if you could formulate some sort of Marxist quantitative unit of technology that relates input mass, the caloric value of human labor and then some sort of use value in like equivalent-labor calories against mc^2
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
re: caloric value of human labor, it's important to remember that the result of generation of use-value can become invaluable because of meaning/significance. Like, it's important to understand that Marx elaborates exchange-value and use-value in relation to capitalism and capital. This is to say that we can measure the process of creation of a work of art or great labor of science in purely physical terms, but if we were to reproduce the same conditions as much as possible, we would still have wildly different outcomes. Subjectivity comes into play here. That's part of why there is always going to be a social factor of what constitutes value
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I wonder if you could formulate some sort of Marxist quantitative unit of technology that relates input mass, the caloric value of human labor and then some sort of use value in like equivalent-labor calories against mc^2 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
dollars per unit mass is actually a great way to illustrate the value created by labor specifically. like hmm a block of steel is worth so and so much, but a watch made of a portion of that steel weighs less but costs more! what could have happened...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:re: caloric value of human labor, it's important to remember that the result of generation of use-value can become invaluable because of meaning/significance. Like, it's important to understand that Marx elaborates exchange-value and use-value in relation to capitalism and capital. This is to say that we can measure the process of creation of a work of art or great labor of science in purely physical terms, but if we were to reproduce the same conditions as much as possible, we would still have wildly different outcomes. Subjectivity comes into play here. sure, maybe my use of "use value" there was incorrect. Intermediate productive labor-energy efficiency metric is more towards what I'm getting at: If you could produce two sorts of, say, handsaw and measure the degree to which they saved labor-calories in terms of use efficiency, then project that backwards into labor expenditure to produce the device. The degree to which it reduces labor input at the point of measurement (using the saw to cut wood) versus labor input to produce the saw in toto could give you a value to compare against other intermediate productive inputs. This might be too reductive of labor-power, which includes but isn't strictly caloric expenditure. This wouldn't be applicable to some end products of production, or would be applicable but not something anyone would care about, but would be interesting to examine in terms of tools and implements within the mixture of labor and raw material. An implement of higher "technological" value would be something that would reduce labor-power down the chain for the same output. reading rec? never heard of this. I'm just bullshitting in here but if someone actually ran this down in some form I'd be extremely interested to read about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:reading rec? never heard of this. I'm just bullshitting in here but if someone actually ran this down in some form I'd be extremely interested to read about it You're in luck, here's a whole old thread I bookmarked that's super interesting. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3482774 I think there's something in this that connects very well to Marx's "sensuous human activity" as razor, and to dialectical materialism's primary emphasis on temporality, motion and becoming. That said, phil. of mind is broadly outside my wheelhouse. Aeolius has issued a correction as of 20:26 on Apr 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 20:18
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:reading rec? never heard of this. I'm just bullshitting in here but if someone actually ran this down in some form I'd be extremely interested to read about it I would love it if you read it, but it's a bit of a tongue in cheek recommendation. I'm always telling people to read this because the ecological approach to behavior allows for very rich description and modeling of what Marx calls use-value, and would slot very well into the niche (  ) you're describing. much like marxism allows us to treat the economy as a physical system with thermodynamic properties we can observe and model, ecological psychology allows us to treat behavior as a physical system with thermodynamic properties we can observe and model.edit: Aeolius posted:You're in luck, here's a whole old thread I bookmarked that's super interesting. this thread is what you should probably actually read. surgicalontologist's op is something to aspire to. Zodium has issued a correction as of 21:05 on Apr 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 20:18
|
|
|
Thanks for the input on my query. It’s handy to have this place to call upon for such instances. I’m also thinking of that oil based comic relating the energy slaves concept to material wealth we all enjoy in the fossil fuel party we call industrial civilisation. Steve Keen I think often uses a barrel of crude as a way of gauging the true price for our profligate energy use in seeing it as how much it would cost at minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 22:10
|
|
|
sick, thank you both. thankfully IA's got the book (and as an epub!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 22:21
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I wonder if you could formulate some sort of Marxist quantitative unit of technology that relates input mass, the caloric value of human labor and then some sort of use value in like equivalent-labor calories against mc^2 what would you expect to get out of caloric value of human labor over just labor time? people broadly need a similar amount of calories per day to stay alive and healthy and it doesnt really change all that much for adults, like way less than 1 order of magnitude even if youre talking about being sedentary vs manual labor. example: the usda recommends adult men on average to eat 2500 calories per day, or 3000 calories per day if you do heavy vigorous daily exercise fart simpson has issued a correction as of 22:27 on Apr 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 22:24
|
|
|
Has anyone ever read The Economic Superorganism by Carey W. King? I seem to recall a lot of productive value and energy being calculated in it as relating to what makes our global economy today. It’s always fascinating to see the inflection from where some bottleneck translates to capital deciding to skim off the top more as profitability sinks due to input increases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 22:27
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:dollars per unit mass is actually a great way to illustrate the value created by labor specifically. like hmm a block of steel is worth so and so much, but a watch made of a portion of that steel weighs less but costs more! what could have happened... yuuuup like, a gram of iphone is more than a gram of suv because…
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 22:34
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:yuuuup Raw ingredients that make a human versus said materials arranged as a human.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 22:44
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:what would you expect to get out of caloric value of human labor over just labor time? people broadly need a similar amount of calories per day to stay alive and healthy and it doesnt really change all that much for adults, like way less than 1 order of magnitude even if youre talking about being sedentary vs manual labor. example: the usda recommends adult men on average to eat 2500 calories per day, or 3000 calories per day if you do heavy vigorous daily exercise I want to keep my units in energy so you could have a lower (some infinitesimal of human input like button pushing or thought-directing) and upper (mc^2) bounds so you could say something like my process coverts X% of raw material inputs into work at a rate of whatever to one calorie of human input, from which I could decide how technologically efficient or advanced or whatever it is I have no real reason for this beyond me thinking its kind of cool
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 22:45
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I want to keep my units in energy so you could have a lower (some infinitesimal of human input like button pushing or thought-directing) and upper (mc^2) bounds so you could say something like my process coverts X% of raw material inputs into work at a rate of whatever to one calorie of human input, from which I could decide how technologically efficient or advanced or whatever it is ok, but my point is that the vast majority of human caloric intake is in sustaining your body and health at a baseline, and relatively little is actually expended on top of that, at work
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 22:48
|
|
|
yeah, for this particular metric I'm only evaluating at the point of implementation, so your human labor-energy input would be the calories expended in using the tool or process vs. not doing that. If I wanted to evaluate my nailgun vs my hammer the comparison between them would be the degree to which they expend human energy over just standing around doing nothing during evaluation. If I burn 100kcal/hr sitting on my rear end, but 1600 with a sledgehammer and 800 if I used a jackhammer I can isolate the tool-labor-energy of the work. this obviously doesn't incorporate the Marxist understanding of labor in relation to the actual human worker, but it might also be useful to use it as a jumping-off point for a wholistic or even ecological understanding of a technological society, if you could quantify the entire productive chain in this way, to make evaluations where, say, a technological apparatus might be extremely labor-energy efficient at the point of the work but not for the system as a whole. The labor-calories saved from an extremely useful hammer might not be worth it if it necessitates a new or different labor-intensive step in the productive chain, even if the material inputs are the same. I think you could also create higher-level metrics like projected labor-energy per laborer, where processes that might be more labor calorie efficient at the point of work could result in more caloric expenditure to the worker because it's unsafe or non ergonomic or something. I think what I'm trying to get at is a way to understand technological efficiency that is better divorced the commodity form and less so from the actual physical labor and raw materials
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
i always think about rakes vs. leaf blowers, their differences in production, material input, how they’re expected to be used, how they shape the environments they’re used on and how they shape the various commercial entities that rely on them it’s a very depressing mental exercise!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 23:26
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:got you fam Quoting this for later, I really should know more about the history of my own country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:yeah, for this particular metric I'm only evaluating at the point of implementation, so your human labor-energy input would be the calories expended in using the tool or process vs. not doing that. If I wanted to evaluate my nailgun vs my hammer the comparison between them would be the degree to which they expend human energy over just standing around doing nothing during evaluation. If I burn 100kcal/hr sitting on my rear end, but 1600 with a sledgehammer and 800 if I used a jackhammer I can isolate the tool-labor-energy of the work. See, I think time is both more a practical and more accurate unit of labor, as time seems to be the "limiting reagent" in production.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 23:51
|
|
|
Skaffen-Amtiskaw posted:Raw ingredients that make a human versus said materials arranged as a human. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
I get the desire for quantification but energy's indifferent to whether it's used for good, for bad or simply wasted. the unit and the metric picked for quantification should be ones that further the values you're trying to promote. in the way that a petrodollar and gold before promoted colonialism, colonialist values, the commie unit of productive forces should promote equality and advancement
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
energy fetishism
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 00:20
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:energy fetishism cold fusions just a couple decades off, man!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 00:32
|
|
|
scold fusion is here right now though
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 00:38
|
|
|
Commodity fetishism came up in a conversation last night and i wanted to double check my understanding/the example i gave. I brought up the brain geniouses who protest companies going "woke" by filming themselves destroying the company's products that they already paid for and own (shoes, keurig, etc), as though destroying the commodity itself had any effect outside of the plain fact that they were destroying their own personal property. I contrasted this with e.g. destroying a shipment of shoes before they get to the store, or even before they leave the factory, or somehow preventing the materials from being assembled in the first place, all of which would have an actual material effect on the target of their ire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
I think there's a mismatch there regarding the underlying concept and the thoughts (or lack thereof) going on in the minds of the reactionary culture warriors. Ultimately commodity fetishism is meant to divorce the thing from the processes of labor and relations involved in creating and selling the thing, so using an example where the commodity is being brought back into relation with the company that made it might be a bit counterproductive to explaining the concept. The chuds are usually saying something like "look what you did nike" or whatever, which is pretty different from focusing their hatred on the object itself as if it were a little god with it's own power to compel their actions. I have had three standard drinks tonight but I think I'm right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 03:21
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:See, I think time is both more a practical and more accurate unit of labor, as time seems to be the "limiting reagent" in production. I wonder if you could develop some kind of horsepower-like standardized unit of labor time and do a straight conversion. One workerlaborhour is equivalent to however many joules or whatever But yeah, I think you're (and fart simpson are) right in the thing that anyone would care about would be "does it reduce time" as a measure of technology over "is it physically costly", in relation to the worker. Who cares if pushing the button only takes a fiftieth of a calorie if I have to do it for eight hours a day. The Voice of Labor posted:I get the desire for quantification but energy's indifferent to whether it's used for good, for bad or simply wasted. the unit and the metric picked for quantification should be ones that further the values you're trying to promote. in the way that a petrodollar and gold before promoted colonialism, colonialist values, the commie unit of productive forces should promote equality and advancement I agree but I will note that I'm a dumb guy and haven't been able to get there yet. I think in the most general sense the answer would have to be in a projection up to a system where you have axes for the good stuff you want and the optimal point for the technological metric would sit at (or demark a range or whatever) of the highest grade of ecological health -- like the actual physical health of the biosphere, but also the workers therein, the maximalization of the work energy/time they can expend on non-productive purposes, etc etc. You could build a kind of non-demonic profit curve. Pentecoastal Elites has issued a correction as of 04:14 on Apr 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
has anyone seen this https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3438093 ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2024 04:24
|
|
