I mean, we’re also using social media but can still recognize that she’s delusional. There’s a lot of different factors contributing to people’s delusions.

How do we improve society, if all societies are equal? It’s nonsense!!!

By evaluating individual stats, not entire societies, and by letting societies determine what they value.

No those are stats EVERYBODY should value

You don’t need to share other people’s values. But you have no right to determine what other people should value. Big colonizer energy from you.

How would you tally up the score of “development”?

If the score depends, essentially, on racist ideas of how human societies should look, valorizing old people who can read as the epitome of human achievement, then I think it should be dismissed.

And more than that, I think the entire game of defining a single consolidated “development score” is laughable at best. We can measure stats individually, and consider them in their own right. Any attempt to weight the individual scores to contribute to a total score is going to depend heavily on the judge’s personal values. There is no value-neutral way to do it.

You may feel strongly that certain cultures are more developed than others, but that is based on the stats that you value. Even if you base it on data in some way, you are basing it on the data that states have bothered to gather, which almost always captures metrics that align with their priorities and views.

One obvious measure would be literacy, another would be life expectancy.

The idea that literacy and life-expectancy are signs of a more “developed” country is essentially just racist colonialist propaganda.

Many cultures worldwide have traditionally transmitted knowledge orally, and their societies were built around this, with lots of in-person meetings to disseminate information. If a person speaks their traditional language and is well-versed in their traditional culture, but does not read or write (because they don’t need to), then by the standard of literacy they will be deemed as less “developed” than some 4-chan troglodyte.

Likewise, life expectancy past a certain age is kind of a ridiculous metric. People seriously believe that the longer you can stay geriatric, the more “developed” your country is.

Meanwhile, metrics like knowledge of botanical medicine or percentage of communal land ownership are often left out of these scoreboards of “development”. Things that can materially improve people’s lives are only seen as having value when non-Indigenous people do them. It is racism through and through.

Actually, looking at history, no language will survive. Modern English is only 400 years old. >In a few hundred years, all languages will be very different from what they are now. Different enough to be considered a different language. It is normal.

This is a completely different process than what’s outlined in the article. The article is about outright language death, like if Old English had died so that it never became Modern English.

Language change is normal. Language death is, in our world, largely a result of colonialism, racism, and anti-Indigenous policies.

I don’t get why people are up in arms over lost languages or lost cultures, unless of course if it’s due to genocide.

Which it often is, as I’m sure you know. We are in an awful situation for Indigenous languages.

Regarding culture, people don’t lose their culture in general, they adopt other cultures over time.

These are the same thing. People don’t just lose their culture and become cultureless. They lose their culture as they adopt another culture, but this process is largely driven by colonialism.

Just like people have evolved biologically over time, so do we also evolve culturally, but the cultural evolution is much much faster.

“Evolve”? Do you think European culture is superior to Indigenous cultures? We are destroying the planet in record time, and you are talking about “cultural evolution”? This is the language of 19th century racists who were blind to the nuances of culture. Different cultures are different ways of being in the world, each with its own pros and cons.

And it’s fucking great that cultures evolve, because that’s the way to get rid of religion and other traits of our cultures that are detrimental to in general.

Unfortunately, the cultures that have replaced Indigenous cultures around the world have largely been bigoted Christian cultures. Language loss is not caused by cultures becoming healthier – it is caused by unhealthy cultures killing other cultures.

there’s likely a good reason most of them are disappearing.

This belief is called the “just world fallacy”. Sadly, the world is not just.

Most of these languages are disappearing due to colonialism. People’s traditional ways of living have been forcibly upended by capitalists and state governments, who have seized the commons around the world, and by colonialist policies such as residential schools. No longer able to support themselves using their traditional ways of living, people have been mde into wage slaves who must compete on the market to survive. That means using English or another widely-spoken language. Indigenous languages are much less useful to capitalists, and so gradually they wither and die.

We are at risk of killing 95% of the world’s languages, on top of the incalculable cultural damage that goes along with all of this, just to prop up a single way of being: liberal nation states. It is reprehensible beyond words.

Gurl the world’s population has been growing for hundreds of years and is still growing 🤦‍♂️ It is expected to peak at around 10 billion people.

The loss of human languages is a direct result of colonialism + nationalism, which go hand in hand. People that want to unite a region under one government push for only a single language to be used in that region. Italy and China are prominent examples of this. The natural linguistic diversity of the region is decimated to grow a monoculture.

Language loss is largely unrelated to people dying. Indigenous people live on, just without their languages, as they adopt the languages of their colonizers. This is very common across the world.

When a language dies in a community, the transmission of that community’s culture is heavily impacted. Monolingual elders can no longer communicate (or communicate well) with younger generations, and the words in other languages do not capture the same nuances and connections as the words in their native language. The death of a language quickens the death of a culture, and that in turn quickens the death of indigenous knowledge systems.

The different languages of humanity – our different ways of speaking, thinking, and being human – are treasures. They show us other ways of treating each other, other ways of organizing society, other ways of experiencing beauty and fear and anger. They show us that the world is broader than our narrow lens. We can never really escape the lens of our native language and culture, but we can step out of it for a while. And in doing so, we gain a greater perspective on what it means to be human.

What led you to change your views?

Iconic.

To be fair, variety makes groups more resilient. If Signal were to ever become compromised somehow, people who use other apps like Session will be okay.

It’s not a zero-sum game, either – people can use Signal and other apps.

It has to do with the societal consequences of how them “valuing their time” impacts people. Nurses refusing to do volunteer nursing has little impact on the overall system of access to healthcare.

Healthcare is heavily regulated through legislation, and is going to be free or paid or corporate or not corporate largely as a result of the legislation. Nurses can’t just do what they want. People who are concerned about the state of healthcare should therefore change things by targeting legislation, not by targeting nurses.

Creative work is not like this. Creatives refusing to do do volunteer creative work means that either they will charge for their work, which creates a barrier to access, or they will use (and push others to use) platforms like YouTube and TokTok that make money from ad data.

The former choice results in class differences in access to art, and the latter choice results in everyone using platforms that have proven themselves to be hostile to minoritized groups and progressive causes. These outcomes aren’t legislated – they are the result of creatives choosing to “value their time”.

In otherwords, creatives choosing to “value their time” means that they will happily enforce class-based restrictions in access to art, and will happily support conservative corporations and surveillance capitalism.

And I practice what I preach, too. I have spent thousands of hours developing free software and making free educational materials for people, donating my labour to support progressive causes and supporting others who do the same. Creatives who insist on charging for their work are a ball and chain on the movements I support. They are leeches and class traitors.

Creatives should value other people. Fuck their time.

No, my point specifically relates to creative work. You said in your comment:

under our current economic model people require money to survive and if they do not get money for doing their creative work they might not be able to continue making that work.

This is false, basically. They can do other types of work. Creative work can be done without making money for it. Plenty of people have a day job and make creative work in their free time. The same option is not available for most other types of work, such as government, doctors, lawyers, etc. If you try to do these types of jobs outside of the framework of a regulated business, you’ll get the book thrown at you.

The issue I’m getting at isn’t “are you responsible for the actions you take to make a living”. Rather, I’m getting at the issue of “does creative work require becoming an employee of a capitalist company, thereby siding with its shareholders in having a vested interest in increasing that company’s profits regardless of the societal damage caused?”

The answer to that question is a resounding “no”. Creatives need to grow a spine and get a day job.

you’re not a leftist unless you have daddies money to support you wasting 100 hours on a 20m video.

I didn’t say that, though. Clearly it’s not worth engaging with you.

It is not selfish to want to be payed for working on something like a video that in some cases takes hundreds of man hours of work to complete

Yes, it is, if your desire to get paid causes you to remain on corporate-controlled social media, to the detriment of society.

Not to mention, plenty of people can and do put hundreds of hours of work into projects that they don’t ask for payment for.

“Content creators” who get paid through advertisements are class traitors whose interests are aligned with the capitalist class. They will fuck over society to make a buck for themselves.

They are strange, but in an ordered way. They are using commas when a complex noun phrase ending in a noun of the same number is the subject of a clause. (See what I did there?) I wish they used a different punctuation mark, to be honest, but I get how it reduces the number of possible readings that the mind has to juggle.