|  Tuneg | Nov 23, 2007 11:04pm | | What is an ideal future society? What technologies do we have? I always think of something like a super high-tech, ecological stable society. But what about inequality and scarce ressources? How does a good society distribute wealth and status? |
|
| 
|  Scarlette | Nov 23, 2007 11:26pm | In my opinion, William Godwin was the first transhumanist thinker. He was also the first philosophical anarchist. For me, the two go together and always will.
But that isn't the case for everyone. Transhumanism is an ideology that can be rapidly attached to any (literally any) political program.
I think a great place to begin your studies would be the reading list at anarcho-transhumanism.com [anarcho-transhumanism.com] but am clearly biased. |
|
|
| | Tuneg | Nov 24, 2007 1:25am | Transhumanism is a new term to me. Interesting nevertheless. "Transhumanism: The cultural movement that affirms the desirability of fundamentally altering the human condition through applied science and technology." Doping is a kind of transhumanism.
So I guess the political question is: What conditions should we work to improve (when the resources are limited)?. Clearly theres not much sense in doing research in mans ability to run faster, when we have bikes or cars or rockets.... or is there? |
|
| 
| | Sangfraud | Nov 24, 2007 1:32am | I hadn't heard of Godwin till I read your post, but it was an interesting note that he apparently wrote one of the first mystery novels, and wrote lots of fiction along with his philosophical papers. Also interesting that his daughter married Shelley and wrote Frankenstein. I think there have been many people who followed in his tracks. But how does anarchism have a realistic application for a future society? Godwin was a middle-class Englishman of the eighteenth century who seemed to dislike institutions, especially the aristocracy. I think perhaps if we could visualize a future society without aristocracy of any sort, an ongoing egalitarianism where wealth is distributed where it is needed and status is a temporary priority, and perhaps technology was an assist instead of an addiction, we might be on the right track to a better evolution.
But what are the interim steps; how do we get from here to there? |
|
|
| | Tuneg | Nov 24, 2007 2:08am | Good question. I sometimes think of the future as Star Trek; Everybody is dedicated to their task, super-educated, there's respect of diversity... and usualy some moral dilemma.
In my opinion it all starts inside our heads - especially those of us with material ressources. We need to think beyond ourselves.... |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Yoza | Nov 24, 2007 2:08am | "But how does anarchism have a realistic application for a future society?" As anyone who is familiar with anarchism will point out: Anarchism is not a rigid doctrinal ideology, rather it is the questioning of the legitimacy of any form of authority, if a form of authority can be justified to the satisfaction of those who are subject to it then that authority can be acceptable. I would contend that in the case of the vast majority of contemporary forms of authority this legitimacy is nonexistent.
"But what are the interim steps; how do we get from here to there?"
There is no easy answer to this, the control exerted on the general population by the multi-national corporate sector through 'democratically' elected governments is not only difficult to fight it is also difficult to understand. The resources available to the propaganda machine of our corporate masters are beyond imagination: "... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy": Alex Carey: Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New.
The only avenue open is to organize, communicate and attempt to immunize ourselves against the insidious, ubiquitous dissemination of corporate disinformation and that reading list offered by Scarlette is a good start. I'm not an anarcho-transhumanist btw, I am more inclined toward the Libertarian Socialist (traditional anarcho-syndicalist) model |
|
|
| | Tuneg | Nov 24, 2007 2:15am | In my opinion authority goes to the person who - in the situation - has the expertise. It is not very efficient though, and if we need to do something efficiently, maybe it is necessary to place authority with a formal role....
Personally I'm not so afraid of big corporations, I'm more afraid of weak and uneducated people. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Yoza | Nov 24, 2007 2:43am | " Personally I'm not so afraid of big corporations, I'm more afraid of weak and uneducated people." The education system is more about indoctrination than it is about critical thought, generally speaking the more highly educated people are the more heavily indoctrinated, people don't rise through the system by questioning the status quo, they do so by following instructions and regurgitating the required information on command. The reason you are not afraid of big corporations is more a tribute to the propaganda system than any personal moral fortitude, as they say ignorance is bliss. Without constant activism and dissent these corporations will happily destroy humanity in the interests of short term profits and increased market share.
"In my opinion authority goes to the person who - in the situation - has the expertise." More often than not authority goes to the groups that control the largest concentrations of capital- Its called the "Golden rule", he who has the gold makes the rules. |
|
|
| | Tuneg | Nov 24, 2007 4:32am | I agree with you in a certain way. I too believe that you can go far, by following instructions and by being a 'player'. This is what I consider weak.
I don't know about you, but I have learnt criticism and analysis in the school system - maybe it is a scandinavian thing? You have to learn how things work before you can begin to change them.... and just to make my point... you quote a sociologist Alex Carey who obviously is a high educated and therefore highly indoctrinated person. It doesn't make any sense.
The statement about authority is more normative than it is descriptive. |
|
|
| | Sangfraud | Nov 24, 2007 4:26pm | | An anarchist society would depend on individuals with an ability to learn and probably a degree, perhaps a high degree of specialization. That would require some sort of education, teaching or whatever one wants to call it. An ignorant person is dependent; this is why current corporate strategies work so well. They can advertise themselves as whatever they wish because they work with a general ignorance. Defeat ignorance and greed, a big task, and you might have the basis for an anarchist society. |
| |
| |
Futurism → Discussion