Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[i2amroy]

EDIT: ...but that only applies to the overzealous millenarianist brand of transhumanism. The non-crazy variety is just optimistic speculation, and I have no problem with it.

I think you're pretty safe in assuming that when somebody mentions transhumanism on the DF forums they aren't talking about the pseudoscientific nigh-religious mumbo-jumbo.

Equality is something that needs to be addressed before transhumanism can really be allowed to take off.

I'd say that while transhumanism definitely plans on helping many problems, it isn't related to solving any one problem per say. It's more like a step towards the solutions in a variety of different scenarios than a "solution to X problem" I'd say. So while it might help with a problem like say, equality (if we were all robots you don't care about how good your food is, and electricity is certainly cheaper than food ATM), it's not something that needs to be implemented in response to or aimed at any specific problem.

Personally I see a lot of the ideas less as a way to solve a problem (excluding maybe the problem of age/death), and more as a way to buy ourselves more time to solve the various problems we actually have.

[Morrigi]

I appreciate gender politics, but they're not of primary importance to me.  Though I understand that this likely wouldn't be the case if I was anything other than a straight cis-gendered white male.

I'm not against identity politics per se, but I think that their present form is not particularly useful even to the people whom it focuses on. If the political world has fallen to a toxic singularity of soul-crushing realpolitik then a lot of people whom reject that have fallen into a toxic singularity of idealism and replacing reality with academic social theory. The world's bland neoliberal stasis drives together groups of rejectors who start looking for answers, they then get a sophomore conception of things like intersectionality, radical feminism, critical race theory and at that point they basically go crazy bouncing off each other and we eventually end up with otherkin advocates and people who broke no dissent of their new sacred truth and distrust the entire rest of the world as irredeemably biased.

Meanwhile actual problems in the actual world go unsolved and people outside these singularities look in and see these things, so they vote for Ted Cruz because the left is pretty clearly insane, told you Obama got elected because he was black. And then the realpolitik singularity keeps chipping away at all democracy and liberty because our consumer needs and national security have to come first, the media keeps pressing our amygdalas into overdrive so we'll accept it, people start to not have any hopes or goals beyond instant pleasure, and it goes on and on. Nobody bothers to try to help because the corporations own the government anyway, cynicism rules every aspect of life and we all ascend as edgelords, eternally shitting on all these subhuman jocks who don't know about Metallica because they're obsessed with Eminem West Khalifa from our thrones of angstonium.

God, I need more sleep. Anyway, people should aim for a healthy synthesis of pragmatism and idealism or they both go spinning off into psychosis.

This is a good post.

[SalmonGod]

Equality is something that needs to be addressed before transhumanism can really be allowed to take off.

I'd say that while transhumanism definitely plans on helping many problems, it isn't related to solving any one problem per say. It's more like a step towards the solutions in a variety of different scenarios than a "solution to X problem" I'd say. So while it might help with a problem like say, equality (if we were all robots you don't care about how good your food is, and electricity is certainly cheaper than food ATM), it's not something that needs to be implemented in response to or aimed at any specific problem.

Personally I see a lot of the ideas less as a way to solve a problem (excluding maybe the problem of age/death), and more as a way to buy ourselves more time to solve the various problems we actually have.

Yeah, but my point was it won't work out so well if advances that allow us to improve the performance of our bodies or extend their operation are only available to upper classes, and from there become another way for wealthy families to further widen the gaps between them and everyone else.  It's easy to imagine things like unequal access to augmentation completely destroying social mobility.

[i2amroy]

How about the fact that more research into things makes them cheaper? Things like bionic augmentation are already available; they just cost billions of dollars to makes. No matter what you do any sort of advancement is always going to be able to be accessed by those with resources prior to those without, but because of that fact the more people with resources that perform it the cheaper it gets and the more accessible to those without.

[Glowcat]

If it was a constant and Capitalism would eventually make the products cheaper, sure. But as its been proving with medical, housing, and other essential resources, not everything in the consumer culture will have its price go down automatically. Transhumanism (and rapid advancement of technology in general) has the potential to liberate humanity but it also has the potential to enslave it if the current social order isn't dismantled before most of humanity, and thus the power they have to influence society, have their ability to effect it dismantled first (or the "cost of repression" renders their struggles meaningless to those few with access to power).

[Frumple]

*scratches head* I'm... kinda' doubtful class-hoarded augmentation would actually meaningfully accelerate inequity, to be honest. That's happening just fine as is, and the upper class being more capable, would, uh. Well, I'd imagine it would mostly just cut back on some of the inefficiencies involved, y'know?

Power would continue to consolidate, it would just have a higher ratio of genuine capability behind it instead of mostly being social inertia. I'd wager you'd be less likely to have shit like BP, just because how they operate is freakishly inefficient -- leaner, smarter groups would have the metaphorical processing capability to hit harder, pushing blighters like that to the side.

Guess what I'm saying is I have trouble seeing how cyber Koch will be worse than Koch, y'ken? Just about anything augmentation can provide is already functionally there -- higher intelligence (through acquiring smart people to work for them via money), functional immortality (via financial dynasty building), military capability (mercenaries, political graft)... the rich, particularly the hyper rich, already have all that shit. Being able to punch through a concrete wall or live to a thousand isn't really going to make much of a difference, from that side of things. Hell, the blighters having an arm you can actually rip off instead of doing all their wetwork via patsies would arguably be an improvement...

[Glowcat]

It's been happening fine but technological improvements have only accelerated the development of inequity by introducing new means by which elites (in Capitalism, those with the means to everything: capital) may subvert more democratic measures for guaranteeing their own influence. This was seen during the Industrial Era and the initial deskilling of work (from artisans to assembly line efficient production requiring a large pool of wage laborers) and again when globalization allowed commodification of workers to take place on a... well.. global scale and begin to escape the meager social benefit they were providing to nation states (taxes) as well as escape the ability to be regulated. Ideologically following that was the increasing practice of demanding an improvement in "business climate" to compete with the labor pools and other opportunities introduced by the new technologies which made globalized capitalism possible - as well as the development of the financial sector and some of the problems we saw come to a head during the 2008 crash.

Even in some of the examples you listed, such as utilizing intellectual wage labor, still depend on introducing more people into the system, but that's just a continuation of the creation and furthering of the "New Class" of knowledge-based labor which served as an intermediary after early capitalism began its first changes. Like before, these problems will only grow more extreme. I mean, if you want to get silly with the imagery we could be facing Mecha Nixon/Super Koch, or go Eclipse Phase and have armies of Koch forks - forks who can supply their own arms, supplies, building materials...

Right now there is at least some interdependence still that requires the elites to keep their elaborate systems of ideological control in place. If they develop (and control) the technology that might no longer be the case. And that's not an indictment against technology progress (since it'll happen in any case) but rather a reminder that we should really clean the house before the future is ready to move in and add another source of messiness.

[SalmonGod]

I don't think it will change the effect that the hyper-elites have on society so much... think actual 1% instead of .001%, you know?  Today we have to compete in the workplace against people who had relatively carefree upbringings, high quality private schooling, and private tutors for the most desirable work.  But someone from a background of poverty and broken family can still put himself on the same level with enough talent and drive, right?  Now add memory upgrades, reduced sleep requirements, mental uplink to private information databases, etc to the mix.  The 1% of tomorrow starts to look as distant from everyone else as the .001% does today.

And there's still the issue that the resentment the poor feel towards the wealthy is nothing compared to what it will look like if they do start living 10x longer than everyone else.  If it pisses people off that Paris Hilton can live a life of luxury for being a worthless sack that does nothing good for the world, imagine when it becomes possible for her to literally purchase lifespan.  It's hard for me to imagine it not crossing a line when the one thing that makes all human beings equal in the end... doesn't anymore.

[i2amroy]

I think the thing a lot of people are missing is the fact that the advancements that take place in the 1% don't just stay there. Back in the 50's and 60's the only people who had cell phones were the extraordinarily rich and those who were on special government payrolls (like spies). 20 years later they spread to the point that many members of the middle class had them, and now, 60 years later, we're just about at the point where everyone, even our bottom 10%, are beginning to carry around a cell phone with them everywhere they go. I see no reason why developments in the fields that transhumanism contains would preclude that from happening.

I mean sure, Bill Gates and his brethren are gonna be the ones upgraded first, but 10-20 years later we'll have reached the point where it's now cheap enough for middle class people to gain access, and then another 10-20 years after that we will start to see access for everyone. And keep in mind that just because someone has access to the "cutting edge" of technology doesn't necessarily mean that their technology is going to be that much better than what is currently on the market for everyone. Heck, it might actually be better for those who wait longer till some of the original problems with the technology are ironed out. A lot of transhumanist things aren't that easily reversed or upgraded, and to take a look at the cell phone technology, the cheapest cell phones of today can run circles around even the top cell phones of 10 years ago.

Personally I'd say that the overall effect is being vastly overestimated here, just from a purely technological standpoint. And yeah, the 1% might be able to purchase lifespan, but 15 years later so will the vast majority of people, and 15 years after that even the poorest will be able to. Any resentment is passing, because given enough time technology becomes cheap and accessible enough for everyone, and companies are going to work their hardest to accomplish that because 99 people each paying you $10 is more money than 1 person paying you $100.

[Helgoland]

I've intentionally not participated in the previous discussion because that wouldn't have led anywhere, but here I feel I have to chime in:

Today we have to compete in the workplace against people who had [upper-middle-class stuff].

we [...] against people who had [...].

we

Does anyone else see a big problem here? This is the rhetorics of class warfare, and that's a horrible path to go down ideologically. Salmon, how am I supposed to even talk with you, have a discussion with you if you label me The Enemy? And do you really wish to do politics just for the specific group that's being oppressed in a specific way right now instead of for everyone? It's the collectivist thinking I slammed whatshername for so often, and it leads to revolution instead of reform.
Look at Social Democracy, and look at Communism. Look at their respective ideologies, perspectives, and track record. Think about which ideology your in-group has profited from more. And then think about which of the two aligns more closely with your way of thinking.

[scriver]

Once again you show how little you understand social democracy, Helgoland. "Class warfare" - which is funny how that buzzword always gets swung around whenever people rightfully points our how the upper classes are privileged - and the destruction of class society and structure is one of it's cornerstones. Active "declassification" or society is a fundamental part of what made social democracy such a successful ideology.

[SirQuiamus]

*clip*

Glowcat has stolen my thoughts! The Singularity is here!

It's all about the priorities, really. Do we just sit and wait for super-rad future-tech, which may or may not happen within the next few centuries, or do we strive for social change with what we currently have? You don't need gadgets or guns to destroy capitalism -- all you need is a bit of democracy.
Remember that history is not a straightforward march towards universal freedom and happiness, but rather a cyclical process of crisis and convalescence. This goes for all kinds of develoment, technological as well as economic; it is in the interests of the ruling classes to present all progress as the manifest destiny of the current social structure, and excessive technological optimism merely contributes to that teleological fantasy. New technologies create social change, but society is not a stateless machine that reacts immediately to new input with no regard to previous inputs. It is apparent that the capitalistic structure has to be dismantled before the Robot Revolution arrives, because scifi-technology without social and political awareness will simply lead most of humanity into the new Dark Ages.

@Helgo
Class consciousness is precisely what's lacking in the present system of "politics-without-politics." If we stick to democracy, we don't need guns and bloody revolutions, but we do need in-groups and out-groups -- "us" and "them" -- because that is the actual essence of politics. The age of antagonism is not over!           

[Helgoland]

"Class warfare" - which is funny how that buzzword always gets swung around whenever people rightfully points our how the upper classes are privileged - and the destruction of class society and structure is one of it's cornerstones.

It would be news to me that the SPD - or indeed any Social Democratic party - pursued class warfare policies.

Active "declassification" or society is a fundamental part of what made social democracy such a successful ideology.

This I agree with 100%, in fact it's what I tried to (and failed, I guess) to express in my previous post. But 'declassification', as you call it, is not class warfare, quite the opposite in fact: The aim of the first is to eradicate the differences between the classes, while the aim of the second is for one class to crush the others - 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is a phrase that comes to mind.

TL;DR: Your usage of the term 'class warfare' is more broad than mine; too broad, as far as I can tell.

[scriver]

"Class warfare" is just a right wing buzzword thrown around whenever people bring up that the upper classes enjoy much greater privileges and uses their status to hold other people down, or when anyone dares to suggest that something should be done about that, a buzzword used in order to shape discussion into insinuating that change is somehow dangerous or even violent and lethal.

In short, exactly what you did to SalmonGod above.

[Reelya]

"Class warfare" - which is funny how that buzzword always gets swung around whenever people rightfully points our how the upper classes are privileged - and the destruction of class society and structure is one of it's cornerstones.

It would be news to me that the SPD - or indeed any Social Democratic party - pursued class warfare policies.

Active "declassification" or society is a fundamental part of what made social democracy such a successful ideology.

This I agree with 100%, in fact it's what I tried to (and failed, I guess) to express in my previous post. But 'declassification', as you call it, is not class warfare, quite the opposite in fact: The aim of the first is to eradicate the differences between the classes, while the aim of the second is for one class to crush the others - 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is a phrase that comes to mind.

TL;DR: Your usage of the term 'class warfare' is more broad than mine; too broad, as far as I can tell.

Pointing out differential treatment of classes is the first step to removing the barriers. You can't remove something you don't acknowledge.

For example, feminists pointed out differential treatment based on gender. That's just as much "class warfare" as pointing out that the dice are stacked in the favor of those with money. The solution is to level the playing field, but you can't do that without acknowledging how things are.

Although the term is always loaded: if workers go on strike, that's class warfare. If the bosses in an industry collude to depress wages, that's never called "class warfare". People actually die because of decisions made by those types, a lot of people. But that's not class warfare. A poor person saying "when's my turn" is by definition, class warfare.

Rush Limbaugh attacking the poor or homeless people in his show - that isn't class warfare obviously, it would be silly to label Rush as involved in class warfare, clearly. Constant calls to abolish minimum wage, and saying how worthless "burger flippers" are to society, they should only get $1 / hour because they aren't strong enough to bargain for more. How could something so sensible be "class warfare"? But if those same workers do actually try and bargain for more ... that's self-evident "class warfare".