Serious Discussion on the Future

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

As you all know I'm a pretty extreme leftwing sort of fellow. However I am open to listening to others even if I disagree with their ideas.*

Anyway. I stil holdthe firm belief that as a society the world will eventually be forced into a socialist utopia if you would call it that. Here we go again they say! Hear me out.

The reason why I'm saying this change is going to be forced upon us is not because of the use of force (Soviet Union ect) but rather due to the necessity of the human race to survive due to a burgening population, diminshing water supply, pollution and of course natural resources being exhuasted.

Thats the scenario I believe the world is heading towards. Not because of forced change but because of the need for the human race to survive. There is parellels in the animal kingdom. Look at any animal that lives in a communal society. They all share the same resource that they all need to survive.

I also think there is 1 other cause that will force this change. It's not going to be the result of human change but rather an event that will force humans to realise that cooparating and throwing all ideas about making money which is very materialistic and not a animal trait. Such an event could be a comet strike or alien invasion for the conspiracy idiots.

This is basically a laymans summary of a very large manifesto if you will of a paper/book I scribble ideas into. Which contains alot of what I think is the perfect society and doesent need to be discussed here.

My question is. If what I am suggesting is not going to happen what is going to happen?

Minardiau (being philosophical)

*Notes

Accept when I'm drunk and you can usually tell when thats happening. :P

[Turhapuro]

Socialism or something else will take over capitalist form of economy maybe after superintelligency is invented. No before.

You should read some economic books because you have probably quite many wrong beliefs of economy.
For example Joseph E. Stiglitz "Economics of the public sector" is very good book about government, taxation and public sector.

[BigBaribal]

1: a perfect society will never exist.
2: global solutions are the worst ones.


Also, I don't think anymore that the debate can still be easily divided between right and left because these words have been emptied of their meanings. Now, there's the global sytem and enemies of the global system.



Edit: a good article here showing well why a paleo-conservative like me can even understand some of the leftist but non-marxist critics against the liberal globalist system:

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/capcon.html



Btw, an interesting and disturbing quote coming from the Black Block:


If I told you I thought a small group of people run the world and exploit the workers, you'd say I was left wing. If I told you who those people were, you'd say I was right wing. So I don't know.

[Thor]

Socialist people are all weak people.

Islam will own your asses.

Minardiau already knows it.

[BigBaribal]

Also, good idea to look at the animal world....


There is parellels in the animal kingdom. Look at any animal that lives in a communal society. They all share the same resource that they all need to survive.

.... but rather dangerous on an ideological point of view, because the animal world has nothing to do with the PC dogma we are brainwashed with:

- Survival instinct.
- Territorial instinct.
- Species consciousness (you will never see in the nature lions playing the game for hyenas or simply an animal not looking at his own kind when confronted to another species)
- Sense of hierarchy within the species and among the species (the concept of equality is simply abnormal from a natural point of view).
- Coherence of the territories repartition between different species.
etc....



Btw, I would recommend the books of the famous ethologist Konrad Lorenz on these subjects.

[BigBaribal]

Socialist people are all weak people.

Islam will own your asses.

Minardiau already knows it.


Not only "socialists" are weak people, but basically all the members of the politial-mediatic oligarchy (either from the left or from the right) who will always prefer fake tolerance and apparent peace to an honest and frank look into the reality.

Because an honest look into the reality would oblige them to a radical change which could change first their still comfortable situations and second deeply change the political and even societal parameters of our societies. And the System hates changing, because changing can always mean loss of power.

Just look at the London terrorists attacks: suicide bombers in the heart of Europe and all these mainstream treators, either from the right or from the left, continue to sing the song of the "we are all brothers, we are all the same".

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

See thats the thing with the animal world.

Battles between species over territory are extremely rare unless they are competing for the same resource (food or water)

Tghere is enough evidence to suggest that humans were the same when we were part of the food chain and were hunted by other animals like we hunted animals insfar that we left animals alone that were more trouble then they were worth or did not give a good enough feed.

Yet when you look at the we are now we fight even amogns sub-species of the species and consider other sub-species to be inferior despite there being no scientific evidence to suggest such inferiority exists.

In a future context when faced with a situation it quite feesible that humans could resort to this socialist way of life. Again there is enough recent evidence to suggest that we are capable of doing this. Look at the Ancient Greek ignoring there constant civil war to repell the invading Persians for example.

Now when the time comes and resources are exuasted the evidence is there to suggest that until such a time when the individual can become prominant as opposed to the state/species then the natural socialistic human way of life prevails.

People can say "oh but we are consumers" of course we are consumers. But without the resources to enable us to be consumers then what?

[BigBaribal]

The Greek concept of the city as explained by Aristot, so the "democracy" means litterally "power of the people", what is only possible in a equal way with a single homogene people, according to the Greek philosophy (Platon was even clearer).

This is another paradox of our time, the guys praising democracy today don't even know the real origin and significance of this concept.


In fact, a real socialist system is in my opinion only possible in an globally homogene society with people sharing the same "common decency", as Orwell, a non-marxist anarcho-leftist said.

Because the other option is found in multiethnic societies like the USA or even more obviously Brazil in which the classes fight don't happen any more within the people, but among the different races which become not only "communities" but also closed social classes, in fact just like a modern cast system separated by race and ethnies.

So, that's why a real honest socialist cannot be a globalist (S-commandante Marcos wrote interesting things about it)

[BigBaribal]

Battles between species over territory are extremely rare unless they are competing for the same resource (food or water)


Battles are rare because the leopards knows it's not a good idea to miss with lions and lions know too that they can get trouble too with leopards.

So, no need of an Huntington in the animal world to warn of the stupidity of pushing a multiculti agenda. Because animals still have this territorial instinct we are lacking so much now.

[Echo7]

BigBaribal

This is scary...... I think the same as you!!
or maybe you like me..

[BigBaribal]

But it's scary for me too: more and more often I wish someone can prove me that what I think is totally wrong. Because I'm not quiet with it, you know the Cassandra story....

[Turhapuro]

In a future context when faced with a situation it quite feesible that humans could resort to this socialist way of life. Again there is enough recent evidence to suggest that we are capable of doing this. Look at the Ancient Greek ignoring there constant civil war to repell the invading Persians for example.
Uniting against common threat is not socialist. For example, NATO was not socialist organization, quite contrary.

[Kaplanr]

Minardiau, can you elaborate a little on the Socialis outcome you forsee? I was a kibbutznik for 10 years and still follow the developments in the kibbutz movements in Israel.

I'm partial to the ideology because it was successful, it met a need and has up until now been dynamic (meaning it wasn't static.) On the other hand they were always a miniscule part of the population and unless one has an industrial economic base, they've dropped the classic communal elements that made them appealing (at least to me.)

The other element and this is the usual complaint about the socialist model, is that we had more than our share of shirkers and people who didn't contribute an honest day's work. At some point all the ideology doesn't compensate for the time the harder worker feels they put in for the same return or benefits the lazier one gets. And we cut people slack because their spouse was a super worker or great planner or something.

Just a thought.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

This is wear socialism is it's strong points and a BIG weakness and I'm willing to accept that.

This is where education comes into play. Granted some people are not suited to academia or people suited to being construction workers or office workers. But during the education process proper means at removing the laziness and transferring it into productivity.

This is why I think socialism at present is flawed due to gross inbalance with what a free market creates and it can not flourish.

At the end of the day a bludger still wants to survive. In a perfect socialist society under the philosophy I follow the growth of the species is more important then the state or the individual. And this teaching is driven home in the education process.

Plus the way I think a utopian society will develop will mean that all humans would need to pull their weight because a threat to the species is what is driving the need to change to such a society.

[Ayura]

1: a perfect society will never exist.
2: global solutions are the worst ones.


x2


Exactly what attributes constituites a perfect society?

"Utopia" will never be found on this planet. You can strive for it though.

[Ayura]

Plus the way I think a utopian society will develop will mean that all humans would need to pull their weight because a threat to the species is what is driving the need to change to such a society.


This is where the problem lies: how do you convince people to pull their weight? Guranteed there are people who will want the polar opposite of your dreams - sheer chaos.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This talk of paralleling the animal kingdom is a bit foolish and simplistic IMHO. You can judge the success of the animal kingdom by understanding that each night, there's on of them on my dinner table. And it's not because I'm stronger than a cow, it's because I'm smarter. Well, marginally smarter.

You must understand that even in the US or Hong Kong there is not a 100% capitalist system. Water does not go the highest bidder. We do not fight wrestling matches for steak dinners. We already function at an extremely high social level - sharing resources - giving of ourselves to help others - paying taxes etc. So we are already deep into a bit of socialism, even in the most capitalistic societies.

As to whether socialism will become prevalent - I don't know. We could all wind up in little square rectangular gray apartment blocks, eating Soylent Green. The question is not whether socialism could prevail, but should it. We humans are able to live under all kinds of terrible systems - but should we want to? And I say no - socialism is contrary to the human spirit, stifles development, and it dooms society to mediocrity.

For society to flourish and advance, humans must be recognized for achievement. They must be rewarded for work. More work, better work, more reward. People like fancy things, they like status, they like ***, they like money -and in exchange for those things they are willing to work very very hard.

This says nothing of the corrupting influence of human nature under a socialist system. As I said, people like certain things, and they will get them, by hook or by crook, even under socialism. Status will be conferred to the anointed leaders, power will be consolidated - human nature will not change just because the government does. This corruption is what has eventually doomed all socialist systems - eventually the people push back at the exploitation.

Also - remember that asking what our system in the future will "become" is a misnomer, as we will not reach a point in history and be able to say "yay! It's over, we've won!" Reality is an ongoing proposition, that won't end unless the sun swells up or some other very nasty thing happens. And who's collecting taxes at that point probably won't matter.

[Kaplanr]

This is where the problem lies: how do you convince people to pull their weight? Guranteed there are people who will want the polar opposite of your dreams - sheer chaos.

So the Anarchists can be said to have failed the minute one of them says: "we need a structure." :D

[Ayura]

2sheds - I agree partially with your post regarding parallelling the animal kingdom to human beings. Clearly it is foolish.

The "people" don't always necessarily know what is good for them. What causes a potential pleasure can result in potential harm.

[Kaplanr]

2 Sheds. I buy the argument when we're talking about societies that are predominantly western in outlook. How about smaller scale societies in places like the Amazon and New Guinea? I'm no anthropologist but there is evidence of "successful" societies (meaning they provide for the common good) that restrain the competitive nature to outsiders. Maybe its a variation of the "me against my brother, my brother and I against the clan, the clan against the village, etc..."

On the other hand, they aren't producing very many innovative products, jet planes and I-pods.

[BigBaribal]

It's a mistake to think that the anarchism has something to do with the stupid leftist clowns who protest in the streets.

Basically, a real anarchist is someone who hate the system, because he thinks that each human being has the strength to be "his own system"; what is totally unreal by the way, except in an elitist approach (like the right-winger writer Ernst Jünger who called himself not an anarchist, but an anark).

In fact, real anarchism has nothing to do with leftism, because real anarchism is essentially elitist and individualist.

[Ayura]

Alot of people see being "technologically" advanced is a good thing and shows sure signs that one society is higher then another. This is clearly not the case. If a society in the amazon rainforest is better functioning then a society in America who possess more technology, doesn't that make the society in the amazon rainforest a more "advanced" society on a differant perspective?

[BigBaribal]

On the other hand, they aren't producing very many innovative products, jet planes and I-pods.


I read some interesting things about "diversity" at Boeing-Aerospace, which were not really a promotion of the merit of diversity in top-technology areas like aeronautics ;)

[BigBaribal]

Alot of people see being "technologically" advanced is a good thing and shows sure signs that one society is higher then another. This is clearly not the case. If a society in the amazon rainforest is better functioning then a society in America who possess more technology, doesn't that make the society in the amazon rainforest a more "advanced" society on a differant perspective?


x2

It's a mistake to make an hierachy among the different human societies by the technology angle of view: an human society, either pygmees or Europeans, can be considered as successful, it it is adapted to its area. And in this view, the pygmees society is a successful one.

[Ayura]

Diverse technology doesn't breed the same effect as Moral diversity in my opinion...

[Lokos]

Time to return to a State of Nature, Rousseau-style! Boo-yah!

Lokos

[Knutsen]

The other day i saw a quote that fits perfectly this debate:

"The day we cut the last tree, drink the last drop of water and kill the last animal we will realise we can't eat money"

So basically when i see people like Bush or Putin saying things like they won't sign Kyoto cause their economies will go down i remember this words .

[Kaplanr]

Agreed that technological innovations aren't the only criteria of success, but we need to remember that historically, someone somewhere is always playing with the mousetrap (An American expression- "If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door"). At certain times in certain places will a collection of humans strive for new innovations?

Is the fundamental difference the evolution (as a process over time, not a value judgement) from agrarian to industrial communities. Agricultural life leant itself to larger groupings, large families and communal efforts.

Why have the efforts to import the kibbutz model to Australia and Africa failed repeatedly, and why have the greatest efforts at collectivization been at the point of a gun?

[vote for Pedro]

I could care less what political ideology rules in the future, just as long as I get my flying car.

[Legion]

EPCOT. The city of tomorrow.

http://www.waltopia.com/images/fantasy_art.jpg


ORLANDO, Fla., Feb.. 2, 1967 (AP) Walt Disney Productions today announced it would build the world's first glass-domed city in central Florida amid Disneyworld, a $100-million entertainment center...
...The glass-domed city would take a quarter of a century to construct, Mr. [Roy] Disney said.
The presentation, narrated by Walt Disney, who died Dec. 15, was termed by Disney officials as "Walt's last film." It showed a 50-acre, air conditioned "city of tomorrow" centered in a 1,000-acre industrial park between Orlando and Kissimmee.

...Mr. Disney said the futuristic city would be laid out like a wheel, the hub containing a 30-story hotel and convention center, with stores, theaters, restaurants, nightclubs and office buildings.
He said it would have a completely closed environment with a minimum of traffic. "The pedestrian will be the king," he said.

He said high-speed monorails would transport workers to the hub of the city from three out-lying areas.

Outside the central hub, will lie areas of high-density apartments, green-belt residential districts and low-density living areas. Once inside the city, workers will move on electric conveyor-type cabs or "people-movers," as Mr. Disney phrased it.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

2sheds - I agree partially with your post regarding parallelling the animal kingdom to human beings. Clearly it is foolish.

The "people" don't always necessarily know what is good for them. What causes a potential pleasure can result in potential harm.

Yes, this explains the horrible rash I get from using a belt sander on my nuts.

[Legion]

EPCOT was kind of a joke, but a link I found on a website about the planning of EPCOT sent me here http://www.victorycities.com/. This is creepy!


Residential Apartments and Resident Guidelines

There will be a wide variety of living accommodations available for Victory City residents. There will be something for everyone, and something for everyone's pocketbook from the least expensive to the most expensive and everything in between.

The least expensive will be a ward for perhaps 50 people. Each will have a bunk and small locker. All 50 will share the same bathroom. There will be wards for men, women, students, the retired and elderly, and the poor, as well as for temporary visitors.

All apartments would come completely furnished, and a variety of 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom apartments would be available. Also available will be spacious luxury apartments in many sizes. Living in any size apartment in Victory City will be like living in a luxury resort hotel.
"Quiet" Versus "Regular" Zones

The residential area could be divided into "quiet" and "regular" zones, where TV's, stereos and musical instruments are banned from the "quiet" zones. Another possibility will be to install a Muzak-type system in each apartment so residents could listen to a central source of music, news and other programs whenever they wanted. All of these programs could be turned off by Victory City between 10-11 PM, and the volume turned down between 9-10 PM in order to enable people to sleep better at night. Separate loudspeakers could be used for emergency announcements, which should be regulated by Victory City, independent of the tenants' control.

[Oddbod]

Humans ARE animals & most animals do as little as possible in order to survive.
This is why Socialism cannot work: remove the incentives supplied by a Capitalist society & we revert to that state.
Witness the inefficiencies & waste of the Eastern Bloc under their Socialist regimes.
Note also the greed & gorruption of the "socialist" elite.

"All men are equal but some are more equal than others"

It will not work - ever.

[Rictor]

Nice discussion, and something I've thought alot about. A good respite from the endless flamewars.

Here are my thoughts. Kind of long-winded.

1. Technology, and the social progress that accompanies it, is a one way street. It can not be effectively reversed or destroyed. That means that globalism and ever-advancing technology, and all that those entails, are a reality that is not going away. Even if, as some primitivsts hope, the techno-industrial system were to be destroyed, it would be rebuilt within a few hundred years. "Small societies" like a kibbutz or city-state are not possible in the future, and even national-states will likely disppear in favour of a global system of goverment.

2. Historically, the single biggest influence of human society has been technology. Everything else, all economic and political systems, are transient, they rise and fall every few years. What will determine the future is not our chosen social or political system, but the level of technology we posses. From basic tools, the progression of human society is tracked through the technology it possess. The Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the Agricultural Revolution and subsequent urbanization, all the way through roads, coinage, printing, the rise of science, the Industrial Revolution and now into the Silicon revoltion. Like I said, it's a one way road, and has had profound influence on human society.

3. Humanity is general has a tendecy towards control, of both itself and it's environement. We love control, often more than even survival. Whenever the ability has existed, it has been fully exploited. At first, it was simply the rule of strength. Then, as commerce grew in importance, a more abstract form of control (power) reigned supreme: economic power. That is not to say that these are clear divisions, military power has remained vastly important even to this day, but economic might rules. However, it is likely to be replaced soon (50-100 years) by an even more abstract form of power: intellectual power. Again, there will be no clean line of divison, but as both economic and military power is either widely dispersed or highly concentrated (under a government) they will become unavailable or unimportant to people, and further abstraction of power will come about. As society progresses into the future, the degree of control will increase, though not necessarily in terms of military or economic domination. The basic process is first understanding, then control. This has been the case in every field, and as far as I know has never once been proved false. As we gain increasing understanding of space (without) and ourselves (within) it is inevitable that these frontiers will be conquered and brought under control.

4. What is best in humanity is embodied in the individual, not the group. Whichever system may exist, it must be individualist, not collective, any more than is necessary for survival. This does not mean we suddenly stop socializing, man in a social creature, only that collectivism of any sort ought not to be imposed. Individualism is not impossible under socialism. Read Oscar Wilde's "The Soul of Man Under Socialism". Like I said, though military (physical) or economic (physical-abstract) powers for the individual will likely disappear (doesnt have to be through force, could be natural progression), intellectual (creative) power for the individual will grow to compensate. When everyone has enough to eat and has much liesure time, and I think that such a state is not impossible but rather inevitable, the great mass of humanity will be free to pursue intellectual goals, which has until now, and is even today (though less so in Western countries) the privelige of the few.

5. However, this is not all good. Value is defined by scarcity. This is true for products and services, but also true of intellect and what I generally call culture (literature, philosophy, arts, movies - everything). So, when the majority of humanity is, for the first time in history, no longer living on the edge of subsistence, they will naturally turn to the creation of culture (books, art etc). However, this creates a unique problem. When billions, as opposed to a few thousand, individuals are busy creating culture, it is inevitable that everything will be devalued. Great ideas, great art, great thought, will be a dime a dozen. Look at the Internet today. Only a small fraction of the world's population is online, and only a fraction of those are producers and opposed to simply consumers of Internet culture, but already there is more to see, and of high quality, than any one person can take in. When I see a great painting or a great article online, I know that while it is indeed worthy of praise, there are a thousand others like it, and it ceases to be singular. Think of this on a larger and more widespread scale.

[jmatucd]

1) human nature will not change
2) as we advance technologically, weapon platforms become more destructive and more prevalent throughout the world
3) mankind will destroy itself with these new weapons. In the past we used swords to slaughter one army and conquer one area. Today we simply kill all life on that strip of land. Really, we will be lucky not to destroy ourselves in the next few years. Look how close we came during the cold war when weapons that could destroy the world were first introduced. We may simply kill each other off and survivors will be left with very little. They will be left with human nature and maybe a good lesson from the entire affair. I'm not sure we haven't destroyed one another on this planet before. It's not like any records of such destruction would exist, now would they? Humanity is in a perpetual arch of destruction. One day it will succeed and start again... until they succeed again and so forth.
Maybe we will destroy the planet first to end the possibility of a cycle

[Turhapuro]

Lets go sci-fi:

Do not worry, when we hit The Singularity , superhuman AI will solve all our problems! :)

The concept of a technological singularity as it is known today is due in part to mathematician and author Dr. Vernor Vinge. Vinge began speaking on the Singularity in the 1980s, and collected his thoughts into the first article on the topic in 1993, with the essay "Technological Singularity". Since then, it has been the subject of many futurist and science fiction stories/writings.

Vinge's essay contains the oft-quoted statement that "Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly thereafter, the human era will be ended."

Vinge writes that superhuman intelligences, whether created by cybernetically enhancing human minds or through artificial intelligence, will be even more able to enhance their own minds than the human intelligences that created them. "When greater-than-human intelligence drives progress," Vinge writes, "that progress will be much more rapid." This feedback loop of self-improving intelligence is expected to cause large amounts of technological progress within a short period of time.


"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity

And when it happens, youd better make sure that created AI is not Skynet, but friendly. Otherwise it might just decide that it does not need us and wipe us out:

http://www.singinst.org/CFAI/


:D :D

I really don't buy that stuff, but real self-aware, self-improwing and sentient AI is interesting possibility (altough at the moment it is more Star Trek than reality). :lol: