Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Will on June 2, 2012 at 10:39pm

I'll assume the main question is:  do you actually see this happening... and as quickly as they are talking about?

My answer would be:  no.

I read the notes at the bottom; generally won't take the time to watch a video.  The only mention of the current explosion of debt and economic crises is just to say that it "exacerbates" this year and next; then it seems to be forgotten.  

We've got significant political and economic problems:  an explosion of debt in the first world, and little intention to resolve it.

Significant religious and social problems, especially the crisis in Islam and the crisis it creates for its neighbors, especially in Africa.  Population crashes in Europe, Russia, China, the Middle East, and Japan.  Nobody knows what to do.

A possibly less significant (possibly more so!) problem with the environment:  we may be running out of oil, and nobody knows what to do about it.

This source ignores all aspects of the world except technical change, and in that, only assumes that it will be big, good, and have no backlashes.  It's all light and no dark.  And there's no justification I can see for the claim that in some 25 years everyone will be spiritual and there will be no more war (!).

To make it convincing, I think we have to see the darkness as well as the light.  To be fair, some anti-utopias are unconvincing; life isn't all dark, either.

Permalink Reply by Douglas Aldrich on June 2, 2012 at 10:48pm

Fair enough lol. I find myself that way with movies as well...

It did indeed seem to be an "All your troubles will be forgotten" kind of video. And I definitely think that with everything we have going on, we definitely need some sort of dark period before we get to where we want to get to.

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on June 3, 2012 at 9:19am

As literature, it is unrealistic. But realism depends essentially on certain principles regarding the human things. If the assumption is granted that science can advance infinitely, which includes the possibility that science might advance precipitously, then I believe much of what this kind of thinking foresees is less unrealistic.

The disappearance of war likely means that dissent would be crushed. That would not be war because there would be no valid principle to oppose the principle of the world order; the ruthlessness of its advance would guarantee its success. It is not impossible to conceive of a kind of rule over all the planet & all mankind; it is not even impossible to imagine this kind of rule in political terms; but I am not persuaded it would be anything but the last tyranny.

Permalink Reply by Jacob Bauer on June 3, 2012 at 1:41am

Communism with a new dress shirt on.

"We can keep muddling on, directionless and living only our own pathetic lives. Do you think a wonderful future will happen without DIRECTION and LEADERSHIP? Do you think order will just spontaneously appear? Unlikely!"

Yes, of course. A bright future, as long as we surrender our lives to the smart people to make our decisions for us and guide humanity. Same old crap. Amazing that videos like this keep circulating along, like the Venus Project, Zeitgeist, eta. Can't anybody see through this?

Permalink Reply by Will on June 3, 2012 at 1:49am

Surely many can.  OMG, please, not direction and leadership from smart people.  Smart people can't balance the budget, but the rest of us do it every month.

Permalink Reply by Jacob Bauer on June 3, 2012 at 11:22am

It's pretty laughable. Like I said earlier, if you get to the heart of what these guys are saying, it's like a much more subtle B-movie villain argument about how freedom is outdated and everybody's a trousered ape who needs to be told what to do in order to accomplish anything.

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on June 3, 2012 at 9:19am

I think you use the word communism to describe every kind of non-democratic rule. In fact, I think if you happened to see a democracy, you'd call it communism, too. Maybe you're prophetic, or wossname, prescient. Maybe in your eagerness you are undeceived by the phenomena. Calling political projects by their purpose requires more patience...

The case for spontaneous order is easily overstated; it is not an order built for any level of stability on any large scale. It depends ultimately on law enforcement & warfare of kinds that cannot make sense spontaneously. From the point of view of Madison (Federalist 10), spontaneous order is really called faction: He says it's part of human nature, but not desirable in itself; it is an evil to be mitigated, but an evil which allows of mitigation by the double provisions of a great republic that delegates political action to a (mostly elected, somewhat democratic) ruling class.

Finally, these people desire something that political philosophers have been dangling in front of feverish idealists since Bacon & Descartes (immortality through science) & Rousseau (radical autonomy or radical denaturation, i.e. complete transformation of man into a political animal). It's true that Marx also desired to abolish the difference between man & woman by means of science, but he was far from being innovative; it's true that what these people describe as the post-human phase is exactly what Marx called the stateless / classless society, but that is not an innovation on Rousseau's description of a sub-human state of natural happiness or the fully human state of political goodness (where everyone has the same opinion on everything). The modern project is more serious than the difference between Nazis & communists; it promises, in its most extreme form, the promises of both: A race of supermen - but that includes everyone.

Permalink Reply by Jacob Bauer on June 3, 2012 at 11:19am

I was too hasty in saying Communists. Orwell's words were ringing in my mind.

"The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosphies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense. Actually, the three philosophies are barely distinguishable."

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on June 3, 2012 at 2:07pm

When it comes to different tyrannies, knowing the differences can make the difference between life & death. The Nazis were obviously better at starting wars, & more willing. The Communists were better at waging war over time, especially facing massive destruction. Fascists were unable either to attack or defend. Any student of politics could connect these observations to the nature of the tyranny.

Permalink Reply by Native Son on June 3, 2012 at 10:28am

Not just the Communists.

The correct Communist rhetoric would have it that only a people's or workers' republic would yield the orderly, stable society necessary for peace and prosperity (for all our fellow workers).

The Fascists insist they would provide the leadership and direction to contain (implicitly eliminate) those elements fo society that are preventing an ascent into the glorious uplands of orderly peace and prosperity (for people like us).

Merely depends on whether you want to salute with the Fascist's extended arm or the Communist's raised fist.

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on June 3, 2012 at 10:33am

Yeah, Mussolini had a clever phrase. Everything within the state, nothing without the state, nothing against the state. -- Something like that. I think all versions of the world state are of this kind.

Permalink Reply by Rick Shelton on June 4, 2012 at 9:07am

Sounds like the Democratic Party (ha ha).

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page