-Sandra Miesel IN The Complete Psychotechnic League, Volume 2, p. 17.
Observations
Another Biblical quotation but this one not by Poul Anderson.
Abundance harder than scarcity? No way, Jose.
The technologically unemployed are disaffected? Yes, maybe for a transitional generation or two but pyschotechnicians should have predicted and prepared for this. Brady cannot be employed as a mathematician but he could be given Internet access to every discovery of the mathematical machines and human super-geniuses and could spend a lifetime, or as long as he wanted, studying and discussing them, then find something else to do.
I cannot see that anything like the Humanist Revolt had to happen.
33 comments:
Humans are adaptable. But not infinitely so.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, because I don't believe most people will WANT to be philosophers, artists, scholars, aesthetes, etc. Many people do find happiness and satisfaction thru work. And if they can't work many WILL be miserable and unhappy, no matter how comfortable they might be.
The inevitable result will be despair, ennui, destructive rage, etc. Which many try seeking relief from thru drink, drugs, radical/fanatical politics, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: pretty much. Human beings can deal with leisure -- if it's combined with power and status, or is a marker for them.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree! And some will even be like the kind of people who can or might make use of this enforced leisure in the ways listed by Paul for Brady. But I don't believe most will WANT to.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the idea is that mathematicians study mathematics. Other people do other things.
Paul.
How many would study mathematics if they were just striving to emulate machines that do it better?
Kaor, Paul!
And to expand on what Stirling said you are overlooking what Roger Brady said in "Quixote" (from pages 11-12 of THE COMPLETE PSYCHOTECHNIC LEAGUE, Vol. 2): "I had a job, yes. I was a mediocre servo-technician." The operative word being MEDIOCRE. Again, "I'm a bright boy, Pete. Why hide it? My I.Q. puts me in the genius class. But--not quite bright enough." Next, "I'm too bright to be an ordinary technician. Not for long. And I have none of the artistic or literary talent which counts so highly nowadays." Brady said further: "I'm not a first rank genius, Pete. I can't do anything that an electronic brain can't do quicker and better. So I didn't get my job, either."
Ad astra! Sean
Mr Stirling,
Don't know. I would hope to live long enough to find out.
Sean,
People brought up in a society where they do not have to work to survive will be used to engaging in other activities made available by economic security, advanced technology and education.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree, because I believe you are being far too optimistic about human beings. Anderson examined the idea of what might happen in a post scarcity economy in the HARVEST OF STARS books and GENESIS. The conclusion he reached was that many, many people will still end up being miserable, frustrated, unhappy. And that WILL lead ineluctably to many bad things.
And I agree with Anderson! Nothing I have seen, observed, read about, etc., makes me believe what you hope for is possible. And, if it is not possible then neither is it desirable.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Let's take it for granted that we continue to disagree.
Nothing that has happened yet matches what can be done in future. People have changed the world and continue to change it. Will a world population say, "There is nothing that we are interested in doing. We want to be forced to work at someone else's behest and for someone else's purposes in order to be allowed to survive economically"? Well, if a majority vote for that, then of course it should be given to them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I apologize, but I thought your latest comments above totally unrealistic. You are still not taking into account certain drives all humans have, to one degree or another: the urge to be competitive and the desire to find meaning and satisfaction in what they do. Including the self respect to be gained from making one's living, even in ways a person might dislike. These are things that cannot be successfully legislated away by politicians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But it is technology that will liberate everyone from unnecessary drudgery, not politicians. We find meaning and satisfaction in all sorts of things other than tasks that are performed only from necessity.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still think you are waving away too easily the problems we are likely to have if advances in technology causes mass unemployment. It's also my view that not that many will find meaning and satisfaction in philosophy, literature, the arts, being aesthetes, etc. I still believe it's far more likely too many will seek relief from despair, ennui, and frustration thru drink, drugs, crime, radical politics, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There would of course be a period of adjustment.
The idea is not that everyone would appreciate philosophy etc but that everyone would appreciate something.
Paul.
Paul: it wouldn't -have- to happen, but I'd say Poul was right that something on that order would be quite likely.
As I said, human beings are behaviorally flexible -- but not infinitely so.
Kaor, Paul!
I simply don't BELIEVE any such "...period of adjustment" will be as quickly or successfully handled as you seem to believe. I agree more with Anderson and Stirling than with you.
Ad astra! Sean
Periods of adjustment are indeed not handled quickly.
Kaor, Paul!
A chaotic MESS is far more likely to be what we get.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Which I think we have already.
Paul.
Part of the chaos is caused by people who held power in an old system wanting to conserve that system, therefore arguing that any alternative would be worse - in which case, there would never be any progress.
Kaor, Paul!
The world has been chaotic since Adam fell.
And there will always be some people who want power and who are more than willing to struggle and compete to gain it. And that competition for status and power will be found in EVERY socio-political system set up by human beings. Because that drive or urge is innate in all humans.
You disagree, I know. But I believe the actual facts shown us by history and how real people behave supports what I (plus Anderson and Stirling) have said. The true duty of the statesman in any age is to find ways of managing that desire in ways that does as little harm as possible. Not in impossible Utopian fantasies.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Utopia cannot be legislated. It will be built by a mass movement or not at all. There can be societies in which there is leadership but not power. To give a lead or set an example is not to coerce.
Paul.
Sean,
We must obey orders in certain situations but should also be able to criticize and re-elect leaders afterwards.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, some offices can be elective while others are appointive. I believe it has to be like that if leaders are going to have the POWER needed to be effective. But that does not mean we cannot have commissions of investigations or courts to handle alleged abuses.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you emphasize the word "POWER" again which begs the question. Leaders should represent and give a lead, not coerce. I would certainly obey orders if I were part of a fire-fighting team or an emergency rescue operation but I would want full accountability afterwards for whoever had been giving the orders.
When driving a car with passengers, I as the driver decide when to stop or start but, if the passengers think that I am doing it wrong, they can say so afterwards and can refuse to travel as my passengers in future.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I do not believe I am begging the question. I had more in mind WHY the state, in whatever form, exists: to keep the peace within a nation.* Leaders with formalized power HAVE to be able to use coercion, when necessary, simply to be effective. That seems so obvious to me that I fail to see why you don't understand that.
Ad astra! Sean
*To say nothing, of course, for the other reason states exist, to guard against attack by aggressive rivals.
Sean,
I do understand that states are instruments of coercion but many of our interactions and institutions operate without needing any such coercion and I think that that kind of unforced cooperation CAN, not inevitably WILL, be extended to the whole of society. The main thing to be broken down is the unnecessary hoarding of wealth when human labour aided by advanced technology is capable of making abundant wealth accessible to all. Right now, wealth is wasted in nuclear stockpiles and destructive wars. We are capable of better than that but enough people, not just a few politicians, have to see that this is possible and that they can bring it about. The prevailing ideologies inculcate the exact opposite belief, of course. These ideas serve powerful vested interests. The mass media uphold the status quo at all costs. One major British daily newspaper lectured black South Africans that they would never end Apartheid.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The reason why "...many of our interactions and institutions operate without needing any such coercion" is because they have to operate within the framework set by a State enforcing the peace. And you are still overlooking why we have so much wealth being expended in weapons and wars: the INNATE human drive to be competitive and aggressive. And that urge exists in all human beings, not just a few politicians. And "ideologies" merely expresses the different ways that drive can be seen.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know many people who are not innately competitive or aggressive. I am not friendly with my neighbours because I know that the police will intervene if I attack the white British couple in no. 42 or the Asian family in no. 46.
The US could divert a fraction of its military spending into feeding the world and into colonizing space and would gain immense gratitude, respect and support if it did so - but why is such a policy unthinkable? Maybe we can have a change of thinking somewhere along the line?
Paul.
Paul: because... people like Putin and Xi?
Who will pounce the moment they sense weakness -- and may do it anyway, because they falsely sense weakness because they long for it so.
Ask a Uyghur about it, or a Ukrainian.
Not everybody has to be aggressive to force everyone else to -prepare- for their aggression.
If you don't, someone will eat the flesh from your bones.
Kaor, Paul!
Stirling very clearly explained why I can't agree with you. Not everybody has to be aggressive to force everybody else to PREPARE for their aggression.
And you don't even have to be a coldly rational aggressor! I can too easily imagine a lunatic like Kim Jong Un lobbing nukes at anyone, just to enjoy the BIG BOOM.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: or as the old saying goes, "Man is wolf to man." Note that the primary cause of death for wolves, when we don't hunt them, is other wolves.
That's typical for apex predators, especially social ones like us (or wolves).
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Which is why most other apex predators, EXCEPT bears, have a prudent fear of humans.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment