Brain Wave, 4-5.
Increasing individual intelligence immediately increases individual indulgences in:
"'...weaknesses, ignorance, prejudices, blind spots, or ambitions...'" (p. 46)
Longer term, increased intelligence will dispel the ignorance, prejudices and blind spots. Many intelligent people will realize the need to cooperate if only in order to coexist and to pursue their newly conceived aims without cross-purposes or collisions. And they will also be better equipped to organize cooperation with minimum effort. Poul Anderson will show us this happening but we have to go through the initial stages first.
A change in electromagnetic phenomena should generate scientific breakthroughs:
"UNIFIED FIELD THEORY ANNOUNCED
"Rhayader Announces Extension of Einstein Theories - Interstellar Travel a Theoretical Possibility" (p. 47)
(Interstellar travel is a regular possibility in American sf. It signifies freedom.)
Vaguely expecting the Apocalypse, Archie Brock:
"...listened for the noise of great galloping hoofs, but there was only the wind in the trees." (p. 51)
The wind comments as ever. This time, it reminds us that natural phenomena continue, whatever happens among human beings.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Since I don't believe in any kind of merely "social" Utopianism it follows that only scientific/technological progress is possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Technology can produce abundance which will completely change social interactions and responses.
individual responses
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe in that one bit. You are only offering wishful thinking. No proof, no evidence.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Absolute nonsense. When material and social necessities are abundant, there will no longer be any need to compete or fight for them, any more than we now compete for the air we breathe or for water from a tap, and that will change everything just as earlier evolutionary changes like consciousness and intelligence changed everything. How can that be wishful thinking? How do I show evidence for possible future events? By showing that massive, qualitative, revolutionary changes have happened several times before and that there is the potential for even greater changes now.
But surely we have said all this before?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not nonsense, hard realism. You take far too superficial a view of human nature. Chapter 6 of GENESIS depicts what is more likely to happen in the kind of advanced, prosperous setup envisioned by you. Nothing I've seen or read in real life and real history makes me believe in such Utopianism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you have not replied to my arguments. Some people will atrophy. Others will not. Natural selection again. "Utopianism" is merely a slur. If you start with "I don't believe in Utopianism," then of course you will conclude with "Utopia (so called) is impossible." Let's not start discussions with their conclusions.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have replied, pointing out that what you insist does or will exist does not exist and is not likely, I believe, will exist. You are still only wishing or hoping.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, whatever else happens, the future will be different. Abundance will make conflict unnecessary. Some people, enough, will be dynamic and creative when freed from former constraints. This is a rational extrapolation, more than mere wishing or hoping.
Paul.
I detect another misunderstanding lurking here. Am I being challenged to prove with mathematical certainty that a utopian future will come to pass? Of course I cannot do that. And have not tried. In fact, I have acknowledged more than once that a dystopian future of imminent environmental destruction is all too probable.
However, it cannot be denied that things change, everything changes, change is accelerating, technologies that can potentially transform material and social conditions either already exist or can soon be developed. The socioeconomic elite goes to every length to maintain the status quo at the expense of extreme deprivation and discrimination. I will forward you a talk by Noam Chomsky.
Note that intelligence is a tool. It functions to get what you want -- but what you want is not determined by reason; it's determined by instinct and conditioning.
Kaor, Paul!
Then you seem to have contradictory views: conceding the future can be dystopian and then insisting that if we get a universally prosperous setup then nobody will be competitive or that there will be no strife. I do not in the least believe such claims, either by you or other leftists like Chomsky.
I agree far more with Stirling, who points out intelligence is a tool, a means for getting what you want. And "wants" are going to be different for millions or billions of people.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not contradictory. Surely you remember that I have conceded dystopian possibilities of environmental destruction before? It is not contradictory to state that there are alternative possibilities. It would only be contradictory to state that two mutually incompatible possibilities will both be realized simultaneously in the same timeline. How is it contradictory to say that the future CAN be dystopian and also to say that there CAN also be a different kind of future in which material abundance (which is perfectly possible) will eliminate conflicts for material wealth, profits, goods etc? (We do not now compete for air. Surely that comparison makes sense?)
You do not in the least believe such claims but I have presented arguments for these POSSIBILITIES (not certainties) which you ignore. You can easily dismiss everyone that you disagree with as "leftist." Chomsky is an intelligent and learned man who presents a detailed critique of contemporary society. You would benefit from hearing it. I emailed you the link.
I agree that intelligence is a tool. How does that contradict anything said here? Of course individual wants differ. Cooperation and technology can satisfy the collective needs and individual wants of millions and billions of people.
I feel that we are contending in a fog. What I say is either ignored or distorted. I have to keep repeating it and trying to make it even clearer than it already was.
Paul.
Post a Comment