Bernal's "Devil" Is Anderson's "Protean Enemy"
The psychodynamicist says that most people hate civilization and could not live happily in a world with neither war nor crime.
The Un-man reflects that we rebel again both civilization and freedom.
These are not quite the same proposition. The psychodynamicist says that people hate the restrictions of civilization because they want to regain a primordial freedom to run, chase, kill, rejoice, feast and then sleep when full. If some people do rebel against freedom as such, then presumably those people do want to be restricted in some way - because they perceive restriction as safe, secure, predictable or whatever?
But what do we think of either proposition? The psychodynamicist goes into more detail about civilization. Trekking through a wild area, he enjoys fresh air, open spaces, a blue jay against green spruce, a brook belling over mossy stones and a thrush singing and wonders why men stopped hunting. Marie suggests that farming made food more secure and certain but he (psychodynamicist/gangster/her kidnapper/Rheinbogen) replies that this was the case only in bad hunting areas where, of course, farming began. He then concedes that there are some advantages to the civilization that has developed from the agricultural surplus:
But that is somewhat half-hearted. Technology is more than gadgets. We have learned about the universe. We read printed books, watch films and discuss them on the Internet. We have vastly expanded the range of our consciousness and understanding. Would we prefer to chase a mastodon? Right at the end, Rheinbogen thinks that he himself needs to hunt to satisfy his instincts but then reflects that research is a hunt, that Newton, Darwin and Einstein neither killed nor stole because they hunted bigger game and that he can do the same as a psychodynamicist.
Before that, he does rightly identify the deadly aspects that civilization has had:

20 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'm a city bumpkin, not a country slicker! Meaning, frankly, I feel far more at home in the city where I live than I would in a wilderness. So I don't entirely agree with this antipathy for urbanization.
Ad astra! Sean
Automation does not diminish the requirement for labor. It just -changes- it. Eg., agriculture took the majority of human labor for a long, long time... but now in advanced countries it's about 2%.
AI will do the same thing. It'll increase productivity, which will increase consumption. That will drive employment -- how, we can't tell in advance.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, what is too loosely called "AI" will affect productivity, consumption, employment in unpredictable ways.
Ad astra! Sean
And we can take control and affect productivity etc in better ways.
The usage and meaning of "AI" have changed. As long as we are clear what we are talking about, it does not matter what terminology is used.
Paul: the problem is that we can't foretell the future. So you can't really "plan". You can -make- plans, and then implement the alternative that best suits the situation.
We can run society less chaotically! But we cannot predict future technological advances, political and administrative decisions or cosmic events. We can agree to prepare for the worst conceivable scenarios - which we are certainly not doing now. The environment is being left to spiral downwards.
Kaor, Paul!
"AI", to me, will always mean actually self-aware, conscious computer programs/systems of the kinds seen in Anderson's HARVEST OF STARS books and in GENESIS. Anything short of that are merely software programs blindly implemented by unaware hardware.
I don't believe one bit that the kind of taking control of productivity you favor, socialism, will ever work. That has always ended, without exception, in autocratic bureaucratic one despotisms where politicians and bureaucrats incompetently trying to run things from the top down. I have far more confidence in entrepreneurs seeing there is a problem devising ways to manage that problem. And attracting investors willing to back them by entrusting innovators with their money, in hopes of profiting from successful solutions. This all boils down to agreeing with Stirling, only tentative plans can be made, implementing that best fits a particular situation.
I've put my wallet where my mouth is, investing enough of my money to buy 100 shares of SpaceX stock. I believe that is far more likely to do far more good than all these demonstrations, marches, and advocating "collective" action. I naturally hope it pays off and I get a profit!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have been through all of this several times before!
And the way things have been is not the way they will always be.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And you have never cited hard, demonstrable evidence that the critics of socialism are wrong. I have seen only faith in hopes set in an ever more receding future.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have cited hard, demonstrable evidence that the critics of socialism are wrong, starting with their simplistic misrepresentation of the meaning of the word, "socialism," and you yet again dismiss it as faith in hopes set in an ever receding future. Our immediate future is catastrophic but we have the POTENTIAL to use advanced technology to produce abundance that can enrich all and that need no longer be fought over. This can happen soon if and when enough people want it and push for it. And I honestly do not understand why you insist on us repeating all of this again and again. We both know that we are not going to agree and there is no point in mere repetition.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You have not, every socialist regime which has come to power have failed, ending in tyranny and poverty. I don't believe in the theories you favor, set as they are in an ever more receding future.
Stirling is right: capitalism has many problems, socialism has one: it has never worked.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have. Every "socialist" regime has not been a socialist regime. I know you don't believe! We hardly need to keep saying this! That future is not receding but possible soon when enough people clearly perceive and want it. We have advanced technology now but it is being used frivolously and destructively.
Socialism has never worked? It has scarcely ever been tried! It has been approached a few times and pushed back.
Why are you so obsessive about continually repeating all this?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because too many millions have died violently in the name of the socialist futility: in reigns of terror, purges, mass executions, gulags, killing fields, terror famines, etc. Enough, no more socialism!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Too many millions have died violently in the name of the oppressive regimes that socialists oppose. No more of those regimes!
The proposition that people take control of the technology that has been produced by their labour and now use it for the common good instead of for continued conflict and destruction is hopeful, not futile, but surely you realize that these issues will not be resolved in this combox?
Paul.
Sean,
Of course systems that are not conscious are blind and unaware but they are now capable of doing far more than merely following instructions and implementing a program.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we are at an irreconcilable deadlock as regards socialism, which I disbelieve in.
I've commented about that point you raised about AI, all that these programs do is blindly try to achieve what the software "tells" them to do. Sometimes in ways not desired/intended by the writers of the software. Still not like the "true" AI we see in Anderson's HARVEST OF STARS books or GENESIS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course you disbelieve in socialism but recognize that that word has different meanings.
Of course programs that are not conscious operate blindly which means unconsciously but their ability to find new ways to operate AS IF they were intelligent can get out of control and that is a problem.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Words can have true and false meanings. I'm standing by the definition that accurately describes as it has actually been seen in real life/history.
If you insist, re "AI." I continue to remain skeptical.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But "it" (the "it" that I and many other people are talking about) has not actually been seen in real life/history! You are still thinking that this "-ism" is just one thing and that the word can be used without any explanation or qualification.
Words have the meanings that we give them. The bark of a dog and the bark of a tree get their meanings from their positions in this sentence. Neither is false. You cannot stand by one definition of a controversial word that has a rich history and different applications. There are a great number of "socialists" out there. Instead of asking them what they mean by that word and why they use it and then discussing that with them, you tell them what the word means and think that that settles the matter? That is simply not how to discuss anything with anybody.
What is it that you are skeptical about with AI? As I understand it, some AI's have gone unpredictably out of control and no one knows what they are doing. That is not a way of saying that they are really covertly conscious after all. It is a way of saying that they have gone unpredictably out of control and no one knows what they are doing.
Paul.
Post a Comment