Change Changes Everything
Reader Eisendorn has an interesting idea:
i recommend a survey on how many speculist readers actually think that the world is in *some* way becomming a better place. or does ACO pertain only technology? not for me at least.
I like the idea of a survey on general attitudes about the future, although I think our Singularity Survey probably provided a good general impression. The overwhelming majority believe it will happen and most of them think it will either be a good thing or at least not a bad thing.
I'm not sure what ACO refers to, but accelerating change can't help but impact everything. Ultimately, every technological development is an improvement on some previous capability. As a species we are becoming generally more capable. Some of that capability is deliberately destructive (weapons technology), some inadvertantly so (carbon emissions) but the vast majority of technology comes into existence in order to enable somebody to do something better than he or she could before. Something useful.
Society can't help but be reshaped by this. Or, if you prefer, reshape itself around these capabilities. Speaking very broadly -- and recognizing that there are excruciatingly horrible exceptions -- I believe that the people of the world are becoming wealthier and more independent largely due to technological development. On a per capita basis, every year fewer are concerned with subsistence and more with improving the quality of their lives.
Ultimately, the State has a lot to say about how free or economically enriched an individual can be. Not all governments are thrilled at the idea of their citizens becoming empowered through technology or by any other means, and will do what they can to slow these effects. And then there are many who are ideologically opposed to technological progress on religious or environmental grounds. As things continue to progress, I think the former ideologies will simply become less important, while the latter will come to recognize that, in the end, technology will do more to protect and nurture the environment than it initially did to harm it.
How will it all end? Well, as several of our astute survey-takers pointed out, we can't really see what's on the other side of the Singularity. That's why it's called the Singularity. But if things don't go horribly wrong -- and of course they might very well go horribly wrong -- we may see a world that has a lot in common with Marx's "worker's paradise."
Poverty might be just one of several of the perennial foes of human happiness that is struck down once and for all. And we may all enjoy freedom that we can scarecly even imagine now.
But as James C. Bennett recently warned us: beware of utopian thinking. Even if everything I just described comes to pass, the world will still be a difficult, risky, place. "Happily ever after" only looks like that from this side of the rainbow.
Comments
The closest projection I can imagine is that of "The Culture" in the books by Ian M. Banks.
Technology has reached the point where anything can be done, as soon as people can work out what to do. And there is pretty much infinite wealth available, but the machines don't provide it so that humans actually have some challenge in their lives.
The whole society is actually socialist, (France, not Cuba) but socialist in a situation where the inefficiency of that structure doesn't matter (because infinite wealth is available) and therefore freedom is allowed (because this doesn't threaten the society, which has infinite resources.
Posted by: doctorpat![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blog.speculist.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 20, 2006 02:24 AM
phil,
ACO = Accelerating Change Optimist. you coined that term yourself a little while ago, to counter the phonetic complexity of "singularitarian".
i totally agree with the notion that "change changes everything". what immediately comes to mind is the concept of "right-wing communism", demanding a base income for every citizen, unconditionally and permanently, on basis of the fact that the industry can save a lot of money by automating production tasks, as enabled by proper technological advances. every citizen could then decide for him of herself whether to contribute to cultural, social or scientific development of the community through work, or simply enjoy their lives slacking. the base income should be enough for everyone to live a decent life, while you could at any time improve your salary by working.
while this may sound utopian, i believe that it would eventually lead towards are more stable society, also in terms of integration of foreign cultures. plus, i am not the only one thinking like that. in fact, there is a significant movement in germany to promote that idea, it's most popular proponent being werner goetz, head of a very large drugstore chain in germany. unfortunately, i have no english texts on the matter at hand, but maybe you can find something.
implementation of this system would possibly be feasible economically; however, politicians here firmly cling to the (maybe even more utopian) policy of full employment. i could, however, imagine that such an idea, maybe in some less stringent form, could be implemented in a scandinavian state. they seem to both have the wealth to do it as well as the will to embrace change - think of sweden trying to rid its industry of oil dependency by 2017.
Posted by: eisendorn![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blog.speculist.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 20, 2006 03:30 AM
Eisendorn--
ACO = Accelerating Change Optimist. you coined that term yourself a little while ago, to counter the phonetic complexity of "singularitarian".
Well no wonder I didn't recognize it! It's not like it came from a credible source...
The idea of a base income for every citizen is just beginning to get some attention in this country. Interestingly, it is being promoted from the right as an alternative to the welfare state. I think we may be a generation or two (technological, not human) from a viable "free lunch," but I think it's very interesting that this is being discussed. I predict that some kind of post-government, open-source method of wealth distribution will ultimately take hold, but I have no idea how that will work.
Doctor Pat --
Your comment about efficiency may be the answer to my concern about whether governments could ever manage something like this effectively. If you have a large enough base to work from, a government can be grossly inefficient and it won't matter all that much. Being a market-oriented kind of person, however, I can't help but think that eventually, a new model will replace government distribution.
Posted by: Phil Bowermaster![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blog.speculist.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 20, 2006 05:42 AM
Poverty will not be eliminated by anything other than stifling egalitarian redistribution. The poor we will always have with us as long as there is a bottom quintile. Today's poverty looks much like yesterday's middle class; tomorrow's poverty may well look like the Jetsons.
Posted by: triticale![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blog.speculist.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 20, 2006 05:53 AM