Could we better, for sure. But some enlightened dictatorship will not solve our problems. I really don't understand how these old and defunct dreams of the new society and the new human can still be that attractive.
None of these problems are really new and have been looked for millennia by now.
I hope all the bold and rapid changes predicted here won't become reality so fast. I think the societal changes needed to somehow still function as a civilization will be too much for vast masses of people to handle resulting in some drastic decisions. I'm pretty pessimistic about this and can't shake it off, call it Yudkowsky syndrome.
Well by Marx' predictions, this should already have happened. It throws a real spanner in the works for the theory that the evolution of a society is quite so inevitable and predictable.
But this comes back to my point. This is essentially putting faith in Asimov-style psychohistory.
Doesnt matter how utopian the first generation of martians are, the second and subsequent generations will look at the first generations as entitled and the spiral will start. Same with any system, once you have different classes, politicians will come out of the woodwork and exploit it until they are at the top of the pile
I seriously hate this shit with humans dumping on other humans and I hope it ends up an AI running everything.
It could be, but this would be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. A huge chunk of society suddenly changing their outlook on wealth and work-life balance and then committing to a radical new lifestyle as a result would be a major deal, like a country embracing a new religion.
Perhaps. The problem developing countries have - including our own in their time - is that the social conventions and norms of behaviour that promote survival in such conditions take generations to correct to the new socioeconomic conditions.
You certainly don't provide any information supporting your argument that society will be more oppressive and controlling.
Postmodernist views like yours are certainly in vogue today, but paradigm shifts happen and postmodernism will yield to new philosophies. Perhaps hypermodernity or transhumanism is the next big thing, they definitely have some potential to alleviate opression of the societal superstructures.
The idea is that society is most assured to go into a wall, so constraints are about to pop up more and more, so starting to place items / buffers here and there, ready to receive newly "convinced" people could prove beneficial.
People are followers, I firmly believe that the minute another model of society pops up, population will flip "overnight".
Also about your stimulus issue.. I also firmly believe that non modern life creates a stronger deeper and stabler set of stimuli. We just forgot.
Exactly. To be clear, there is no doubt in my mind that the future of Humanity has to be unified, but I don't believe we're there yet whether we consider the governed or the self-appointed lords, and yet another atempt to create "the new man" to fit in the ideological template imho will entail an awful lot of awfulness.
This has happened many, many, many times throughout history. What happens is the status quo is shifted, usually via revolution. All people are doing is identifying the stressors causing the next big revolution. Society will endure because we're social animals. The power structure will be different. You'd think those in power would be wary of this, but throughout history they always seem to be caught by surprise.
What I don't think Mr. Asimov could have imagined is the rise of the Oligarchs, dominated primarily by the heads of the banking industry, though also by the petrochemical and a few other top-tier industries. These individuals have increasingly distorted the free-market system and corrupted the political systems to satisfy their own narrow ends. They are financial protectionists. And because of them a great deal of innovation that could have been has been stymied. I would argue that if it were not for their depressing effects on society, Mr. Asimov's predictions would now look rather underwhelming by comparison, as we would have achieved far more than he predicted. Alas, given our current state of affairs, I do not think it possible for society to advanced very far beyond were it currently stands. And in a matter of decades we are likely to start moving backwards rather then forwards. On that mark, with his concerns on population growth, I believe Mr. Asimov hit it squarely on the head.
I think it's the correct thought either way. Current trends staying the same, replicators, automation or what have you will not entice those who already use what power they have to trample on and exploit people to suddenly even things out and play fair.
This is probably how the whole world was made, interim solutions hacked together. I wonder what social system will have evolved by the time our descendants are no longer recognizably homo sapiens (or even biological)
Of course, but for a certain period, those will be different people. That's massive change. People don't like change generally.
I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, or that it won't. All I'm saying is that the type of disaffection these types of changes create usually creates a short period of misery while the power (no pun there) is shifted to the new order.
Every technological change of this magnitude has resulted in political fallout. To suggest otherwise is hopelessly naive.
Not everyone is able to see this as opportunity - most will see it as a threat to the status quo they enjoy.
reply