Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 16:37:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: AUT: science, technology and ecology


--- Ben Hoh <jebni-AT-bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 3/2/02 7:41 AM, "Michael Handelman"
> <mhandelman1-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > in an anarchist/communist society, as a result of
> science/technology being in
> > the hands of all, and every investment decision
> would be heavily
> > discussed/debated, it seems highly unlikely that a
> weather control system
> > could result in ecological destruction. If
> anything it would be extremely
> > useful at preventing "natural disasters" like
> Earthquakes etc.
>  
> Interesting question! I know where you're coming
> from, and I agree that what
> we currently fetishise as "technology" is always
> social and political, but
> radical democracy doesn't magically make certain
> technoscientific projects
> (like a "nondestructive" weather control system)
> *possible*, does it? Maybe
> something like weather control would require so much
> energy or certain weird
> processes that to do it in any effective form in the
> middle term future
> would require great sacrifices of some sort to be
> made. And you know what
> happens when people start calling for sacrifices...
> (I guess nuclear fission
> reactors also kinda fall under this objective
> category in terms of safety,
> waste and inelegance as a solution, but I've yet to
> be convinced that
> they're as *intrinsically* evil as some greenies
> impressionistically make
> out.)
> 
> Also, thinking about the future makes me think about
> the theory of hisory,
> and to question the "we only have to win once"
> thesis. I know how it applies
> as an inverse to capital always having to reign in
> the powers of labour, or
> else lose control like a sorcerer's apprentice, yada
> yada, but wouldn't the
> capability to intervene so drastically into entire
> planetary systems imply a
> radical material reconstitution about our
> assumptions of production and
> sociality, and hence mode of production? Or maybe
> not. Confused.
> 
> And what do earthquakes have to do with "the
> weather", anyway? (I'm assuming
> that "weather control" would be about controlling
> superficial atmospheric
> phenomena, like taking a painkiller.) Wouldn't
> earthquake prevention involve
> a complete re-engineering of the earth's crust,
> which would involve
> expending astronomical amounts of energy? If we had
> that much energy, we'd
> be better off building a portal into another
> dimension. On my list of
> priorities, I'd prefer communism in an alternate
> universe to an
> earthquake-free zone. :-)
> 
> On another note: I'm definitely no primitivist
> (hell, I'm ready to join the
> Borg), but it seems that most thinking about natural
> disasters and our
> capacity to build "civilization" in the face of them
> is heavily informed by
> what sociology defines as questions of scarcity,
> security, necessity, etc.
> And aren't all of these concerns usually framed by a
> kind of instrumentalist
> anthropocentrism (i.e. an overinvestment in
> narratives involving mankind
> wielding his tools against the voracious elements!)
> that precludes an
> ethical relationship with ecology? What that ethical
> relationship would be
> is an open question -- I see the genetic and
> technological modification of
> our species and others as possibly part of it.
> 
> (The whole "nature vs. civilization" thing has been
> fresh in my mind since
> some of my friends and family were evacuated during
> the Sydney bushfires.)
> 
> BTW, has anyone read Dan Simmons' _Hyperion_ series
> of science fiction
> novels? The capitalist "Hegemony" wages a hysterical
> war against
> interstallar nomadic anarcho-mutants! Interesting.
> 
> 
> Bem
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

This was probably on my mind, when I posted my first
thread, but your post reminded me of something:

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/greenrd/trans-soc.htm

Transhumanist socialism

Definition:Transhumanist socialism is a particular
type of socialism which holds that future
transhumanist technologies such as molecular
nanotechnology will make it much more feasible to
bring about a truly socialist world. A transhumanist
socialist believes that despite the risks that may be
involved in these new technologies, such as even more
potent weapons and means of totalitarian control, it
is on balance worth developing transhuman technologies
in the long term, because of their potential to
transform society for the better. (Note that this in
no way necessarily implies
that technology alone can solve problems. Everybody
must change as well, because true socialism is not
just a matter of who is "in charge", it is a mode of
being of a whole society, on a world scale and
including every person.)

Thus being a transhumanist and being a socialist are
both necessary but not sufficient conditions for being
a transhumanist socialist. It is at least logically
possible to be a socialist and a transhumanist without
accepting the further idea that transhuman
technologies will be of significant benefit in their
efforts to create a more just world - or one may be a
socialist and believe that future technology can
alleviate some important problems with "the human
condition", but it still doesn't make world socialism
significantly more feasible than it already is.
Neither of these positions fall within transhumanist
socialism - they are merely transhumanist and
socialist, which is quite different. (I am not sure
whether anyone would actually take the first position,
but it is logically possible.)

Of course, the word "socialism" can mean many things
to many people. Its usage here needs to be clarified,
which I will attempt to do shortly.

"Transhumanist anarchism" is defined in a
corresponding manner, with "socialism" being replaced
with "anarchism" throughout.


Details: This idea has only recently broken through
the surface of my mind, as it were. I have been
considering it in the background ever since reading
David Pearce's manifesto The Hedonistic Imperative
(which does not rest on any particular political
position, I hasten to add - though it is probably
incompatible with fascism!) but it is only now that I
have begun to reorient myself towards
feasibility-checking and pursuing this goal. I
have hardly begun to think through the enormous social
implications of nanotechnology alone (which in my
considered opinion will be, out of all the
technologies now forseeable, the most important
technology of the 21st century, bar none). The idea of
transhumanist socialism needs a lot of work to develop
from it a cogent argument, with a key focus on what is
technologically feasible, and how these technologies
could be used (and abused) by all the relevant actors:
states, corporations, advocacy groups, benevolence
groups, and individuals. I hope to begin to develop
such an argument during 1999, time permitting. The
reader may be disappointed that I have not attempted
to justify transhumanist socialism at this stage - if
so, please bear with me. For now, I will just give a
small hint: empathogens.

Unfortunately, due to the current lack of any
practically useful nanotechnology, nano predictions
are necessarily drawn from theoretical positions which
may be carefully kept in check by the constraints of
known physical law, but cannot be constrained by the
as-yet undiscovered engineering challenges which are
bound to crop up if and when nanotechnology becomes a
practical, rather than theoretical, applied science.
Moreover, the
prevalence of (with hindsight) strikingly erroneous
technological and scientific mispredictions throughout
history, even from those who are apparently experts in
the field - examples such as the radio, the aeroplane,
alternating current and human-level artificial
intelligence spring to mind -does not give me a great
deal of confidence. However, having said all that, the
stakes are so high that it would be irrational to
dismiss the possibilities out of hand without properly
examining the scientific theory, just because little
empirical proof of concept work has been done.

I would welcome any comments and criticisms - even if
you want to debunk the whole thing - after all, if I
am on a dead-end road I would like to know sooner
rather than later! Please send them to greenrd-AT-hotmail.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---