Subject: Re: AUT: science, technology and ecology
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:17:56 -0000


The "ethical relationship" Ben alludes to in this dialogue is, to my mind,
social ecology and anarchist communism combined - we need to begin to
forcefully articulate it and be less defensive in the face of the militant
tree-hugging/primitivist  wing of the eco-anarchist movement.  They're
making the running at the moment......
John Owens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Handelman" <mhandelman1-AT-yahoo.com>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 12:37 AM
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 ---
>



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