Editor's Blog
One worry about the possibility of radical germ line enhancement of the human species is that it may, at some point, produce a being so genetically superior to the regular human that the race would split in two. Given that enhancement will be expensive, the concern is that only the rich would have access to it, and if they were to do this they would compound their competitive advantages, widening existing social inequalities and creating new ones. A distant but serious extrapolation of this scenario is that this posthuman race could exploit the human race and deliberately seek to oppress it. If this sort of split did occur it would surely be undesirable. However, I believe it is unrealistic and we should consider a more likely scenario which is often ignored. Two assumptions are frequently made about what would happen if the richest in society were able to access enhancement technology. These are:
1) That so much extra power would be conferred on the beneficiaries of the technology, that this minority would necessarily exploit the unenhanced status of the majority.
2) That if such oppression or exploitation did occur, it would be so powerful that it would be impossible to repeal, reverse or overcome.
I do not believe that either of these assumptions are correct. It is understandable to take seriously the possible risks of technologies which could change society significantly, but it’s also easy to overstate them (in the case of the first assumption) or misconceive them (in the case of the second).
The first assumption overstates the risks of enhancement technologies because, whilst it is likely that some people would choose to take advantage of them, the small-scale appropriation would not necessarily increase net inequality. If access to the enhancement industry turns out to be so expensive that it is out of the reach of everyone except the super-rich, then only a very small proportion of society will be able to make use of it. Given that the super-rich are already by definition not burdened with socio-economic difficulties, it is not obvious how their access to a new range of luxuries is going to deprive the rest of society of a serious competitive advantage.
If a section of the super rich were to indulge their genetic fantasies, we might find it vain or grotesque and we might be happy that we have no part in it. Paris Hilton is very economically fortunate, and maybe it’s understandable to be envious of her advantages, but viewed from the outside there is also something ugly about that kind of life. In a life where it is possible to have total material luxury, and where these luxuries are the primary determinant of value, the relentless pressure to conform to an image of economically-driven perfection does emotional damage. The genetic enhancement of personal appearance or physical attributes could become a competitive necessity for a small, rarified section of society, much as cosmetic surgery has become one amongst actors in Hollywood. Whilst going under the knife repeatedly might keep these people in work, this kind of Faustian deal is obviously not one which the majority of people wish to make.
Nonetheless, we can still be envious of the economic advantages that these people do have, for the simple fact that we wouldn’t need to worry about money. Perhaps we might wish that wages and economic security were more evenly distributed throughout society, but this is a different question and has little to do with genetic enhancement technology as such. What is in question here is what the effects would be of a genetic division occurring within the human race, significant enough that an enhanced minority could constitute a threat to the unenhanced. I believe that this risk is overstated, for the reasons already given. Let’s imagine for a minute, however, that this dystopian picture were to occur. Is it necessarily true that this would be the end of the story, and the ‘original’ human race would be in serious danger? I am not sure that it would. Let’s change tack slightly to consider the question.
Technological and economical power can be held by a small minority, but those who wield it do not necessarily always triumph when they try to use it as a means of oppression. We can look at how these kinds of attempts have played out in the past. Though the technologies may have been different, there are good reasons for being confident that a perceived monopoly on enhancement technology by a few will not create the kinds of frightening scenarios that are feared by some.
History is littered with revolutions, and we can’t look at them all. Two revolutions which might help, though, are these: the French Revolution of 1789 to 1799, and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The defining characteristic of both of these revolutions was a rejection of the values and the hegemony of a ruling minority with economic and technological superiority.
In the case of the French Revolution the absolute rule of the monarchy was ended when the politically, economically, religiously and socially disenfranchised majority abolished it, replacing it with the country’s first democratic republic. From a technological point of view, the French Revolution is particularly notable because of the role played by the guillotine. The guillotine was developed under the orders of King Louis XVI because it was thought that conventional methods of capital punishment of the time were not sufficiently humane. Given that the aim of capital punishment is to end life, rather than to cause pain as such, the King sought a quicker, more efficient and less painful way of putting dissidents to death (a similarly perverse debate surrounds the most ‘humane’, least distressing way to administer the lethal injection in the USA today. Unfortunately for the King, his technological superiority was turned against him when the revolution brought an end to his life with a guillotine. Whether or not he was any happier, in the moment before his death, about being executed by the guillotine whose invention he had ordered, rather than by any other method, is a moot point.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 also represented a triumph of public political will, and ended the preceding decades of entrenched disillusionment and oppression. It is true that there was a degree of luck involved in the events which finally created the conditions under which citizens of East Germany could freely cross the wall, and there was also mounting pressure from Washington to reunite the two countries. Civil unrest in East Germany had been growing in the weeks prior to the crossing of the wall, and the revolution could have been violent. Crucially, however, the eventual exodus was not resisted or crushed by the authorities – no member of the government or police was prepared to take responsibility for killing citizens attempting to cross. As events unfolded the East German authorities began to realize that it was on the wrong side of history, and the reunification of Germany was achieved suddenly and peacefully. It was one of the greatest political achievements of the post-war period.
It’s important to remember that the reasons given publicly for the erecting of the wall was that it would act as a bulwark against a still covertly active Nazism in West Germany, and protect the citizens of East Germany such that they would be able to create the conditions necessary for building a successful socialist state. This was not true, as the wall was built in order to stem an understandable exodus from the impoverished East to the free and prosperous West. Driven by a misconceived ideology of how their society ought to operate, the separation denied the citizens of East Germany the economic and political benefits that had been enjoyed by Western Europe since the 1960s. Arguably, the fall of the Berlin Wall also brought to a resounding end any residual belief still remaining in the West that utopian systems of government can ever succeed in a way that is fair to the people being governed. This realization may have revealed an important truth about the values that our species holds about itself. Notwithstanding some difficult knock-on effects that the fall of the wall may have brought about, this realization may have constituted a rare example of real moral progress.
The primary relevance of these examples to the kinds of questions we are asking about future technological power is that a malign scientific or economic superiority held by a few is not always, in the end, impossible to resist or overturn. Given sufficient numbers of people, the power that it can exert is not insuperable and revolution is always a possibility. Even if there were a real risk of something like genetic enhancement technology leading us into a new dystopia of oppression by the bio-enhanced (and I don’t believe there is), in spite of the changes that new technologies might offer, it is not obvious that it wouldn’t or couldn’t be resisted.
The word ‘dystopia’ is used too frequently to describe future scenarios related to scientific advance, and this is because the future is likely to be too mundane to be adequately described as one. It’s interesting that there is even still talk of ‘dystopias’ as possibilities, when the notion that its opposite – the utopia – is ever likely to occur has been discredited. Both of these words describe impossible worlds. It is no more likely that there will be a world where everything is wrong than it is there will be a world where everybody lives the perfectly happy life.
In our examples the difference between what the eventually deposed aimed at, and what they got, supports the view that to characterize possible future societies as anything as extreme as either utopian or dystopian is misguided. Both of these regimes believed, to begin with, that it was at the vanguard of moral thought, and that the political system they envisaged could be forced successfully upon the societies they governed. These regimes believed, for radical philosophical or religious reasons, that they were in possession of true knowledge of how power should be distributed. In their different ways, both espoused an idealist doctrine which sought to bend society to its will. Neither understood that societies (in the West, at least) work when there is sufficient individual liberty that those individuals will enter into a contract to be governed, refraining from certain types of behavior in return for protection of their own freedoms by the state. Neither regime realized that their subjects were right to seek a democratic system of government, and unprepared to be ruled in any other way. Viewed from the side of the dispossessed, what the rulers sought to impose was dystopian in nature, and in spite of the vast power differential, neither of these visions succeeded. It is unlikely that human societies will allow the full realization of a dystopian vision, precisely because it is so terrifying. As long as any potential trans/posthuman beings are able to act as moral agents as well, it is highly unlikely that they would allow it either.
Finally, there were resoundingly positive benefits from each of these revolutions. These took time, and the process was not painless, but over time beneficial changes occurred. The French Revolution turned France into a democracy and generated the preconditions necessary for the eventual emancipation of women, even though one of the drivers of the revolution was the feeling of disenfranchisement of the privileged bourgeoisie. The fall of the Berlin Wall may have had a significance of the magnitude already described. Each case advanced, incrementally, the spread of what we might broadly describe as Enlightenment values throughout society – values that we all benefit from. The ‘specter’ of a future where humans are exploited by a relative few enhanced genetic super-beings is just that, a specter – an apparition, and something that has reality in stories, rather than our societies.
Sign up for the Humanity+ newsletter:
95 Comments
I enjoy H+ magazine, and check it almost daily for updates.
Reading the comments section for this article was a disappointment though. Not one, but two (2) people that provided points of discussions was quickly dismissed and called idiots when not agreeing with “Valkyrie_Ice”.
What happened to common civility? It’s amazing how most “open-minded” people only are open-minded if you have the same opinions. To put it bluntly, “Valkyrie_Ice” come across as an immature, little brat used to having his way. I will skip over articles written by him from now on.
I urge for you, as journalists, to not insult people that are merely providing a discussion, and also to look over the quality of people writing for you. More of this, and you will quickly lose readers.
> “Valkyrie_Ice”
And who is he, anyway? What is his real name? What is his position in H+? We don’t know anything about him yet he acts like he is the boss.
Gee… it’s amazing how often this gets tried.
Usually by people who go by the name “Anonymous.”
Valkyrie Ice has been my name since I came on line back in the commodore sixty four days. So sorry guys. 25 years use, with plenty of forums and websites all linked to the same exact name. All of which I opened the very first Article I wrote for H+ saying.
I write for R.U. because I enjoy writing. He publishes my stuff because he likes it. I was commenting on this site LONG before I began writing for it. If you had spent five minutes doing any kind of research you’d know that.
Next attempt to Deride, Dismiss, Discredit, Deny?
>Usually by people who go by the name “Anonymous.”
You are getting paranoid.
Oh, shi–
Note the two people I dismissed are the same “Conspiracy Theory Nut” Anonymous, whom I attempted to have rational discourse with, only to meet with the same “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” BS that was Hitler’s rational for killing the Jews, is currently used by “Money Masters” to protest the Federal Reserve, and taught in numerous Arab Nations as reason to hate Israel. Pity that the Protocols are a forgery created by the Tzar’s Secret Police to try and prevent the communist uprising, and is taken verbatim from Marice Joly’s “Dialogue in Hell”. He might merely be a believer in some variant of it that whitewashed some of the direct anti-semitism, but he still believes in the core of the work, that a vast ancient conspiracy of bankers descended from the Money Lenders in the Temple of Jerusalem have been in control of the world since ancient times and have caused all wars and political turmoil since then in their bid to enslave the world.
Been there, studied that. It’s hogwash.
And since you so carefully avoided mentioning his responses, I have to wonder who YOU are a sockpuppet for.
Feel free to not like my response. It won’t change the fact that conspiracy theories filled with utter BS are conspiracy theories filled with utter BS.
>Note the two people I dismissed are the same “Conspiracy Theory Nut” Anonymous
Obviously not. There are at least three Anonymous guys you were arguing with aside of me, and several times you mistaken somebody else for me. No need to invent “conspiracy theory” and claim that everybody you talk with is me in disguise.
>Protocols of the Elders of Zion … Hitler … killing the Jews … hate Israel … direct anti-semitism
Goodwin’s Law in action. Accusing opponent in being a Nazi is very popular form of Ad hominem. Too bad I never used words like “Jews”, “Israel, “Zionist” or anything else.
And surely I never said anything about “Money Lenders in the Temple of Jerusalem”, you just made it up. Moreover, it is inconsistent with my point that current power elite was empowered during the Renaissance during the fall (or, more specifically, violent overthrow) of old hierarchies of Europe: monarchy and church. Which is basically a textbook fact you can read in official history books.
>I have to wonder who YOU are a sockpuppet for.
Like I said, you are starting to act like a conspiracy theory nut.
* * * * *
Anyway, to sum things up.
You disliked that I disagreed with your rosy-eyed view on modern technology, and, failing to find proper counter-arguments, started Ad hominem assault using “facts” that you literally made up, saying that I am a “Nazi”, an “anti-semite”, a “Christian”, a “believer in Jerusalem Temple rulers”, and so on.
Well, you know what, I can call you Nazi as well, since Transhumanism = Eugenics = Third Reich = Nazi = Hitler. So, you are a Nazi who wants to create “superior master race” via genetic engineering. Voila! You also worship Ron Hubbard, since Transhumanism = Singularity = Scientology = Ron Hubbard. LOL, how can’t you understand that such Ad hominem is a childish and useless way of “proving” your point.
If you can’t prove your point, that doesn’t mean your opponent is a Nazi.
Conspiracy clones using identical arguments and identical theories and the same “Anonymous” name makes it sort of impossible to tell anyone apart. You can claim to be as many people as you want.
Never claimed you were a Nazi. I said you were using the same BS forgery to justify your world view that Hitler used to justify exterminating Jews.
You were the one who made that jump to a conclusion. Why? Because it’s one of the standard defense mechanisms you are taught when confronted with the truth of your BS. Dismiss first, if you can’t dismiss, Deride. If derision doesn’t succeed, Discredit. If you can’t discredit, deny.
The 4 D’s. You’ve gone right down the list so far. Next?
>Because it’s one of the standard defense mechanisms you are taught
Like I said, you sound like a comic book version of conspiracy theorist.
>I said you were using the same BS forgery to justify your world view
Blatant lies again. I never made any claims about “Protocols”, nor even mentioned it before you did, nor considered them relevant. Moreover, I explicitly wrote that it is most likely a fake. I just criticized you “oh, surely there is WMD in Iraq, TV told us so” dismissal approach.
You wrote about your friend:
“Even providing proof that the Protocols was a forgery created at the turn of the century was dismissed as he claims to not be basing his ideology on them despite a line by line comparison I performed showing that he was quoting it verbatim”
Then I wrote:
“Times magazine said it” doesn’t equal “proof”.
Then you rejoiced in “oh, he doesn’t blindly believe everything Times magazine says, now I can accuse him in being a fan of Protocols or even a NAZI” sort of way. It is like if doubt about WMD in Iraq meant that person is pro-Saddam or at least fan of Al-Jazeera. Surely, all people who didn’t vote for Bush were muslim islamofascist terrorist jihadist Bin-Laden-loving America-hating fanatics, right? Well, here’s some surprise for ya: if I don’t believe all the lies said about Saddam or Bin Laden, that DOESN’T mean I am Saddam or Bin Laden’s fanboy.
Seeing such primitive textbook example of crude Ad hominem (Goodwin’s Law, for god’s sake!) on a supposedly “intelligent” forum is, well, amusing to say the least. However, you seem to have stuck with Nazi accusation, even openly lied about video posted below, which you obviously didn’t watched, yet said that it is about “protocols”, while it is not, in order to fool people who are too lazy to check the link. Lies, slander, deception, insults, what else did you do? “Means justify the ends”, huh?
Let me tell you something: what you do is wrong. Lying is bad. Slander is bad. Deception is bad. You lied several times, slandered me and other visitors, tried to deceive readers of this magazine. And you know it. A good (and smart) thing to do is admit that you are wrong and apologize. That can harm your hubris, but will definately save your reputation. Instead, you pile even more lies on top of it. I don’t know your age, gender, social class, etc, so I cannot make a guess why you lack basic civility and decency. But in a place I am from, deliberate lies, slander, deceit and insults were considered bad, wrong things, unworthy to be used by decent man. I recommend you to do the proper thing and apologize.
Oh, can it! PLEASE! All of you! You’re getting as bad as each other. You’re ad hominiming Val by claiming Val’s ad homminiming you’s. And Both sides have a right to get fed up with the other side when their not listening, Which both seem to be doing. But whatever the difference, Your opinion is your opinion. And people are entitled to opinions.
And if Val really was trying to insult someone in hate then Val would have said in a rage “conspirisies are BS because this is not star trek”. Val didn’t, and Val kept to logic for as long as possible before giving up and losing temper.
Plus who’s in control of what is a moot issue until being oppressed. By which time it only matters that you can resist. And in this case wether you make it out with the enhancements you wanted.
Now let’s all watch some of “The A Team”.
Well, I surely went over the top with pressure, that’s right, but before judging me just read what he writes. This guy actually thinks that Federal Reserve is fictional organization that was invented by anti-semitic neo-nazi conspiracy theorists. He is clinically insane.
Twist twist twist.
Way to write your own version of the truth, and you call me a liar.
Actually this is what Val said
>Yes the Federal Reserve exists. The CONSPIRACY THEORY is that the Fed is just a tool of “a secrect cabal of bankers who control the world’s economy” AKA Illuminati, Zionists, Lizards, etc.
Take that as you will, but I suggest you both tone things down a notch.
And of course, I did note she went over the edge. If I were doing it I would probably done it differently but in any case; at this point it doesn’t matter, you’re both blowing this out of proportion.
The problem here is that we have a novice conspiracy theorist, vs an old EX conspiracy theorist. It’s kind of like an argument between a novice Christian, and a Christopher Hitchens type Atheist.
Anonymous probably ran into someone, who told them all about this theory, gave them some website and some video links (much like have already been posted by Anonymous) and he then was led down a primrose path of connect the dots with a series of historical events all tied into “the bankers are controlling the world through dept” with lot’s of “guest speakers” with lots of credentials, most of whom, if he had done the follow up, are either NOT respected in their fields, or more often, don’t exist because they are just paid extras, and a host who is SO VERY EMPHATIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (watch that you don’t get impaled by that pen he’s likely to be jabbing at the screen to emphasize his points) and given a whirlwind tour through a highly slanted history lesson in which it is made to seem that these bankers have been at war with the world governments for centuries, with stops in Rome, England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Finally the US where it portrays Andrew Jackson as a super hero for fighting the creation of a “National Bank” and finally focused on the Federal Reserve as the biggest VILLAIN OF OUR TIMES!! because it is just a tool used by the “secret cabal”, who incidentally (in some versions) , also caused this economic crash just to put Obama into office.
Along the way, you can probably toss in some 9/11 conspiracy (needed to make an excuse to throw a war and make some profits selling arms don’tcha know?) and depending on the political leanings of his particular sect, either the Dems or the Repubs will be the “Tools of the Cabal” in congress.
That they neglected to inform him of any of the historical evidence I supplied is no surprise.
How do I know this? Because over twenty years ago, I actually bought into this BS too. I just learned far too much about it. I’ve seen too many of these videos. Been on too many websites shaking my head in disgust that the forgery directly responsible for the largest loss of human life of any written document other than the bible is still drawing in gullible fools to send out on conversion crusades like Anonymous.
I know that this ideology played a major role in the Holocaust, in the millions dead in Russia, in the fall of the Towers (most terrorists see America as the “Tool of the Cabal” not just the Fed) and is causing deaths around the world AS WE SPEAK. Over the top? On the whole, I’ve been pretty moderate compared to what I COULD have been.
I pity those duped. I have nothing but utter contempt for the philosophy itself. I hold an open mind on everything, but the evidence I have piled up against conspiracy theories over the years is too overwhelming to ignore. There’s little point to attempting rational discussion with someone who will take any argument as proof of his correctness.
***************************************************
Now Zexion, to more pleasant topics, based on some of the things you’ve said I’d like to give you the link to a few books you might enjoy.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2532766/God-Wants-You-Dead
http://mcwilliams.com/books/aint/
http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/cgi-bin/getdownload.cgi
http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm
http://heritagecoins.com/ttm/images/ttm.doc
All those are links to readable Full Editions.
God Want’s You Dead discusses ideological organisms, complex memeplexs which act like parasitic metaorganisms that use individual humans as “hosts” and use them as expendable drones.
Ain’t Nobody’s Business if You Do, The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society, is a treatise on the illogic of a “crime against oneself” and views it from nearly every perspective possible.
The Light’s in the Tunnel discusses the economic effects of automation, and how outsourcing and automation essentially have the same effect, then proceeds to show how these conditions are likely to extend into the future.
Progress and Poverty is a work by Henry George, and was written around the turn of the century, yet still reads like it was written today. The only thing I think George missed was the cause of rent seeking, the “culprit” behind why poverty can still exist in an age were resources are so abundant.
The last is the Truth Machine, a fiction novel that I find to be extremely thought provoking.
Answering to this comment:
http://hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/enhancement-politics-resistance-domination-not-futile#comment-12447
>Then tell me… Who is this “man behind the curtain”?
There is no single leader, there couldn’t be. Like I said, Western civilization is based on individual self-worth (i.e. cowardice) and therefore is very afraid of strong leadership. It tries to spread power as thin as possible. Our rulers are around 300 people from 13 old families, the so-called “council of 300″. The reason for having so much people in council is to make sure that no single leader can usurp power. Of course, single leadership is more effective, but cowardice prevent these people from forming more structured power system. After all, having less effective control is preferrable to possibility of painful death in torture chamber (or worse). East have the tyrants, West have the councils.
>Obama may have a similar agenda to Bush
Please… I explained you many times… Obama doesn’t have “an agenda”. He is a hired guy. He is like a journalist. Journalist does job at writing articles, but it is media owner who has an agenda and who defines editor’s policy. Does Obama owns U.S.? Obviously not. He is a CEO. And CEOs don’t have agendas, they have operational instructions.
>since the first world war
How about since XIX century. Google “conquest of Texas”.
>In any case, What are WE afraid of?
Ordinary citizens have nothing to fear from an effective police state. If they are not criminals or rebels, there is nothing to fear. That’s the whole reason China is so successful. However, the problem is, West is a very ineffective police state. You would see your mind scans leaking online due to negligence, spammers use your brain implants to implant shopping neurosis, and so on. Imagine all worst problems of modern Internet, multiplied and applied to your own brain. And nobody will care. Think of Facebook and Google security leaks – if such more-or-less effective companies don’t care to stop them, you can be surely government won’t bother it at all. After all, you are merely excessive burden, and elites’ agenda is depopulation.
>Hooliganism upsets the ballance.
>Whoever it is that is in power will not want that.
In countries where it can upset the balance (like Russia), it is banned. If France, for example, allows million-man-strong protests, that means they mean nothing.
>basic laws are already set
Laws are written by the strong for the weak. Just like elections.
>ether side attacks, then chances are the economy goes bankrupt
Yep, that’s the whole reason U.S. still exists. China owns dollar, it can destory the dollar and, therefore, U.S. economy. The reason why they don’t do that is because they want to suck off everything from America before killing it off. That’s an old “pillage before you burn” rule.
>such a pessimist
That’s not pessimism, that’s realism. Pessimism is depressive, and I do not feel depressed.
Okay, Let’s Assume this “counsil of 300″ exists. What’s to stop it from fracturing into 12 warring factions? It could take as little as one of these elites disagreing with the others and others might join them. Think group and pack mentality. And don’t forget if one wants the pride of being top dog.
If a so called “counsil of 300″ existed then chances are it would be no different to what the government is known to do. Yell at each other all day, dissagree. Only difference being no-one put them there.
>…and elites’ agenda is depopulation.
As far as I know, that is either counter-intuitive logic or “for the evils”. If a power system is benefiting from it’s people, then they will need more people. The exception being when they can’t support those people.
Now let’s assume that the power system does become negligent. Anyone with a company would probably want to protect their investments, so if this negligence does occur and people are hacking into its workers’ brains as you predict; then they will set up privite security for their workers, paid for by the company. Essentially meaning that the economy structure would protect anyone with a stake in it.
>…if such more-or-less effective companies don’t care to stop them…
That’s because those security leaks weren’t their problem. At least that’s what I can assume from the examples given. The people who’s information they were supposed to protect would not have effected them either way. But if you look at the sucurity at workplaces; spam fillters, anti-virus, top security of classified information. You can see a totally different ethic. Anything that hampers work is brutly dealt with. And people hacking into your workers’ brains to make them chronicly distracted for a certain product (not availiable there) counts as a problem. (Note: even if the richest positions don’t care for this, the managers on their way up certainly will)
Even with the assumtions you’re asking to be made, it’s unlikely that the proposed problems won’t be dealt with another way.
>That’s not pessimism, that’s realism. Pessimism is depressive, and I do not feel depressed.
Could have fooled me, what with the claiming we’re all doomed. Or something similar.
In any case, most of the things you say would be a problem, assumtions or not, seem to be just more of the same as what we have. And as is obvious, we seem to be doing fine at the moment. I got viruses on a computer a while ago, and it was hardly an inconviniance; I had another one lieing around. And now the computer that cought the virus is fixed. And as an extension on my doubts on mind control being plausible at a complex level, it’s unlikely you’ll be kept from doing something similar (or a doctor doing it for you, possibly at the companies request). And as I noted with the more wild assumtion of the people in charge , regardless of if it’s true or not; they’d be doing the same as any proposed system of power. Again, more of the same, just needlessly complicated.
I’d rather not do any more argueing about who’s ruling what; so whatever floats your boat. I’ll just argue wether there is/would-be a problem.
Time magazine? I never mentioned Time magazine, so what does that have to do with anything?
And I am all too aware of the “argument” that the protocols are fake, from which you are then likely to repeat them verbatim, but claim to not be. It’s become the latest thing in Conspiracy Nuttism. “Let’s use all the material, but deny that we got it from this source!” Doesn’t matter if you got your info from “Money Masters”, or “The Eight Veils” or whatever website fed this BS to you, it still comes straight from the Protocols, which came straight from a political satire that was banned in France a bare 15 years before the Protocols was “found” by the Okrhana and fed to Tsar Nicholas in an attempt to get him to “crack down” on all those “Marxism spreading Jews”. It was then used as a textbook in Germany under the Reich, since it was a primary inspiration for Mein Kampf. Since then, despite having been proven a forgery as early as 1929, has been the basis of nearly every conspiracy theory.
The main tenant of the Protocols is that a secret group of “zionists” are controlling the world through “Usury” and enslaving people to debt. Claim all you wish to be unaware of this fact, but you’ve already used all the magic words that scream PROTOCOLS. Just because you might not be aware of the origin does not mean you are not guilty of quoting them. It just means you didn’t get told where it was from.
So alright, I’ll play your game. Tell me your theory, I want to compare it to the Illuminati theory, and the Cult of Isis theory, and the Lizard’s from another dimension theory, and the Immortals from Atlantis theory, and the Immortal Banking Cartel theory, and the Federal Reserve theory, and the Aliens among us theory, and the Zionist Conspiracy, the Lemurian Magician’s Consiracy and all the other various Conspiracy theories I have dealt with for nearly forty years, all of which stem in full or in part from the Protocols.
So tell me why you believe that a single group of people have controlled the world for centuries.
But before you do, let me warn you, I’ve seen better evidence for the existence of Atlantis, aliens, and the Moon being an artificial structure, than I have for any of the various flavors of Conspiracy Theory listed above.
But please, do explain why THEY are all crackpots, but YOU are right.
>Time magazine
They are the guys who said it was a forgery.
>The main tenant of the Protocols is that a secret group
>of “zionists” are controlling the world through “Usury”
>and enslaving people to debt.
Obviously. Broken clock show right time twice a day. And what do you want to say? That there is no usury and no debt? No Federal Reserve? Look, that could be plausible somewhere in 1970ies, but in 2000ies it is pretty much common knowledge. And after the crisis of 2008… Well, what planet are you from? The economy is going straight to the toilet, yet you continue denying the obvious things just because some document from XIX century said exactly the same, and the document is “bad”?
>Federal Reserve theory
Oh, shi–
Federal Reserve THEORY.
[sarcasm]
So, Federal Reserve don’t exist?
[/sarcasm]
>Tell me your theory
Like I said, it is you who is the guy with the theories, you are the guy who is claiming that he “knows everything” and “knows the truth”. I just criticise you when you obviously lie, nothing more.
Actually it was the TIMES. Couldn’t bother to do the real research hummmmm? There’s far more research that’s been done since, all verifying the facts.
Feel free to accuse me of lying whenever you can’t handle the facts. You claim a conspiracy, regardless of size. You use the arguments that come straight from the Protocols, but are ignorant of their source. When confronted with the evidence of their source, you deny the facts and the trail of evidence that leads back to that source because you can’t face the fact that you’ve bought into a simplistic Ideology.
Yes the Federal Reserve exists. The CONSPIRACY THEORY is that the Fed is just a tool of “a secrect cabal of bankers who control the world’s economy” AKA Illuminati, Zionists, Lizards, etc.
Like I pointed out above, there are many facts that are so easy to twist into this simplistic world view. But the truth is that a dozen isolated negative facts does not equal “power structure that has remained unchanged since the middle ages” WHICH YOU EXPLICITLY STATED. Since NO HISTORICAL evidence for that statement exists, as no PUBLIC power structure currently exists that has not undergone radical change since then, the reference can only be to a “Secret power structure” AKA CONSPIRACY THEORY. Mention of the Rothchildes merely cemented that observation, as they are the SINGLE MOST COMMONLY REFERRED TO “CULPRITS” IN EVERY FLAVOR OF CONSPIRACY THEORY.
Ignorance of your own beliefs origins does not negate the fact that those origins have been explored and found false by others. Most Christians are woefully ignorant of the contents of the Bible too. I DID my research. Maybe it’s time you do your own before you start attacking people again.
But I’m willing to bet you won’t. None of the others I’ve had this conversation with did either.
That’s just ridiculous. What you called “conspiracy theory” which as you say “has no historical reference” is considered as basic fact outside Western world. Check channels like Al-Jazeera or RT. I doubt that word “conspiracy theory” can even be translated in any non-English language, since the only culture that doesn’t acknowledge the existance of internal power structure is ours. What you consider “a ludicrous theory” is considered as fact by 99% of humanity. So, when you use “nobody believes conspiracy theories”, we are talking about U.S. only – and that’s the culture which is not exactly known to be bright. Outside, there is not even word for “conspiracy theory”.
However, I would gladly call myself “conspiracy theorist” if you call yourself “coincidence theorist”.
And this fact hasn’t clued you in yet?
That all those people “Are in the Know” just like you, YET HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS “SHADOW GOVERNMENT” That literally BILLIONS of people are “resisting” this conspiracy, AND YET HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN ABLE TO EVEN MAKE A DENT in it’s control?
Billions of people believe in supernatural deities controlling the universe too.
Faith in something is not a proof of it’s factuality. I go by evidence, and despite the “beliefs” of “99%” of humanity, YOU HAVE NONE. Just supposition, and circumstantial anecdotal biasing of historical fact.
If ANYONE, ANYWHERE had proof of this conspiracy’s existence, it would have fallen already. No matter how “powerful” a human being is, they are still subject to a bullet in the skull. After more than a hundred years and “Billions” of people worldwide being convinced of it’s reality, the fact still remains that NO-ONE has anymore evidence now than they did back when Hitler used this “conspiracy” to justify killing the “non-aryans” in Germany.
I understand that you *BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!* So What? Where’s your PROOF. Not supposition, not twisting of historical scenarios to make them appear to support your theory, but your REAL CONCRETE, 100% ironclad evidence that PROVES you are right? Not one of those BILLIONS of people has it, and neither do you.
Like I said, it requires belief that ALL OF HUMANITY must act in ways contrary to established HUMAN NATURE to think that your conspiracy has any validity.
>25 years use
Oh, shit. Adult person that uses kid’s alias. And plays computer games. With crossdressing avatar. Hell, I thought you were a kid somewhere between 14 and 18 years old, judging by your behavior. And you are an adult with kid’s mind. Resident internet crank. That’s so fucked up, man. Yet so typical. It would be much more bizzare to see a mentally healthy person. Now it all makes much more sense. Of course. What did I expected from UFO cult site? Rational arguments? Huh. I don’t know if I need to laugh or to cry.
Get some medical examination, ASAP. I am serious, you need help.
I have to agree, with a few differences in thought
valkyrie did reply to two posts that I thought were of questionable value, but then applied the same label to a few other posters using the name anonymous, even his initial posts were somewhat uncivil.
somehow he’s grouped different people into the “conspiracy clone” category (classic dehumanization) and has said they all believe the same theory, and then proceeded to not address what they said.
if you have some evidence, Valkyrie_ice, I suggest you post it so that readers of comments can make that decision by themselves, you don’t always have to convince who you are directly talking to on the internet. I myself would like to see whatever material you have.
I guess it always happens on Internet. It is easy to dehumanize person if you can’t see his face.
Personally, I have no grudge against Valkyrie Ice. I just wish he stopped using ad hominem. It’s childish.
… Actully it’s probably just that it’s hard to track who’s saying what if they all have the name “annonymous”. If someone just typed something in the name box, then it’s more reasonable to assume it’s not the same person as the one argueing the opposite. Not a perfect system, but it’s a practical one.
Faceless or not, it’s identityless that stumps people.
I have to agree, with a few differences in thought
Valkyrie did reply to two posts that I thought were of questionable value, but then applied the same label to a few other posters using the name anonymous, even his initial posts were somewhat uncivil.
somehow he’s grouped different people into the “conspiracy clone” category (classic dehumanization) and has said they all believe the same theory, and then proceeded to not address what they said.
if you have some evidence, Valkyrie_ice, I suggest you post it so that readers of comments can make that decision by themselves, you don’t always have to convince who you are directly talking to on the internet. I myself would like to see whatever material you have.
You want some references?
http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf
http://www.notbored.org/dialogue-in-hell.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=253055
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion
And to reprint a section:
The 24 Protocols are posited as instructions to a new Elder, outlining how the group will control the world. The Elders want to trick all “gentile nations”, whom they call “goyim”, into doing their will. Their preferred methods include:
1 Alcoholism, Annihilation of the privileges of the non-Jewish aristocracy, among other topics.
2, 9, 12 The propagation of ideas, such as Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and Utopianism, with the task of undermining established forms of order.
4 Materialism
5 World government
7 World wars
10 Staging catastrophes against one’s own people, then claiming a moral high ground for leverage (False flag)
11 Universal suffrage
11, 12, 17 Curtailment of civil liberties with the excuse of defeating the enemies of peace
13 Creating the impression of the existence of freedom of press, freedom of speech, human rights and democracy, all of which are subsequently undermined and become mere illusions or deceptive smokescreens behind which actual oppression lies
14 Distractions
14, 17 Pornographic literature
16 The destruction of Christianity, Islam and other religions and cultures, followed by a transitional stage of atheism, followed finally by the hegemony of Judaism
20 Brainwashing
21 Economic depressions
22 Undermining financial systems by foreign loans, creating national bankruptcy, destroying money markets and replacing them with government credit institutions
23 Justification of previous acts of evil and expectation of a great new society
24 Reduction of the manufacture of articles of luxury, destruction of large manufacturers, prohibition of alcohol and hashish, unleashing forces of violence under the mask of principles of freedom, only to have the ‘King of the Jews’ demolish those very forces to make him appear a saviour
25 Training of the king, direct heirs, irreproachability of exterior morality of the King of the Jews
Control of the media and finance would replace the traditional sources of social order with one based on mass manipulation and state engineered propaganda, where powerful elites and institutions conspire to conceal unpalatable truths from the masses. In these respects, the Protocols draws on long-standing criticisms of modernity, radicalism and capitalism, but presents them as part of an orchestrated plot, rather than as a product of impersonal historical processes.
The text assumes that the reader already believes that the Freemasons are a secret society with a hidden political agenda, and the Protocols purports to demonstrate that this hidden agenda is itself controlled or guided by the ‘Elders’, a sort of conspiracy theory within a conspiracy theory. In the Protocols, Freemasons and “liberal thinkers” are shown to be mere tools that the Elders will eventually replace with a Jewish theocracy. The Protocols describes a forthcoming “kingdom” and goes into great lengths about how it will be run. Yet even in this kingdom the Elders will avoid direct political control, preferring to assert themselves via usury and manipulation of money. Even the “King of the Jews” himself will be nothing more than a figurehead.
Comparison Between The Protocols And Maurice Joly’s Dialogue In Hell
The Protocols 1–19 closely follow the order of Maurice Joly’s The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu 1–17. In some places, the plagiarism is incontrovertible to any observer, trained or not. For example, the box on the left below contains text from the Dialogue in Hell…, while the box on the right contains text from The Protocols :
Montesquieu: How are loans made? By the issue of bonds entailing on the Government the obligation to pay interest proportionate to the capital it has been paid. Thus, if a loan is at 5%, the State, after 20 years, has paid out a sum equal to the borrowed capital. When 40 years have expired it has paid double, after 60 years triple: yet it remains debtor for the entire capital sum. (Dialogues, p. 209)
A loan is an issue of Government paper which entails an obligation to pay interest amounting to a percentage of the total sum of the borrowed money. If a loan is at 5%, then in 20 years the Government would have unnecessarily paid out a sum equal to that of the loan in order to cover the percentage. In 40 years it will have paid twice; and in 60 thrice that amount, but the loan will still remain as an unpaid debt. (Protocols, p. 77)
Another example is the reference to the Hindu deity Vishnu, which appears exactly twice in both the Dialogues in Hell and the Protocols:
Machiavelli: Like the god Vishnu, my press will have a hundred arms, and these arms will give their hands to all the different shades of opinion throughout the country. (Dialogues, p. 141)
These newspapers, like the Indian god Vishnu, will be possessed of hundreds of hands, each of which will be feeling the pulse of varying public opinion. (Protocols, p. 43)
Montesquieu: Now I understand the figure of the god Vishnu; you have a hundred arms like the Indian idol, and each of your fingers touches a spring. (Dialogues, p. 207)
Our Government will resemble the Hindu god Vishnu. Each of our hundred hands will hold one spring of the social machinery of State. (Protocols, p. 65)
******************************************
Now, let’s see what kind of dodge Anonymous comes up with. My bet is he’ll try disparaging Wikipedia as a reference, which is why I included both the Protocols and the book it was forged from, and an additional reference.
Do many of the protocols sound plausible? Sure. Do there exist events that can be seen as “confirming” the Protocols? Sure. Is it possible that a 2000 year old conspiracy could never have a single member succumb to human nature and betray his fellow conspirators, that 25 to 30% of humanity could willingly co-conspire with these “Elders” and that none of them would ever betray the conspiracy? That never in 2000 years has this group split, had factional wars, or fallen prey to ANY human activity that is all too common in every office, boardroom, and palace in all of human history? That somehow, they’ve done what NO OTHER SIMILAR GROUP OF HUMANS HAS EVER DONE?
There are plenty of possible coincidences that can make the Protocols sound sensible. But they all require you to pretend that human nature doesn’t exist for at least half the human race.
The similarity of the document with the other document is not a proof in any way. It is argument at best. Especially when you talk about political manifesto stuff that is copy-paste by the very definition of genre. It is the same as you used my claims about Biblical locusts to say that I am a fan of Hal Lindsy. The proof is something you can present in the court to back your accusation. The proof of forgery is the proof of authorship. Like that it was written by Rachkovsky, or some other guy. Why didn’t you provide that proof? Because there isn’t any. It is a speculation, a hypothesis. The truth, we DON’T know who is the author of the document, we DON’T know whether it is someone’s “black propaganda” (propaganda written from the point-of-view of the enemy to slander him) or real inside document of some secret society (which XIX-XX centuries were swarmed with, all of which claimed “ancient ancestry”). So, there is no reason to claim that we know something about it or have some “proof” when we certainly don’t and probably never will.
>…Is it possible that a 2000 year old conspiracy…
Hold your horses. First, I never said that protocols are real, I just doubted that you have any “proof”. Doubting Bush’s claims about Bin Laden’s terrorism isn’t equal of saying Bin Laden is not a terrorist. Second, I surely don’t believe in “Zion Elders” or something like that. I wrote it many times, yet you continue claiming that I believe in some 2000-years old conspiracy when I clearly don’t, since such belief would be inconsistend with everything I write here.
On the other hand, 2000-year-old conspiracies are obviously at least technically possible, since we have witnessed human secret organizations that existed many times longer than that. I am not ready to buy the idea that there is something like that at large, thought. But it is necessary to note that what you say about “human nature” is not “human nature” at all, it is lower classes (peons, slaves, sheeple, etc) nature, and any initiation-based order is virtually immune to social decay: in fact, they became more refined with age. Which is understandable, since there is a lot to dump excessive enthropy to. “Secret” doesn’t mean “closed”.
Pretty much what I expected, a dodge all the way around.
You claimed very early on that “the power structure” has remained unchanged for centuries, and that transparency would have no effect on the “Real Old Wealth” Followed by references to the Rothchildes. You also spoke about how they enslaved the populace through Usury and Debt.
These are ALL conspiracy BUZZ WORDS. I’ve heard just about every variant of them possible to hear.
That you are ignorant of the source of your worldview is simply a sad testament to how little you’ve bothered to learn about your own philosophy.
As for Hal Lindsey, did you even read Late Great Planet Earth? Again, being ignorant of the source of your beliefs does not say much about the depth of your research into them prior to espousing them.
>That you are ignorant of the source of your worldview
Claiming that what you call “conspiracy theorism” (i.e. realistic worldview) comes from Protocols doesn’t explain why both original Christianity and especially Islam specifically forbid usury. Somebody send Protocols 2000 years in time via DeLorean time machine? You must be kidding, boy.
Okay, Valkyrie, since it is obvious that our views are incompatible, I see no point in our discussion, since it degenerated into flame war.
If H+ doesn’t tolerate other opinions, well, fine, you’ve just lost one more reader.
Bye.
Humm. Since R.U Sirius published everything you wrote, I’d say H+ is quite tolerant. The problem is that you don’t like the refutation I’ve made to your views.
But you’re right about one thing. I saw no point to this discussion way back when I realized you were just another carbon copy conspiracy clone. But, you kept posting, so I had to keep refuting you.
Conspiracy Theorism is the number two killer ideology after religious fanaticism, and often goes hand in hand with it, turning the merely religious into a zealot who is willing to kill to “strike back” against this “phantom menace”. It caused the deaths of 3000 people in the Towers, numerous more in Kansas City, and kills untold numbers of people daily around the world. It recently caused the deaths of several police officers in Philadelphia, and New York. It is a threat to every government and every nation, and every individual in the world. I class it among the Existential Threats that we as a species must overcome to survive. The sooner people realize it is a complete load of bs, without even the redeeming qualities of religious ideology, the sooner it will stop people dying over a forgery.
I don’t even read ‘em usually. I just check to make sure they’re not spam.
Some ideas on ID classifications :
Type 1 Natural Eugenics (Breeding Programme, Elites)
Type 2 Unmodified Human (General Population, no programme)
Type 3 Genetic Ailments Removed
Type 4 Natural Eugenics (Breeding Programme, Elites) + Superior Genes Inserted
Type 5 Genetic Ailments Removed + Superior Genes Inserted
Type 6 Mixed with Non Human Genes (could result in lowered intelligence and the Sentient Rights Charter could be the next in thing to consider)
Then the above 4 separated into :
Type A Ethnic Original
Type B Ethnic Dual (2 and with community only from 2 specific ethnicites)
Type C Ethnicity Mixed (3 and more)
Type 1 and 2 would be the ‘original’ and ‘least technologically pollutive’ of the gene pool, while Type 3 is minimally tampered, considered inferior, and 4 non-original and potentially superior with 5 a weaker version of Type 4. Type 1 communities will probably be clustered at civilisational Capitals forming a backbone of DNA to repopulate from JUST IN CASE.
3, 4 ad 5 must clearly declared their status before pregnancy or marriage to prevent pollution of 1 and 2.
Type 4 and 5 will be the most potential ‘superior divergent human race’, and while Type 6 could offer the most diverse forms and widest choice, but they could easily be considered a non-human divergent race’ and suffer the most discrimination. (Cross one furry with more than a second race and you get the picture total mess . . . )
All choices should be made available to everyone when young, as in clear identifications, and textbooks detailing and delineation of 4×3 types and also choices of lifestyles, cultures and faiths to CHOOSE from. Also clear communities of each sub-type should be clearly marked out to keep 1 and 2 unmixed with B and C, though a ‘total mix zone’ should also be allowed with mixed progeny again kept separate from Types 1 through 6.
Mixing is costly and burdens the originals to backtrack to purity from, so ethnic purity and a state of DNA unalteredness would be a form of currency in genetic terms in an increasingly globalised and genetically modified world.
Language, lifestyle culture, native faiths, and and distinct ethnicity phenotype, could be a showcase of diversity that will be best maintained and continued by Type 1A or 2A.
4 and 5 will have a technical and tactical advantage though at the cost of originality.
Type C is socially least demanding but could suffer the same discrimination as Type 6 with Type C6 on the extreme end. Though social conditions and community could still be ensured via Constitution. The world will see the ‘altereds’ and ‘originals’ being highly segregated though with our history of experiences with racism or apartheid or holocaust, different faith or even LGBT, we will by then be very much prepared to handle differences between drift towards homegrown forms of barely human sentience.
They should “get on with it” AFTER ensuring no GMO sentient life will infect gene pools or even the environment by their existence. The current lack of diversity in urban centres is quite dull though hybrid ‘manimals’ would also get quite tedious in a short while.
this is one of those cases of a common fallacy, an “unchanging assumption” that is likely to not hold true due to the very technology being discussed.
You really think that a society in which DNA can be rewritten at will is going to be stratified like this?
This is a caste system. It is a rigid and unchanging “Brave New World” style division of the human race into tiers. It is dependent on the idea that DNA could be changed only at birth or early in life, and not on a realistic projection that DNA is likely to be not only rewritable whenever a person decides to, but that it might not even be the “defining means of ID” because it CAN be rewritten.
To be honest, this reads more like a propaganda piece from a hate group advocating “race wars” than it does a realistic scenario, especially with the concerns about “mixing” and “genetic purity” and the implied forced segregation outside of “mixing zones”, not to mention the assumption that a choice made in youth would permanently relegate a person to their “tier” for eternity as well as the assumption that mixed species DNA would only result in “Lowered Intelligence”. This comes across as a artificially regimented police state ideology, with different “rights” alloted to the social tiers, with the lowest tier being considered “sub-human.”
I’ve re-read this piece five or six times, and I can see that this DOES NOT appear to be your intent,(due to concerns about the Sentients Rights charter) but you can hopefully see the problems inherent in this sort of classification, not to mention the lack of it’s necessity.
The modern world’s fear and distaste of dominance by supposed supermen is largely a product of the fact that said supermen have been all too human in their failings and limitations. Throughout history, both distant and recent, human societies have been dominated by elites, and all too often those elites have become convinced that their dominance was a product of some innate superiority which sets them apart from the “commoners”. Sadly, this arrogant self-assurance has been an error which has simply made those elites who succumb to it likely to bring harm to themselves and their followers. The current state of the U.S. reflects precisely this dynamic.
For decades now our economic elites on Wall St and the foreign policy elites in Washington D.C. have told themselves that they are “the best and the brightest”. They have convinced themselves that they have a superior understanding of issues which are too complex for ordinary Americans to grasp. As a result of this view they ignored obvious warning signs about the risks of invading Iraq and the growing instability of the financial markets. Those voicing such warnings were dismissed out of hand because they “just didn’t understand the complex realities of the modern world/economy”. The result of this has been foreign and economic policies which have brought (and continue to bring) ruin to the U.S. and have begun to threaten the power of the American elite both within America, and in the rest of the world.
But (and this is the critical question for those of us who anticipate to advent of true super human intelligences in the near future) what would have happened if they had been as smart as they thought they were? The most likely scenario is that the invasion of Iraq would never have happened, the occupation of Afghanistan would have been far better managed and likely ended long before now, and the financial collapse of 2008 would have been avoided. The world, in short, would be a better place in many ways.
What we face in the development of truly superhuman intelligences is not a threat of domination by the tragically human supermen of old, rather we have tremendous opportunity to create (for the first time in history) elites which are in fact our betters. We will be able to engineer minds which are our intellectual and, more importantly, our moral superiors.
The minds of the coming trans-humans will be the product of conscious design. We will make them as kind or cruel, as capable or incapable, as caring or uncaring as we desire. I expect human self-interest to triumph in this process. We, out of self-preservation, will not design a race of ruthless conquistadors to oppress us, rather we will build a generation of philosopher kings to liberate us from our own limitations. These young kings will, in their turn, design robotic saints and digital buddhas to protect us and guide us to a better future.
The only question is will we be wise enough to accept the help of these children of our mind, or will the same pride which lead the supermen of old astray lead the masses into disaster once again. Based on the willingness of the masses to trust those who claim to be our betters; I expect we will eagerly embrace those who actually are.
“YEAH”
Well :
1) Most people need money : and your “happy world” will exist : but it is not “yet”, and it also about the transition …
Do you understand that the “singularity” had begun since the industrial revolution : and the biggest problem we face is our IDEOLOGY : It takes a lot more of time to change our sociological point of view
AND IN FACT WE HAVE NOT CHANGE : our economic system is the same for centurys, our mod of thinking, of working, of slavery is the same : AND THIS IS THE PROBLEM
2) what will do todays rich people, RICH MEANS ALSO POWER OVER THE SOCIETY, if they misunterdant : “money will no longer be a value”, and people don’t need money (TODAY) … I think a part of the rich would try to survive : and if this mean killing a lot of people : nevermind : some of them will do it ( this has allready been done, for economical reasons )
What do you think they are doing with the “open source” movement ? Oracle, microsoft, ISP and web neutrality , and even the “open” google (openess is not so open anymore )…
They want to suvive : and they “total” dominance, they need TOTALITARISM
WELL : i dont think a centralised TOTALITARIST society is a “human like society”
And i don’t want it
This entire article is bollocks. It discusses economical issues, but economy is not what drives human race. Otherwise, we wouldn’t see wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Super-rich don’t care about economics, they already have everything they need from the day they were born. What they need is security and control. From psychological side they are “control freaks”. That’s what “democracy promotion” is all about. Super-rich don’t want to “exploit” anybody, since they already have more money they could possibly spend. Elites will enslave us not because of profit, since they are not motivated by profit-seeking – only poor classes are. Elites will enslave us just because they can. And all you do is just give them an excuse to do so. “Oh, it will be so cool if we all have mind-control chips inside our brains!” Fuck it.
>The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 also represented a triumph of public political will
I can’t believe there are still people who believe this nonsense. Fall of the Berlin Wall was a triumph of one geopolitical Leviathan (United States) over another geopolitical Leviathan (Soviet Union). One empire took over a chunk of land from the other. Public political will? What a joke. You just promote good old-fashioned U.S. geopolitical agenda. In 90ies, it could work. In 00ies, not much so. In 10ies, in post-Wikileaks age, it is just ludicrous. It was an exercise of powerplay, and it is just what new “singularity” will be: more powerful bully takes best pieces.
Transhumanism is just a couple of filthy-rich jerks building a lifeboat and getting off the ship. Our only hope is that competing elites will nuke that lifeboat before it is completed. Enter the Butlerian Jihad.
There’s an even bigger truth that you are overlooking.
The same technologies that could produce “Genetic Supermen” would also be usable to “retrofit” an adult human given the advances we are making in gene therapy and stemcell research. Even if you give your child “advantages” via gene manipulation today, by the time he reached the age where those advantages would BE an advantage, you as the parent could “retro” those advantages for yourself in numerous ways. As we progress into the next decade, those “advantages” you engineered into the child might even be obsolete compared to the possible advantages he could have available by then.
In otherwords, by the time a crop of such supermen could grow up they would no longer have an advantage.
The same goes for a “tech elite”. Their superiority would be extremely short lived.
Such fears as this are rooted in the linear thinking mode of future history, in which the assumption is made that technology will advance uniformly at the same pace it has in the past. This assumption is necessary to give these “Supers” the time frame in which to dominate. But we have already far surpassed this stage.
There is NO TECHNOLOGY which could give an “elite” of any sort enough of an advantage that they could prevent further technological innovation which would render their advantage null. They could at best achieve a short term domination that would erode quickly.
Why? Because the cost in effort expended to repress technological progress to maintain their advantage is effort that cannot be expended in advancing, and that gives the advantage to the group that is not repressing progress. We are witnessing this right now with the attempts to prevent corporate regulation and establish corporate welfare for those industries that rely on material scarcity for profit in an age where there are no real material scarcities. They are spending billions to try and prevent social, technical and political changes that are rendering them obsolete, and they are failing. Even if they win every political battle, all they are succeeding in doing is hastening the collapse of the Economy of Scarcity.
It’s not just that the people will, under sufficient oppression, react and force change, though this is indeed true, it’s that change is occurring so quickly now that once the behemoths of the industrial age fall, there is unlikely to be time for new “Behemoths” to grow. The geographic and political landscapes which allowed them to exist is crumbling, and the time frames between “technological generations” is now measured in months, not years. We are rapidly reaching the point where no group will have any advantage long enough over other groups to exploit it in the manners so feared by those who see only dystopia.
Good article Alex.
“My ideology is that the “Elites” rule. Anything which challenges that ideology must be attacked. Any technology advances which could challenge my worldview must be twisted to ensure that it instead supports it. Anything which could possibly invalidate my worldview must be ridiculed and dismissed.”
Replace “Elites” with Illuminati, NWO, Masons, Aliens, Lizards, whatever, it makes no difference. It’s just the exact same BS “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” conspiracy theory over and over again.
I have a former friend who fell into this form of paranoia. You can even show him historical proof that his theories are dead wrong, that his “definitions” of things are at complete odds with the reality, and it makes not a single iota of difference. No matter how much evidence he is wrong is presented, he simply claims it is more proof of his correctness, and verification of our “idiocy” for failure to share his worldview. Even providing proof that the Protocols was a forgery created at the turn of the century was dismissed as he claims to not be basing his ideology on them despite a line by line comparison I performed showing that he was quoting it verbatim…
It’s a symptom of the accelerating pace of change. Those who cannot cope with it are retreating into mindsets and worldviews which deny all change, be they religious, political, or in this case conspiracy ideologue.
It’s truly sad how many bright, formerly intelligent people have allowed themselves to become carbon copy conspiracy clones.
“…achieve a short term domination that would erode quickly…”
Current leaders of the Western world has ruled since the Middle Ages. Nobody ever stopped their dominance for hundreds of years. Talk about “short term” is slightly off the mark.
>Even providing proof that the Protocols was a forgery
“Times magazine said it” doesn’t equal “proof”. And that’s the problem with people like you. This whole “TV says it so it must be true” mindset is based on reciting agitprop cliches. “Saddam had WMD”, “Bin Laded did 9/11″, “Russians invaded Georgia”, “LHO killed JFK”, etc. The problem with this approach is that it is inconsistent. Yesterday there was WMD in Iraq, today there isn’t. You have to turn on your TV (or type “hplusmagazine.com”, whatever) to know what is “the current truth”.
“Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.”(c)
On the other hand, any person who has common sense and enough attention span to make a research sooner or later ends with the same common sense conclusions, no matter what he started with, what his political views are, and what path did he take. That’s why you call it “carbon copy conspiracy clones” – because truth is singular, only lies are variable. The unitary form of conspiracy theorism, which remained unchanged since at least XVIII, and says pretty much the same things regardless of political position (liberal, conservative, anarchist, communist, fascist, monarchist, whatever) is a testament to its accuracy. On the other hand, you sheeple guys simple believe what you were told tomorrow morning on TV (or popular site), and this sort of “truth” changes rapidly due to geopolitical and economical fluctuations. The difference between you and me is not that I believe something and you don’t, the difference is that I don’t take everything I read at the face value and try to actually use my brain, while you simply repeat whatever “truth” you are being told by mainstream media and/or your transhumanist peer group. That’s why you cannot understand “carbon copy conspiracy clones” – because from your point of view humans aren’t capable of independant thought and if they say similar things, they are probably part of the same organization with same agenda and same media resources. It was especially evident when you mentioned some Lindsy guy I’ve never ever heard of. Your probably thought “since he said similar things, he probably took it from similar source”. Nah, it is you sheeple guys who “take from the source” and blindly believe it, whether it is Fox News or whatever. In reality, “carbon copy conspiracy clones” are only “carbon copy” when it comes to conspiracy itself, since, like I said above, truth is singular, only lies are variable. Guys like you would believe that the grass is blue if told so by TV without even checking it. How is Afghan campaign going, boy? Found Bin Laden yet? And how about scary Iranian nukes?
It is funny how both revolutions author mentioned were capitalist revolutions (read: rich jerks screwing everybody up), made in the interesting of the rich elites. How is it supposed to counter “resistance is not futile” argument is lost to me.
Capitalists trying to screw us up against under the banners of “transhumanism”. Same shit, different flag.
no it’s not.
That assumption is ignoring the fact that the situation of today is so unlike any previous era that there is no comparison. The power structures are under enormous pressure due to the unique abilities of the internet to connect people. The old tried and true means to hold onto to power are not as effect as they were even a decade ago, and the ability of those structures to adapt to rapid change is extremely limited. We are approaching an era in which so much change is going to occur so rapidly that they will be completely unable to cope and if they even survive, it will be in a greatly changed form, with quite limited and defined power.
That is not to say that they will not make the attempt to retain their older levels of control, it is to say they will try, and eventually fail. The “short term” I am talking about is a decade or less.
The past is a good guide to what is happening in the present, except that you have to ignore the speed with which previous changes occurred. The “Singularity Event” of the Printing Press launched 100 years of chaos and turmoil, in which the monolithic power structure of the Catholic Church and the State was ruptured and shattered into hundreds of religious sects with varying levels of political influence. The “Singularity Event” of the Industrial revolution made paupers of the Agricultural Land Barons and created the current industrial “elites”. Our present economic crisis is merely another symptom of our ongoing “Singularity Event” as we shift from a material economy based on scarcity to a non-material one based on abundance. Yes, a new group of “Elites” are likely to emerge, but they will be those who’s fortunes are built on the new realities of the digital age, just as those who emerged from the turmoil at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution are those who built them on the new industrial realities.
Each Singularity Event has resulted in the same creative destruction, including attempts by the outgoing paradigm to prevent it’s destruction via government interdiction. Each Event has occurred faster than the previous one, and each event has occurred closer in time to the previous one. I do not expect this “Transition Phase” to last more than a decade. The change from Agri to Indust only took 30.
The only thing with “power” that has been around since middle ages is religion. Everything else in this world at latest poped up around 20th century (give or take).
Now the thing about religion, it’s “power” is just people running around trying not to even step on a bug for fear of “doing something wrong”, thus keeping them from a percieved salvation from death. This is not real power, it’s moral supremacy. They no longer can destroy nations.
Now, as for what you say later about government. The bush administration is gone, and here’s the obama Administration. A power shift without War at all. And while you may have a point about communist countries, that is not the ones we live in (I presume). In Australia we have it especially good since we have a parliament, before laws can be passed everyone in power (which is many) have to agree, then they do so again. And this year, It’s a “hung parliament” meaning that even the two most competitive parties have lost power, and all the independant parties are the ones with the final say.
Also, Note that last time our “labour” party was in, and before that the “Liberal” Party. That counts as clear change in leadership.
Also, have you noticed how friendly Obama over there in America has been with all those countries that the government supposedly oppress? He’s giving all these countries what they want too.
Also, anyone concerned about a “rich elite” should remember they are having a harder time due to the recession as well.
Also you mention money sometimes can, somtimes can’t prevail. Also noting similar with man power. How does this mean that “resistance is futile” against superior minorities? If anything it shows that the will of the collective can triumph over anything, wether motivated by want of luxury or freedom. (speaking of which you should have seen what a bunch of disenfranchised students did to the british royal motorcade [Big riot, those used to be common]. And the royal Family over there don’t even have real power.)
If there’s anyone else or anything else I missed, then It’s probably classed under conspirisy theory. In which case I should probably do as Val does and give up. Conspiricy theory is as good as religion; virtually unproveable. And for anything not proven, then I simply have to say “in your opinion”. Without proof one way or the other the most I can say is “Highly unlikely”.
>That assumption is ignoring the fact that the situation of today is so unlike any previous era that there is no comparison. The power structures are under enormous pressure due to the unique abilities of the internet to connect people.
Like I said many times, “Twitter revolutions” were neither successful, nor genuine, nor democratic. There is no substantial difference between them and other crowd-massing methods. If you have billions of dollars and want to subvert some legitimate foreign government, you can do that with or without Twitter. Internet actually DISCONNECTS people, since it disencourages them to participate in social life.
>The past is a good guide to what is happening in the present, except that you have to ignore the speed with which previous changes occurred.
I can agree on that. Speed of events increases, that’s for sure, but the substance of events is not. We didn’t yet see any really world-changing technologies.
>Yes, a new group of “Elites” are likely to emerge, but they will be those who’s fortunes are built on the new realities of the digital age
Fortunes are not “built”. They are either conquered or inherited. So-called “new money” is never converted to “old money”, since “new money” is temporary, chimerical (i.e. stock value) and poor (how much Bill Gates’s worth? 54 billion? Rotschilds can laugh their ass off). You somehow think that when we are talking about rich, we are talking about Forbes magazine celebrities. However, they are just that – celebrities. The notion that Mark Zuckerberg tells Obama what to do is not any less stupid that the notion that Lady Gaga tells Obama what to do. New “Lady Gagas” are going to emerge, that’s for sure, but that has nothing to do with politics/powerplay.
In order to replace one group of elites with another, you need either war (one country invades the other country and kills off or exiles its rulers), or civil war (same as previous, but inside single state). If nothing of above happens, you can be sure that elites are the same.
Anyway, you completely ignored my point. The single clan of people rules for centuries, and advance in technologies didn’t made their rule any more fragile. In 1900ies U.S. political system was more free than in 2000ies, and 1800ies U.S. political system was more free than in 1900ies. Yet, it is controlled by the same people. And their power comes not from “control of information”, so printing press comment is off the mark. Their power comes not from printing, but from banking – i.e. usury. And usury existed for many millenia, since times immemorial. It is not just older than printing press, it is older than writing.
If you have more money than king (or Pope), overthrowing him is not such a big problem. However, overthrowing legitimate rulers with money (from French Revolution to Orange Revolution) don’t work all the time. Freemasons could overthrow Putin, and good luck with overthrowing Communist Party of China.
As for the whole “Singularity Event” issue, well, as William Gibson put it, Singularity is a Rapture for the nerds. Arguing with religious people about their beliefs is pointless, so I won’t bother. You can believe anything your prophets (Kurzweil, More, etc) tell you. That’s your problem, not mine. We have freedom of religion in our country.
Oh… right, you’re one of those “Conspiracy nuts” who think the Rothschild’s and by extension, the Jews rule the world.
Yet another “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” believer. *sigh*
Pity, I thought you had a real set of facts to present.
If you live in a capitalist society you already see the separation of the genetically superior people vs others. They are very subtle unless you think about them:
- The individual in secondary school (high school) who is more physically attractive, and is on a particular sports team, yet still has a high grade point average versus the “average” person who must study for hours to make a passing grade. These people also become the class president and get their picture in the local newspaper for their athletic and academic prowess. Where did their genetic superiority for beauty, strength, and intelligence come from? Their parents?
- The individual who gets into not just any college but an elite college by virtue of their superior high school grades and extracurricular activities, gaining admittance by scholarship. Thus their entire college experience is paid for by someone else while most students must go into heavy debt, and/or work a job while attending college. This is a gap between an elite and everybody else at an early age. Is it natural, or by design?
- How much would parents pay for a medical regimen to increase their child’s IQ by fifty points? Or enable their child to increase their muscle mass by 85% to play sports? What happens when the marriage counselor prescribes a pill to make the husband more athletic and more caring to his wife? Can a husband buy a pill to make his wife nag him less and be more happy in life with what they have? We’ve seen in America and Europe the “Prozac nation” of the 1970s onwards.
- In business, the individual who goes out to the right parties every weekend, yet still has the intelligence to both do their job and follow the boss around like a pet is the one who gets the best assignments, the promotions, the special vacations. Their abnormally high tolerance for alcohol as well as sacrificing a normal life for one of a toad following their boss is part of the separation between the elite and everyone else. What happens when the toady can afford a pill to counter all negative effects of alcohol, or a pill that increases brain activity to allow for a better work life?
- In the military the person who maintains a physical fitness level benefiting an Olympic athlete in training is often promoted over his or her peers solely by that merit. If the person can remain clear-headed in extraordinary high levels of stress he or she is rewarded. In the military a genetic gap between “those that can” and everyone else is already part of the society. Those that do not live up to “the standard” leave the military, and their participation is quickly forgotten by the ones still in the military. When this becomes the difference between the naturally genetically superior soldier and the artificially (by their own money or by government program) enhanced soldier the gap will be one you can see immediately. Drug testing against the pills and procedures that give the benefits? Are you serious? That would undermine our military.
- How many people lose work days because of sickness, headache, fatigue, or other factors? What would happen if you never got sick again – would you never have a sick day from work again? Do you never want a sick day away from work again? If you never had another headache, would you be more depressed as you more fully realized the life you are living is not the one you wanted? How many companies would drop sick days from their benefits package as less people got sick? Look how living longer (past age 60) is forcing many nations around the world to re-think their nations’ retirements and end-of-life health care.
- Olympic drug testing is quick to try and find those who use enhancement drugs for this celebration of “amateur” sports. What happens when the five-year-old is given a gene therapy that is totally undetectable by age fifteen, but makes the child into a one-of-a-kind athlete? Can non-modified athletes compete against government-sponsored or elite-sponsored athletes?
The elite in the world already eat food grown on special farms and not injected with hormones and poisons made to slow down and kill off the rest of the population. Fast food is cheaper than real food. What is the benefit for this double standard? We have the children of these rich elite running around trying desperately to find something to do that will give them a new thrill. They are forced by their families into loveless marriages, careers in politics or business, and we see them self-destruct years later. The elite are not making the world better – they’re trying to consolidate power in the existing world. The elite hate everyone else yet the world won’t run without all the people in it.
So as life-extension and body improvement, or even brain improvement techniques become mainstream, yes, the elite will get them first, but they will be forced to allow others access to the techniques just to keep the world going. Even as people have “bread and circuses” to keep them working and entertained, some are waking up from the dream and shaking the cage they have been put into. When people see the military getting vaccinations and injections that the population is denied, there will be questions. When life expectancy drops, there will be questions. When the Guinness Book of Records has a billionaire in London rather than a grandmother in rural France as the world’s longest-living person, there will be questions.
I have one note:
Perhaps another reason why the “rich genetic elite” won’t happen would be that we could some day get enhancement loans. If that enhancement to make you more competitive is too expensive you could head to the bank, get a loan, get enhancement and then pay it off the same way as a home loan. And since most people with a job (regardless of rich or poor) can get a homeloan, then most could probably get enhancement if they tried. And if even the lower income workers can be enhanced then it’s not really a “priviliged elite” is it? More like “privileged anyone and everyone with a job”.
I’m not sure i’m doing this right but I think I made my point.
>Rothschild’s and by extension, the Jews rule the world.
Jews? Did I said anything about Jews? Rotschilds are Jews, that’s right, but Rockefellers are not, and European aristocracy is surely not. If Jews “ruled the world”, or at least “ruled America”, Arab-Israeli conflict would be over already.
>Yet another “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” believer.
Huh, believer? I have no idea whether it is a real thing or a fake. It could be either, or even something in-between (like fake based on real thing). Both versions lack proof, and both sides are politically biased. That’s the difference between you and me – I understand the limitations of research, while you believe that you know the truth, and you get this truth on your favourite news channel / internet site.
It is funny how you labelled me anti-semite and “zionist occupation government” believer the moment you ran out of logical arguments. It is like if I accuse you in worshipping Ron Hubbard just because of scientology-style management of H+.
I probably understand why at most times we can’t debate constructively. I try to apply critical thinking, i.e. try to disprove what is false. You, on the other hand, have fixed set of beliefs that you are entitled to protect and spread. Since I don’t have a fixed set of beliefs, you need to invent them in order to criticise me in ad hominem way. So, you invent things like I am fan of Hal Lindsay, or that I am an anti-semite, or that I am a Christian, etc, and then apply ad hominem labels, associated with those groups.
What you fail to understand, however, is that I am not your enemy, and I am not trying to “prove my point”, “disprove transhumanism”, and for sure I am not a proponent of some “competitive viewpoint”. I just try to understand how you guys think. Such sort of slander and bazaar-style agitprop denigrates you, not me. If that’s all you can say against my criticism, well, that means I was right about you guys after all.
>another reason why the “rich genetic elite” won’t happen
Wake up. It already happened. Open your eyes, dammit.
>And if even the lower income workers can be enhanced then it’s not really a “priviliged elite” is it?
The “enhancement pack” will include trojans. But people will demand this pack. That’s what transhumanism is all about – PR gimmick to sell the idea of turning human beings in LITERAL drones – remotely controlled meat puppets. Surely they will be “enhanced”. But free will is not a part of the package.
What a naive little boy. How old are you, actually? 11? 12?
There wasn’t questions for 500 years.
And those who asked questions, well, CIA-backed coups and carpet bombings made short work on them.
People who tried to solve this problem (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Ho Chi Mihn, etc) are considered “worst monsters in history”.
If you think that people are more aware today about social unequality than 30 years ago, think again. Soviet Bloc is non-existant de-jure. Worker movement is non-existant de-facto. Socialism is unfashionable. People are “libertarians” now. H+ is officially libertarian (read: ultra-capitalist, free-market fundamentalist) organization, and transhumanism/extropianism was randroid from the beginning.
Transhuman technologies will only make situation worse, much worse.
Grow up. It isn’t Star Trek.
The comment is good, but the last paragraph is just a bucketload of the most naive wishful thinking I’ve ever read.
I’ve basically come to the conclusion that there is no point in talking to conspiracy nuts, because they take anything as proof that they are right and everyone else is an idiot.
You’re an idiot. You spout an ideology that you got handed to you whole cloth, including all the rationalizations and defenses to prevent you from ever seeing the truth. You follow a forgery, and you spout hatred and prejudice as a religious tenet. You are afraid of actually dealing with a world that is complex and prefer a myth that makes everything simple. Everything bad in the world is someone’s fault, anyone’s, so long as YOU don’t have to have any share of the responsibility. It makes things so easy thinking that every world problem is due to someone maliciously causing them. It absolves you from ever having to try and do anything to help make it better, and it allows you to feel superior to all those poor dupes who aren’t “in the know”.
But the simple truth is that you can’t face the truth, that the world is a complex place that is not able to be broken down to such simplicity , so you have to defend your illusions by any means necessary.
I’ve studied all your “evidence” and it’s complete and utter lunacy tied together with any historical event that can be twisted to seem like it actually happened the way you believe it did. Sadly, historical fact disputes all of it.
You bought into a BULLSHIT WORLDVIEW. I’m done with trying to be reasonable with someone who worships stupidity.
Like I said in a previous post, I’m done with being polite.
You are an idiot. Plan and simple. Feel free to think you are superior because you think you are “in the know” and that the rest of the world is idiots for not believing things are so simple and black and white as you want to think it is.
I’ll keep pitying you for being so willing to abandon rational thought.
In which case it’s not the rich that become “overlords” but the genetics companies themselves. As the rich would be subject to the same products as us. And let’s face it, as soon as someone notices; there will be,
a) a lawsuit for malpractice,
or if not caught soon enough; b) a revolution that entails HOMEBREW GENETICS!
And by what messure do you propose it’s even possible to control someone with genetics? Besides agressive behaviour there is no gene for free will. otherwise we would have seen it in dogs, and they still run away. the clossest we have is “Loyalty”, and even that breaks after a while. And “submissive” just makes run-aways (or if taken far enough suicidals).
And even if there is a way to supposedly control someone then chances are human enhancement would be old hat by then (by a long shot i’d say). By which time there would be rigourus “work safety” examinations by multipul independants.
Of course you may mean brain implants, in which case the kind of extent required for full control counts as “murder” which gives at least 20 good reasons no-one would touch freewill with a mile long pole.
If you want something to worry about, then think of the super human mercinaries tearing up new york in style as companies compete for tech and resources Final Fantasy VII style! (of note because their free willed soldiers are powered by cells of a malicious being and one of them takes it out [or was it one of my namesakes guided by it I was thinking of?])
And for my last words for now remember:
The will of the many is magnitudes more powerful than the greed of any few.
Germany in WW2; Hitler was lucky to surrvive 1 day since the entire germany and virtualy everyone else seemed to be trying to assasinate them.
And Since I mentioned Homebrew Genetics, there is a good chance that if someone does do something morally obgectionable with genetics then people who even suspect it will go ahead and start programing their own Genetics And the offending companies will go broke.
Okay, granted the naturally done way, it’s not going to be that much of a problem. How many times have you seen bill gates rally a mercinary army to take over Korea? (or any other strong countries taken over by anyone else.)
And the only reason I’ve found that we aren’t all running succesful buisnesses is because most people are happy being in dead end jobs. And by that I mean too afraid of pay rises due to loosing money from higher income tax brakets.
And remember, Rich people are people too. They just have more spectacular mid life crisises (crisees?) when they flush all their money down the drain in an attempt to look cool in something more expensive than your yearly salary.
And like that guy on the colbert report, they single handedly stimulate the economy.
“this year [to help the silverware plateing industry] i got my silverware bronzed, to commemorate the time i had it gold plated”
And don’t forget the Batman like charity of Bill Gates, didn’t he send millions of dollars to impoverished countries to build schools?
And you know Hitler? He was a poor 4th class citicen and painter. He took over by taking out all the opposition. I’d like to say this means the poor is evil but that’s unrealistic. It’s More realistic to say that it’s not like the rich have a reason to oppress us, after all if they want something done they can just throw money at it.
IMPORTANT!And before someone else claims the rich are evil, think of this: If everyone is a mindless slave working to make their products and expanding their empire, then first; who’s buying their merchandise? second; why would they need an entire empire when they aren’t even going to see half of it? Or even use all of it? IMPORTANT!
Ad hominem again? Even if I am an idiot (I probably am, humans are very stupid creatures, and I am not an exception), how that makes my points less valid? Argue with the message, not the messenger.
I agree that there is place for moderate optimism. Domination through technology is way too obvious so people will easily recognize it. Let say it will be difficult to hide if someone will be using life extension technology. I think that person would be forced to share that technology. But it must be clearly recognized by majority that technology is one of human rights. It’s better to say about it today, just in case of counter-propaganda.
At that time French revolution was progressive one.
By what messure could things get worse? As I mentioned above rich people aren’t into control unless it’s the “throw money at it and watch it run” kind. And also noted was that even if it’s expensive to get the technology you could get it through loans. But now you mentioned government and this is where it get’s interesting.
If you were asked to name the two main reasons to do anything for yourself you would either say “you want to” or “you need to”. The thing about power is that it is implied to give you the abillity to fullfil both. And with the “kicking puppies” symptom of power hungry not being particularly joyful for the sane, then the reasons for doing so are either “maddness” or something even more frightening… Ideology.
The reason most “evil” dictators become so is because they think they are doing it for the people. Hitler… (why do I mention him again?) … Hitler wouldn’t have killed off minorities and rallied armies to take over the world “for laughs”, he did it because he thought it was “right”.
Truth is all the greatest evil seems to come from doing something in someone elses name or for “the greater good”. Rich people doing it for themselves embezle money- a petty crime, Bank robery- simple greed, manslaughter- often revenge. But for what purpose does enslaveing the human race do that can’t be solved by “throwing money at it”? Unless they are mad it’s a good bet it’s a Zeroth Law Takeover: Doing whatever it takes to make sure that humans stop killing each other.
If you still think the rich and the governments are still going to use technology against us; Then do you think it would be because they are mad? or because they are Zealots? Because with “greed” and “power hungry” there is always another way that’s a lot less disruptive and more effective.
What are you saying? That someone being willing to sell you their kidney for a profit is bad? That all those products you have that improve your live are “screwing with you”? That the Lambourguini isn’t cool? That selling you EXACTLY what you WANT… IS BAD?
True Capitalism: “Take care of the customer, and the buisness will take care of it’s self” -McDonalds CEO.
True Capitalism: “Give the people what they want (for a price)” -heaps of people.
True Capitalism: “Your Cause, For the right price” – A tagline I’ve been holding onto.
True Capitalism: Is evident in the bringing back of things you loved when you were younger, as with Nintendo. E.G. Pokemon, Mario, Legend of Zelda, Star Fox, Pirates of the Caribean, the Terminator Movies, The son of the Mask, Star Trek (which is now almost popular), Iron Man, Spider Man, Super Man, The Dark Knight, Power Rangers… And so much more.
True Capitalism: Is the reason you even have use of a computer to talk down to it.
True Capitalism: Has a Net Neutral Morality. But only ever does good.
True Capitalism: Actually gives out relief funds to strugling people in hopes to make a profit later when they are on their feet.
Greed is good, because greedy people are the easiest to persuade to do good. Just throw money at them. And someday, When they want something. They will throw money back.
And if we want something like wings, or new arms should YOU or any of us go and loose them. Capitalists are the only ones that can give you, and us, these things.
no point. Had too much experience with you types. I could pile up a thousand pages of evidence that your views are completely wrong, and your sole response would be “See, I told you I was right.”
The point you are missing is that I have seen your “evidence” I’ve disproven it time and again on other sites, and I am just all too aware of how pointless this conversation is. I’m done giving you an opening to preach your “gospel”
So much for “free thought” and “open-mindedness”, I guess. What a disappointment. I expected more from you guys.
Look where it got us. All our current social problems can be traced back to this “Enlightmnent” crap.
Both computers and Internet were created by the military. Same is correct about all other technologies that surround us today, up to cars and jets. Not to mention that some of our most marvellous tech, like lasers and sattelites, were invented behind the Iron Curtain, under planned economy without private enterprise, private property or even classic forms of money.
We are yet to see at least a single invention, made my capitalist.
As for mass culture crap you mentioned (spiderman, mario, star trek, etc), it is junk, rubbish and bad taste. Producing and selling useless junk is what capitalism is all about. A junk that do not last long since it must be sold again after a short time. Capitalism is not evil, it is simply wasteful, ineffective and useless.
>Greed is good, because greedy people are the easiest to persuade to do good. Just throw money at them.
I agree with that. Unfortunately, only poor people are motivated by greed, rich people are motivated by hubris. Self-aggrandizement is the primary topic of capitalism. If it was about greed for material possessions, capitalism could probably work (in some orwellian, social-darwinist way, of course), since it would have to deal with real physical world. Unfortunately, it isn’t. The number one problem with advocates for capitalism is that they don’t understand human nature. The reason of that is that advocates for capitalism are never capitalists and are usually somewhere in the low-middle class or below. Of course, if you are poor, you are greedy. Just like if you are hungry, you only think about food.
Your problem is that you are a poor person (low or low-middle class), and therefore have poor person’s perception of what rich people are. Greed is the emotion of poor. Just like hunger is the emotion of hungry. Rich people are motivated by hubris. That’s why there are still troops in Iraq – because some arrogant inefficient morons can’t admit they’ve lost. They are “control freaks”.
Your notion about tyrants, however, is correct – any bad guy is somebody’s good guy. Mao is considered hero in China, Stalin is considered hero in Russia, and the only reason Hitler isn’t considered hero in Germany is that Germany was conquered and occupied. I can even predict that in 50 or 100 years or so, Germans will re-habilitate Hitler just like French have eventually re-habilitated Napoleon.
So, on one hand we have arrogant inefficient morons and control freaks, like Wall Street and Federal Reserve banksters, on the other hand we have potentially murderous “magnificent bastards” like Putin and Hu Jintao. The trick is, neither Putin, nor Hu Jintao, nor any other “enlightened despot” of today commit mass murders or genocidal wars. Rather, it is arrogant inefficient morons who are war-whacky. The reason for that is that mass murder is no longer an efficient tool of management. That’s why China and Russia today have higher individual and commercial freedom than in U.S. This dilemma won’t be decided by us here, but by history. U.S. glory days are past, and future belongs to tech-savvy Eastern dictatorships. However, we are still stuck arrogant inefficient morons and control freaks, who aren’t going anywhere, and there is no way we can somehow limit their arbitrary, irrational and hubris-driven behaviour. That’s why your pro-capitalist advocacy is misplaced. There are no Chinese tanks on U.S.-Mexican border. And nobody proposes turning U.S. into Russia-style “KGB state”. However, if we won’t do anything about our insane elites, we WILL be left in the gutter of history. Imagine U.S. collapsing into 50 warring states who wage civil war on each other, like USSR did in 1991. That’s the most likely scenario if current uncontrolled capitalism will continue.
The whole notion of “capitalist is the guy owning a factory that produces useful goods” is XIX century relic. Useful goods of today are produced in Communist China, since free market economy is much more wasteful and inefficient than centralized one. As for capitalists, we are talking about bankers, stock traders and overpriced digital entrepreneurs here – i.e. absolutely useless guys who have too much money, too much power and too much hubris, yet lack decency, intelligence and common sense. Getting rid of these people won’t harm our society a single bit. In either way we would have to import stuff from countries like China.
Rich are not evil, of course. But they are arrogant, inefficient and wasteful. And that is worse than evil. Evil people are smart. Putin (an evil dictator, KGB guy and pretty much real-life James Bond supervillain) has turned his country from ruins back to superpower status. And our current elites will turn us into Third World country. Only blind people don’t see it. In a few decades U.S. will become a “banana republic”. Or, more likely, FIFTY banana republics fighting each other in endless bloody conflicts. Like USSR after its collapse.
PS: You obviously LOVE to overuse WW2 arguments. Google “Goodwin’s Law”.
You have some very “comic book” understanding of how business and politics work. Rulers of our world are not “Lex Luthors”. State is, first and foremost, a security apparatus: DoD, CIA, NSA, FBI and various other agencies, some of which we don’t even know about. It is the guys on the top of control chain, and it will be them who will have passwords to “enhancement pack”. No way “genetic company” or “homebrew geneticist” will outsmart them. But those security guys – they are just hired high-income personnel. They are “CEOs”, but not “owners”. Owners are “old money” rich guys, who probably don’t even know what “DNA” is. They will be the ones who benefit from “mind control” tech, but they won’t bother wasting their time controlling it or even learning how it works – it is the job of hired professional thugs in FBI and NSA.
Security is the job of police. Police gets mind control tech. It uses it to protect the rich from the poor. This tech is not produced by police, but by specialized companies. Just like today. Nothing really changes. Otherwise, Boeing and Colt would be running the show, not the Pentagon.
Obviously, you played too much computer games.
>Let say it will be difficult to hide if someone will be using life extension technology.
What a joke. The rich are near-immortal due to advance in gerontology. Yet nobody “hides” this because nobody is interested. It is not secrecy, but apathy that makes dystopia inevitable.
Kid, Obama administration and Bush administration are the same guys. Republicans and Democrats both go to Bohemian Grove. “Republican-Democrat” conflict doesn’t exist. Obama continues fighting wars in Iraq (with contractors now) and Afghanistan, he continues building anti-missile defence to piss off Russia, he sends ships to Chinese coast, he still supports Israel, he continues all the policies of his predecessor, because THE OWNER remains the same. Use some common sense, boy. If elections changed anything, they would be outlawed.
>Also, have you noticed how friendly Obama over there in America has been with all those countries that the government supposedly oppress?
You should watch Al-Jazeera and Russia Today. The only people who “noticed” that “something has changed” are Westerners, because TV told them so.
>speaking of which you should have seen what a bunch of disenfranchised students did to the british royal motorcade
When they overthrow royal family and chop their heads off, like it happened in other Great Power monarchies of Europe, then probably we can talk about “revolution”. What you talk about is “street hooliganism”.
enlighten yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXmz7Z5v0DQ
Don’t expect what you are unwilling to give.
Oh, woohoo, yet another video teaching the Protocols as fact. Oh, I am so convinced now…
*yawn* BS is still BS.
Blatant lies again.
There is not a single mention of Protocols or Jews in the whole movie.
Okay then… first of all, the FBI and their band of merry men; I’m sure they have beter things to do than Mind control people, but that’s not the point. I’m sure most nations would Veto mind control for imposing on liberties, much like nukes; it’s a moral event horison in the same way. That is also not the point.
The POINT, wether you agree with me or not; is that one way or another, someone will want to privitise enhancement (or in context of my origional arguement, break the monopoly). As in, no government control (other than regulatory for moral messures). If the government doesn’t let priviteizing of enhancement and personal restructiuring happen. Then chances are that either the public (such as you) will lobby for free market release. Or, Modification will become the newest Shtick of those omni-present brug barons. (third option being wait until next election in hope of having better luck with the next one, but that takes too long for some people) And since authorities have so much trouble weeding out even a minute amount of the drugs trade; then it’s indeed likely that Back Alley geneticists could be the future in this “government control” setting.
And with that said… Now we can discuss how much you sound like a conspiricy nut.
First, mind control is already a discredited method; “sodium Pentathol”? That not only didn’t work reliably as the truth serum it was supposed to be, but it endangered lives in the process. And I assume possibly sanity. All use of it in civilised countries is laughed at when considered a possibility, and scolded on multipul fronts when considered serriously. And in neuro science, I think it’s quite clear to get any control other than the most basic brain function (which for actual control the only useful one being to produce fear) you have to remove the whole brain and replace it with a pre-designed one. by which case a more moral use of the technology would be to “jack everyone into the matrix”.
Second, you ever wonder why people become polititions? It’s because it’s a nine to five job like everyone else, except it pays much better (at least in my country). They don’t care about controlling people unless the people WANT to be controlled. They give the people what they want, just to stay in power, and get the big pay cheaks. And of course each has a niche; Republicans get power in christian states for example. But of course, each one has to listen to the people to get in. If the FBI etc. is going to do mind control, then it is entirely the peoples fault.
Third, Any control technologies is WAY beyond the law enforcement budget. Millitary, maybe, but war’s a whole other ball game; the ones it would be used on not being our own being the starting point. Law enforcement only has enough funding to bring people to justice. And anything that could possibly bring that law enforcement up to a point where any form of control is possible (Mind control or otherwise) would have devistateing effects on the state of the entire country. Cut road and/or transport funding? no one can get to work, economy collapses. Raise Taxes? Ecconomy collapeses. Cut school funding? Hospitals, Lawyers (hurting law enforcement as well), Bankers, acountents, Engineers, scientists and vitually every proffesion suffers, No one can take care of paperwork either, economy collapses. And don’t even get me started on health care. Millitary cuts? Well, that’s asking for trouble.
And Noteing point Two; Should any of these methods be used, the people making those decisions would be kicked out of the white house/Parliament/whatever, and then promptly crucified… on a burning stake.
Fourth, it’s quite clear that even if it did come to pass, it would be extremism in its highest form, attempting to impose their view of what is right on the world. And With that Keyword “Impose” it successfully defies every word of the bill of rights, and thus, the constitution! It would be high enough to count as a war crime, and so if anyone at all gets wind of it and isn’t under the complete control of the oppressors; The Oppressors will be exectuted like sadam husein. Maybe worse. And with Wikileaks’ very existance, it’s clear that wouldn’t take long. The only way around it would be if the oppressor peads insanity.
And Remember, anyone with power, only keeps power if they don’t abuse it. Which is exactly why America was formed: Britan’s most powerful were (supposedly) abusing power so the colonies fought back. America won! The end… And with the invention of democracy all power became Temporary. And that’s the REAL end.
And that should address everything without mentioning that concpiricy theories are paranoia in it’s most potent form. The only time they should get a pardon is when they recognise that in any system with a “priviliged elite” class The “elites” CAN and WILL fight amoungst themselves! Ever heard of the dark age? Powerful warlords fought amounst themselves for power. Even in the middle ages kings fought each other, And that goes without saying there were assasinations.
So unless a conspiricy says that god himself is subverting us all, (which I highly doubt) then there is the entire 6 billion people out there where even if there was a control system, it would take as few as ONE person to bring it crashing to the ground. And at the present, every single one has free will, and it’s by every messure impossible to control all of them. And if the ones with control lose it in any way, the system crashes. If the person in control is not controlled himself, they might even break it themselves. And never forget those assassins taking the dictator out.
In short, in any system of control; there is crucial flaws. Thus, there is no control, only chaos … And that somes up everything.
…Yeah I noted my over use of godwins law in one of my coments.
So, about those types of capitalists you’re mentioning… I prefer not to think of them as “True” Capitalists. I prefer to think of them as a plague of gamblers; same symptom, same method: Risk money to get more money. In which case it’s simply risk taking and not really capitalism at all.
True Capitalism is to simply give people what they want for the right price.
Surprisingly china is more true capitalist than america from how things seem. What with the strange broken communism that’s now more like socialism. Although I like to think Japan is king of true capitalism. You want it, they have it…. Except guns. They banned those.
In any case, True capitalists can get rich. It’s just for every True Capitalist that makes it there is a hundred Gambler Capitalists that get rich.
Well, I don’t like how you’re using the term “capitalism” but I’ve said twice what I consider ture capitalism, which is not what you’re refering to so let’s move on.
You might be right about the pride/hubris thing though. But the one thing you forget is that the american style leadership is one of might, and since that hubris isn’t even channeled through cunning; the leaders do the equivilent of a “zerg rush”. Just throw the reserves at it till it dies. So nessisarily the main topic: control over people with technology. Isn’t much of an issue. (for now anyways). And since murder of citizens is off the cards for control, they seem to just do propaganda. (which me and my brother have really gotten a bit of sense of).
When the tech savvy far east comes over here, THEN we may have a problem with Techo opression. But as one comment being processed says, there are holes in every system (it also has big emphisis on democracy on the side by the way, it helps make the point). so lighten up, it’s not going to be the end of the world.
Well, yes, the millitary invented computers. But capitalism is what brought computers to people. Bad example? Maybe, but in any fact. the dimond stone of true capitalism is buried under a mountain of dirt. Mainstream capitalism is bad, yes but there are parts that shine through as True Capitalism… But I think most of those are the ones still on the way up. So, when poor try to become rich that’s True Capitalism? Eh… Maybe.
So, Mass Media… It’s a similar case. A lot of it’s junk, yes. But in many cases junk is better than nothing. After all, I’m sure independant creators on the rise have to get inspiration from somewhere.
But I guess you have a point, once they reach the top they stop caring about money. But in any case, There is no suitible method of taking mainstream capitalism into True capitalism. Although It’s almost certain that eventually someone will eventually find a way to harness their hubris. But for now, maybe we should be thankful we have anything. It’s not like it’s easy to say to their face they’re wasteful, with no guarentee that they’d listen.
Personaly I think there should be a way to make it easier to publish things independantly or publish derivitive works. It might get more enthusists out getting successful. Enthusists not giving their work to the world is as much a shame as Capitalists forsaking greed. But I digrees.
Then tell me… Who is this “man behind the curtain”? This “Owner”? Satan? Every man fulfills his own agenda. Obama may have a similar agenda to Bush but he’s a different man. The main thing between them though is that they both inherited a long chain of command that has been primed for combat since the first world war. So Naturally they think they can solve problems with war.
In any case, What are WE afraid of? If this power hold is static like you claim then they have nether reason to perform tech abuse or subvert us in any way that isn’t already happening. How might they be subverting us? They don’t have to: NO ONE CARES! No one cares wether it’s the jester or a prince on the throne so long as that ruler is not upsetting the balance. The government system keeps their power best… by doing Nothing At All. So even if there is a single power structure behind the lot, then so long as they do nothing; then they can stay there for all we care.
Also, Hooliganism upsets the ballance. Whoever it is that is in power will not want that. Therefore, since adding more control might provoke more hooligans, they submit.
Also, if “Elections don’t really change anything” as you say; it’s because the basic laws are already set. From constitutional rights to crimainal law. And appart from republicans or whatever going against hybrids (which most of the government doesn’t agree with anyways) most of it is rather fair.
Do I even need to continue? Need I even mention that the chinese (which you claim america is sending ships to) produces a lot of the stuff we have. ether side attacks, then chances are the economy goes bankrupt.
In any case, I still think you sound like a conspirisy nut. So the first thing I suggest is to quit being such a pessimist.
To save Val a post; it’s not about Jews or the protocols but that the same logic as the protocols is being used. Which Val is claiming is none… And I say that so impersonaly Because I don’t want to get involved with this train wreck (or at least at this point)
>I’m sure they have beter things to do
>than Mind control people
They are control freaks. That is both organizational principle and psychological profile. The entire reason they exist is to know, see and control everything. And they use technology to facilitate that. Google “ECHELON SIGINT”.
>I’m sure most nations would Veto mind control
>for imposing on liberties, much like nukes;
>it’s a moral event horison in the same way.
Mind control tech is ALREADY practiced, just in crude form. Google “Project MKULTRA”. Nanotech will simply make this stuff more efficient. Besides, you cannot “veto” something, it’s not the way diplomacy works. Iran and North Korea are developing nukes, but the only country that opposes that is U.S., and not because of “moral event horizon”, but because of selfish geopolitical games: U.S. wants to steal Iranian oil and use Korean penisula as a bridgehead against China and Russia.
>privitise enhancement
>…no government control
Like I said, that’s not how politics and economics work. “Government” is a private thing, it is owned just like any other big organization. There is no “corporations/governments” conflict, since both corporations and governments are controlled by people. And more often then not, the same people. Government is a monopoly on violence (or, to put it mildly, “monopoly on security”) – nothing more, nothing less. It is more efficient to have monopolies in specific areas, while some areas benefit from competition. In terms of security, it is more efficient to pool as much resources together as possible. Government exist to protect themselves against other governments. All other governmental functions (healthcare, infrastructure, etc) are secondary. It is like when army unit provides humanitarian relief – a sweet bonus. So, when you say “tech will be private”, of course it will. The difference whether this tech will be applied by primary contractors or secondary contractors are technical. It will still be in the hands of the same people and it will still be aimed against you. There are simply several levels of authority. For example, there is a security guard in the mall, there is a PMC subcontractor, there is a FBI agent, a DoD general, etc. So, for example, your average hired corporate grunt will have 1st level of access, police agent with proper papers will have 2nd level of access, and so on. It is the way such tech handled today, and that’s how it will continue in the future.
Now, I will skip technically illiterate notions below (“sodium pentathol” is called “truth serum” only in hollywood movies) and go straight to next social topic:
>why people become polititions?
>It’s because it’s
>a nine to five job like everyone else
Exactly. That’s why “politicians” have nothing to do with power. They are hired celebrities like TV anchors, journalists, etc. No person with even a marginal amount of real power will ever go public, since by doing so he demasks himself and becomes vulnerable to competitors. Government leaders are like CEOs in corporations. CEO manages daily boring tasks, but he is very rarely the corporation’s owner or beneficiary. Saying that Obama rules U.S. is like saying that girl that sold you a hamburger rules McDonalds. Think about mega-rich families like Rotschilds and Rockefellers, they are never mentioned in Forbes top-10, and people are supposed to believe that Bill Gates is “the richest man”. The richest man without power? Bullshit. The only way an official head of state can be the real head of state is when he alone has all the power and has virtually no competition inside the country – in other words, if he is an omnipotent dictator (like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, ancient king-emperors, etc).
>Any control technologies is WAY beyond
>the law enforcement budget.
>Millitary, maybe
Like I said, there are levels of security. There are guys who catch crooks and petty thieves, and then there are guys who catch nuclear terrorists and international arms dealers. The top of inner security apparatus is way above military and better equipped. Otherwise, it would be military who run the show, as we’ve seen in various juntas accross the world. Military is above cop grunts, but counterintelligence is above military.
>would have devistateing effects
>on the state of the entire country
>…Ecconomy collapeses
Probably. In fact, most likely. “Imperial overstretch” is a common disease among modern Western nations, U.S. especially. But it will be ordinary people who will pay the price, so it is OK. As long as security of ruling elite is improving, they don’t care whether you live in a gutter or not.
>the people making those
>decisions would be kicked out
>of the white house/Parliament/whatever
Nobody kicked Bush. And he served TWO terms. Two frigging terms. And Obama still didn’t stopped wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he basically Bush-2. Wars that cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives yet give no advantages at all. Don’t be naive. Nobody can kick the elites out. Not even the Russians and the Chinese, since U.S. have the nukes. And certainly not “the people” (or should I say “sheeple”).
>successfully defies every
>word of the bill of rights
That’s so naive, I can’t stop laughing. That defies the bill of rights! Who frigging cares? That’s just piece of paper. You can use it to wipe your ass, but that is it. Papers don’t give powers. Money, property and violence give powers. Welcome to the real world.
>to count as a war crime
Ha-ha-ha! U.S. committed more war crimes than any other nation in the history of Earth. Yet, U.S. never apologized for that, yet alone was punished. Other countries are not exception. Do you know that British crown still includes gems that were STOLEN from India? Did Royal family said “sorry”? You somehow think that the world is ruled by good guys, who rule because they are more good than others. However, world is ruled by evil people, who rule because they are more evil than others: more violent, more treacherous, more bloodthirsty and more hypocritical. Your Australia was founded after CONQUERING a continent that didn’t belong to European settlers at all. So, you are descendant of an invaders and still are an invader, an unlawful occupier of foreign soil. Does it bother you? No. So, get over it. The only thing that matters is power, and power is formed by imposing your will over others via either violence or lies. That’s how all societies work, regardless of culture and economical system.
>The Oppressors will be exectuted like sadam husein
Example of above. U.S. have lied that “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction”. Then it invaded sovereign country (Iraq) in order to conquer it and steal its natural resources (oil). The resistance against unlawful occupation continues up to this day. From comic book perspective, U.S. is the clear villain. Yet, who was executed for this? Bush? No, Hussein.
>with Wikileaks’ very existance,
>it’s clear that wouldn’t take long.
Wikileaks is founded by British intelligence services. Assange went to British police himself, and such is only possible if he is either a complete moron, or an agent provocateur. You can check Wikipedia’s entry on Assange if you don’t believe me. The original goal of Wikileaks was to undermine China, and Chinese “dissidents” (read: spooks on CIA/MI6 payroll) composed the entire staff. Again, that is all open info available on Wikipedia. So, you were duped again by authorities, congratulations.
>Britan’s most powerful were (supposedly) abusing power
>so the colonies fought back. America won!
Correction: not “America won”, but American elites won. Some group of elites can split in two, that’s for sure. But you forget that in that case, there will inevitably be a civil war. So, yes, elites can overabuse stuff like mind control (or other hyper-tech) and some guys decide that they went too far. However, the result is civil war between competing groups of equally evil elites (the only thing they differ on is on the technical ways of keeping you down), and no comic book “bad rulers, good people” situation. But there’s another problem with that approach:
>The “elites” CAN and WILL fight amoungst themselves!
>Ever heard of the dark age? Powerful warlords
>fought amounst themselves for power.
Yes. And it is called “dark age” for a reason. The better elites are off, the less they are likely to fight. For example, you can call your friend “dork” or “moron”, because you are low-class citizens. You can even punch each other and post it on Facebook. But you will never see elites doing such things against each other. Why? Because they have more than enough riches for everybody. What they lack is security, and infighting DECREASES security. That’s why Third World countries are perpetual warzones, while rich countries are peaceful – they wage aggressive wars OUTSIDE their territories. Scarcity leads to war. Resource meltdown is the pre-requisite to power split. So, before Western civilization melts down to quagmire of warring factions (all of them equally evil, I repeat), there will be economical meltdown first. That’s basics of conflictology.
>there is the entire 6 billion people out there
That’s ridiculous. “People” decide nothing. Power is exercised via organizations. Organizations are based on hierarchy, and are hierarchically-aligned themselves. If there would be some 6-billion-people-strong organization with single leadership, the notion “people will rebel” can be worthy of examining. Stop having comic book views on politics. “Opressed masses” never rise themselves. Bolsheviks were a small group, around a dozen conspirators plus a couple hundred armed thugs. Castro’s team could fit in the single room. Same can be said about modern anti-governmental rebel/terrorist organizations like Al-Qaida and Taliban, which are very small and rarely larger than several thousand people. Such structures are controlled by what political science calls “counter-elite” (elite that is not currently in power but aspires to do so). The difference between them and rulers is in amount of power, not in intentions. The strength of organizations comes from discipline and hierarchy, not from numbers. In fact, smaller organizations are easier to keep disciplined, that’s why the smaller cabal is, the more power it has, with top form of this being a single dictator. Western civilization is based on individual self-worth (i.e. cowardice), that’s why top Western ruling elite is large – around 300 people or so. With 300 people controlling half a planet, there is no chances single dictator will emerge. Eastern elites, on the other hand, tend to be small and, therefore, more efficient and powerful, the downside of this is that they abuse their power more often.
>assassins taking the dictator out
If you take the guy on the top of the pyramid, it will only open the place for his buddy to fill the power vacuum. “Kill the dictator” scenario is comic book stuff. Top Nazis wanted to kill Hitler to get power for themselves, and neither British nor Soviets actually planned to kill Hitler since it would not change anything, just replace Hitler with Himmler, Hoering, Goebbels, etc.
To sum things up. You have very immature, naive views on how society works. There are no “good free democratic peaceful good guys” and “evil dictatorial tyrant bad guys”. All governments are cruel and dictatorial, all of them lie to their people, all of them commit war crimes and human right abuses, etc. The only reason why you consider Bush to be “good” and Saddam to be “bad” is because you live inside U.S. sphere of influence, which should give you some info about the degree of sway elites have over you. They don’t need mind control against you because you already believe everything they want you to believe. If they so easily control you, just think how easily they control everybody else. Welcome to real world, Neo. In this world, bad guys always win.
BTW, despite that you aren’t any smarter than average visitor of this forum, you are probably the most open-minded person I’ve ever met here. Usually transhumanists are very dogmatic, narrow-minded and incapable of listening to someone else’s opinion: it is either “their way” or “wrong way”, and if you disagree, then they call you “idiot”, “moron” or even “nazi”. In fact, it would be safe to consider mainstream H+ transhumanism to be a Scientology-style UFO cult (but without UFOs) instead of philosophical movement. While I certainly find most of your arguments very naive (probably because of age), I am really surprised to see such open-minded person here. I really enjoyed the conversation, thank you. It is much more rewarding to participate in actual two-way conversation instead of pointless “I am better than you” flame war. The only thing I don’t understand is what are you doing here. [underestimation]This place is not very dissent-friendly.[/underestimation]
>true capitalism is buried under a mountain of dirt
Communists say the same thing about Communism. Muslims say the same thing about Islam. Christians say the same thing about Christianity. And so on. Anything “true” is cool, of course. But the problem is: there is nothing “true”, “pure” or “perfect” in this imperfect world. We are dealing with real world here, and it is a dirty place where abstract theories are useless. In this world, bad guys always win. And it will only get worse. Get used to it and adapt to survive and succeed on an inherently injust, filthy and cruel planet – that’s the best you can do. You can’t fight forces of history. But you can make life less painful for yourself.
>american style leadership
American style of leadership is the same as everywhere else – shadowy guys in funny robes sit on their closed meetings making scary rituals and discussing stuff. You can watch it on YouTube, it is pretty fun. Google “Bohemian groove”. What you talk about is American style of public relations – the entire “republicans-vs-democrats” sideshow. But it is a method of crowd control, not a method of powerplays.
>since murder of citizens is off the cards for control
No. It is in the cards. Including murder of presidents. Google “Kennedy assassination”. Or check 9/11. Killing several thousand of U.S. citizens is clearly a mass-murder, and only complete idiots today believe that it was done by some cave-dwelling Afghani peasants, and not by U.S. rulers who earned trillions of dollars on the entire affair. Elites are free to kill people without a trial, including killing them en masse, and mass media will never report it, or report false, “official” version. Killing its own citizens and blaming on someone else to get casus belli is famous American tactic, it was used since XIX century at least, and was used in almost every big conflict for XX century (unless you believe Japs couldn’t get those carriers in Pearl Harbor “by miraculous coincidence”), and is not going off the cards any time soon.
>When the tech savvy far east comes over here,
>THEN we may have a problem with Techo opression.
Yes. The entire Western civilization is ruled by a committee of around 300 people, from 13 families. That’s the whole lot of people if you think about it. Eastern powers are ruled by much smaller and tightly knit clans, which opens more potential for power abuse. And they are younger and more tech savvy: Chinese internet is larger than English one, and Russia has the strongest hacker community in the world, all on KGB payroll. On the bright side, these elites already know they are the top dogs, so they don’t have hubris that Western elites have. KGB will probably have more strict control over your life, but it won’t use it just for the sake of using. It is like in high school – if you react too much at provocations, you lose your face and, therefore, lose your authority. So, it is actually Western “less potential for abuse but more intention for abuse” versus Eastern “more potential for abuse but less intention for abuse”. There is always tradeoffs. Sane dictatorship is probably more preferrable to insane democracy, but, well, tastes differ.
>I prefer not to think of them as “True” Capitalists
That’s fundamentalist style of thinking, it leads to extremism and sectarianism. “True capitalism” never existed and will never exist, since there is no “true” and “pure” things in our world, it is always shades of dark grey. During Cold War, “Capitalism” was another word of saying “American sphere of influence”, and “Communism” was another word of saying “Russian sphere of influence”. After Cold War, both terms are practically useless. Communist Party of Moldova, for example, is pro-American and anti-Russian. These are not scientific terms.
Well, I am pretty open minded about your views. I admit that you can be right and I can be wrong. I also provide arguments when I disagree with you, and do not call your point “bullshit worldview” just because I don’t like it. Nor did I accuse you in being a Nazi. And certainly I never insulted you. I could be wrong and deluded and insane and whatever, but at least I am civil. I expected the same from you.
>The only thing I don’t understand is what are you doing here.
I kinda want a tail. And it’s not like the main news sites say much on the matter.
>While I certainly find most of your arguments very naive (probably because of age), I am really surprised to see such open-minded person here.
Yes I admit I’m Naive, but being naive doesn’t make anyone more wrong. While anything I say might not be entirely true, it’s probably true enough to be right as a prediction. As for being open minded, being aware how naive I am might be part of that, the other part being “philosophical skeptisism”. Anything could be right, anything could be wrong. And if someone belives something, it’s best to argue in a way that still allows for what they belive. To each ones own and all that. Doesn’t mean I have to agree though.
>I really enjoyed the conversation, thank you.
I enjoyed this a bit myself to tell the truth.
>So, yes, elites can overabuse stuff like mind control (or other hyper-tech) and some guys decide that they went too far. However, the result is civil war between competing groups of equally evil elites
> Such structures are controlled by what political science calls “counter-elite” (elite that is not currently in power but aspires to do so).
> There are no “good free democratic peaceful good guys” and “evil dictatorial tyrant bad guys”.
These I can agree with; I belive I understand the counter elites part, I’ve played Fable 3. People need a leader to guide them, and that leader will often have to do morally objectionable things a lot of the time to ensure their own security as well as their people’s.
And I don’t really belive in good or evil (At all), but I do belive that some positions are more agreeable than others. If one elite belives in heavy police states (but not complete, I want to choose where I go) I will have less problems with it than mind control. So I’ll join them. (hopefully most people would agree with me on that. Mind control is an uncomfortable thought).
Again, I know I’m naive. You don’t have to keep mentioning it.
P.S. would you say your view on elites is flexible enough to say the people the parties send in to be voted for are competing but the parties themselves are neutral? That might make sense if there’s a lot of people in the parties that run the party (and thus the polititions stance) but aren’t voted in or in senate or whatever.
> Google “Kennedy assassination”. Or check 9/11. Killing several thousand of U.S. citizens is clearly a mass-murder, and only complete idiots today believe that it was done by some cave-dwelling Afghani peasants, and not by U.S. rulers who earned trillions of dollars on the entire affair.
That sounds more like making us want to go to war than keeping citizens in complete control. I’m talking about them keeping the crowd controled. A criminal act of manipulation is still wrong, but not the topic at hand.
Yeah, I am one of the few futurists who happens to also be a furry. I am actually willing to discuss tails, wings, animal heads, full body fur etc.
>To each ones own
You DO acknowledge that it was a motto of Buchenwald, right?
>would you say your view on elites is flexible enough to say the people the parties send in to be voted for are competing but the parties themselves are neutral?
Not everywhere. In countries with stable systems like U.S., yes. The idea is to have a popular guy in office, so that public is content. Elections are a fine way to do that. Besides, they give the illusion of choice, and humans LOVE to believe in idea of free will even though it is obviously false. But in countries with unstable systems like Russia, no: in such systems elections are decided in advance, and participants already know how much votes they will get. On other hand, Russians don’t hide that fact, and both rulers and population have pretty cynical (i.e. realistic) attitude to entire process. I noted interesting detail in that: the more corrupt country is, the more realistic expectations are. Corruption is probably a good thing, since it allows low-level citizens to circumvent state control. For example, getting to jail for the box of marijuana isn’t cool, but legalizing it en masse can lead to social problems, so bribing the cops is the intermediate solution.