Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Death from above

October 3, 2017

Our world is a kind of hell (a kind where you can forget it for a while, and a kind which is not founded on any principle of justice), and that men are half-demon is both cause and effect of trying to live in hell. Discovering an instinct to rage and kill is part of the male experience, just as discovering an instinct to nurture and create is part of the female experience.

But this is the epoch of technology, and this old polarity is twisting into new forms. Much of the LGBT revolution, especially its trans component, is about producing new forms of human existence in which the demonic male is suppressed or absent, and that looks disgusting or dangerous to those who are at home in the heteronormative adult world of traditional humanity.

Meanwhile, the machine age has taken the dialectic of death and survival far beyond the organic, merely red in tooth and claw, to the battle of metal that we see in modern war. The demonic male can now become a cyborg machine-demon, delivering pain and death in ways and on a scale simply not found in nature.

I do not envy Trump as he tries to deal with the 9/11 of gun violence that America just experienced. A significant part of his support came from an attempt to reassert tradition, law and order, respect and self-respect for whites and for men, in the face of social dissolution brought about by many things: ideology, the Internet, hedonism, resentment… Now with one hideous massacre the focus is back on the demonic white male, and all the social forces that would resume replacing the old America with a brave new world of multiculturalism and social workers (whether or not that is how it would turn out) must feel reenergized.

Conservatives can say that the killer was childless and fatherless, or that there was nothing Christian about what he did, but the fact remains, this sort of thing happens because America is a machine-age society of hundreds of millions of people, whose political DNA dates back to a much more spacious world of farmers with pistols. I suspect that America will now have one of its national dialogues, in which the idea that citizens should have the means to throw off an oppressive militarized state, will war with the idea that citizens should not have to live in fear of mass murder by a random psychopath. I do not know the outcome.

Advertisements

The rainbow sign

September 5, 2017

Maybe a week ago, I discovered a rainbow banner plastered across my WordPress menu, something that I could not figure out how to remove. Investigations revealed many people complaining about this in 2015, around the time that the US Supreme Court decided that gay marriage is a constitutional right, rather than a matter for individual states to decide. (I recall too that Facebook made available to its users a filter which would allow them to rainbowize their profile pictures, in support or celebration.)

There is no notice or explanation as to why there is a rainbow in my reader now, but I guess it’s because Australia is about to vote on “marriage equality”. My previous investigations revealed no way to remove it except by editing some sort of browser style sheet. I may yet be driven to do just that, but first I have to note the obvious, that this is unfriendly and propagandistic behavior. I could even call it cultural imperialism, since (if I have interpreted events correctly) this is an intervention in Australian politics by an American company.

The obnoxiousness of it is apparent in that, even if you support it, there’s no way to dismiss it. In North Korea, you have to wear your Kim lapel-pin all the time, and in progressive cyberspace, you will have that rainbow on your screen for as long as the system administrators want it there.

America 2017: an interpretation

February 25, 2017

Like many other people, I have played the game of comparing America’s current travails to those of Russia, under communism and after communism. However, today I have a new sort of analogy to present: America as developing country. Election 2016 was a choice between “India” and “Brazil”, and “Brazil” won.

The germ of this thought came from my readings of “race realists” and “white nationalists” – the real samizdat of multicultural America. Those people have been especially agitated by the globalized character of post-1960s immigration. Immigration from South America is said to be turning the United States into another Brazil – a country of massive economic inequality, with a mostly white and Jewish elite living in gated communities, and lording it over a multiracial mass of techno-peasants. And America as another India is a vision of where a truly open borders policy would lead: a billion immigrants living in poverty within the territory of the old United States, eclipsing its Christian and European patrimony, and divided into political blocs defined by religious, linguistic, and ethnic affiliation.

So the thesis is simple. A Clinton victory would have been a step towards “India”; but the Trump victory instead gives us “Brazil”.

One should not take these analogies too literally. They are crude symbols meant to characterize an America that could have been, under Clinton, or the new America that is still taking shape under Trump. More than anything, they are meant to characterize culture. America should be envisioned as still having its technology companies, its spy satellites, its global archipelago of military bases. This is about the sensibility existing within that framework of national power.

Hillary Clinton’s America was to be the continuation of Barack Obama’s. Obama’s America was feminist, Muslim-friendly, LGBT-friendly, immigrant-friendly. Its strategic conception was to agitate for democracy around the world, in order to undermine the club of authoritarian states like Russia and China. It had a nomenklatura of journalists, professors, and progressive CEOs, and a ruling class drawn from Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the military-intelligence complex.

Trump’s America rejects almost all of that. America is not for “everyone”, it’s for existing Americans. Its power exists to defend American interests, not to pursue a quixotic global crusade for democracy, free trade, and human rights. Islam is an alien culture and political Islam is an enemy. The way to approach the other great powers is via negotiation, not secular evangelism. The ordinary American has been ignored and oppressed by coastal cosmopolitans, and that ends now.

Returning to the analogies: India – the real India – does not presently claim leadership of the world, but its national self-image puts it at the center of things. It was the birthplace of Buddhism, which became the religion of the east, and it experienced conquest by Islam, the most vigorous religion of the west. Modern India has a space program, a nuclear deterrent, a functioning polity, a booming economy, and a large population of restless young people. It is entirely conceivable that one day it will be the world’s major power.

Meanwhile, America already has been the world’s major power, twice. First in 1945, when it found itself occupying Japan and Germany, sole possessor of the atomic bomb, and heir to the British empire’s control of the seas; and then in 1991, when its great ideological rival gave up under the dual pressures of western economic and cultural vitality, and western military strength as displayed in Iraq.

That second American apogee produced an economic new world order run by the G-7 states, but it has been eroding for a generation now. Trump was the first serious candidate to run against it. He won, and now we see him wrestling with the legacy power structures even as he attempts to govern; but what if he had lost?

It would have been a world of Russia and China against India and America; with America still claiming to be a model for all the nations of the world, Russia claiming to defend the right of each country to decide its own path, China continuing to build its expanding sphere of influence, and India happy to partner with America for the sake of its own ongoing rise. And the Muslim world would have remained the chief strategic battleground.

America would have presented itself, not as a powerful nation defending its own existence and economic interests, but as the unique guarantor of a virtuous world order. With Hillary as president, we surely would have seen America posture as protector and liberator of the world’s women, in particular; providing a rationale for continued state-sponsored meddling in every other society on Earth, attempting to universalize the progressive social experimentation taking place within its own borders.

This would have been accompanied internally by a further move away from the traditional America of white Christian patriarchy. What would have replaced it? I think a sort of racial caste society, with a pseudoscientific metaphysic and a new-left ideology. Thus, not Hinduism, and not the Indian castes, but an American equivalent; with Hillary as America’s Indira Gandhi.

But instead – we have Brazilian America. A populist celebrity leader, speaking directly to the people from his Twitter balcony, telling them of their own greatness and how it was stolen from them by a traitorous elite. Nothing about America as the nucleus of a new world order, just plain old national pride. Again, think of the differences between real India and real Brazil. India is the homeland of Hinduism; but the only world religion with its center in Brazil is soccer.

(to be continued…?)

Intermission

January 19, 2017

I have been itching to write something here, about where the world is headed now. And I have many many thoughts and observations.

But unfortunately, I am concerned that, if I express a really good thought here, it will just be appropriated by people who already have cultural power – paid pundits, TED speakers, people like that – thereby serving only to strengthen the power of an existing social stratum which I do not trust and of which I am not a member, and do not wish to be a member.

So, until I find a way past that problem, there will be no more posts.

Turmoil in the West

June 22, 2016

We are almost halfway through 2016. India is the fastest-growing economy in the world. June 21, the mid-year solstice, is now celebrated as International Yoga Day. The Indian prime minister was just in the United States, cementing his country’s new role as America’s ally throughout the “Indo-Pacific region”. And a few hours from now, India’s former colonial ruler will vote on whether to extricate itself from the European Union.

This post is not about India, it is about the political turmoil roiling the US and the EU. But I led with India to put those events in perspective.

I am going to argue that North America and western Europe are experiencing a comprehensive systemic crisis, comparable in many ways to that which was experienced by Russia and eastern Europe several decades ago. But my first point is that life goes on for those countries outside the system. China, India, and postcommunist Russia, are making their own way in the world now. For them, the turmoil in the West is an external event. It affects them, but it does not define them.

So – what are the elements of the West’s crisis? Debt and economic stagnation, endless war with the Muslim world, societies riddled with surveillance, and an out-of-touch elite. When you put it like that, the similarities with the last years of the Soviet Union are obvious. In Russia, Gorbachev let the European satellite states slip away, and then Yeltsin pulled the plug on the Soviet Union itself, in the name of Russian national revival.

It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will get the chance to do something similar, in the name of “America First” nationalism. But both the Trump movement and the Brexit campaign show the native working class of the US and the UK, grabbing at an unexpected chance to overturn a political order in which neither side of the “mainstream” really cares about them.

But this is about more than just politics. The system that is being challenged also encompasses the media, the universities, and the big banks and corporations. It includes the inculcation of progressive values at home, and the maintenance of a military hegemony far beyond its North Atlantic core.

The progressive values of open borders and open genders show the contradictions in the system most starkly. The West denigrates masculinity, and encourages mass immigration, yet also thinks it can keep the Middle East under control. But as we have recently seen, LGBT and ISIS cannot coexist within the same system. Their conflict is the outward manifestation of the cognitive dissonance within the elite.

It’s hard to say how far along the West is, in recapitulating the Russian experience. Do we have a further lost decade in front of us? Are we on the brink of change akin to 1989-1991? Or were the Obama years already akin to the Russian 1990s? Maybe the 2008 “financial crisis” and the 2011 “Arab spring” were already the collapse of the western system, and we just didn’t realize it.

The Arctic

January 6, 2016

Despite an intention to keep this blog going, I have been so comfortably immersed in other matters that I didn’t comment on the Paris climate conference.

But this got my attention: the Arctic 30 degrees Centigrade hotter than usual! I know the ups and downs are amplified there, but for a moment that gave me a feeling of superstitious terror. Like turning on a Geiger counter and discovering you have been invisibly drenched with radiation: the first spooky indication that something terribly wrong has happened.

I have no sense at all for what this really means. But it occurs to me, don’t deserts show extremes of temperature too, in certain places? Very hot in the day, far below zero at night? Or maybe I am thinking of Mars…

Update: Possibly it was due to warm air from the Atlantic that flowed into the Arctic.

Update 2: I am telling myself that what this means, is that the border between the Arctic atmosphere, and the next zone down, has become more porous, with major air masses sometimes moving across. Thus, a year or three ago, I think North America had anomalous cold as Arctic air came South, and this year the anomalous flow is in the other direction.

Historiography

June 3, 2015

I have slightly expanded a theme of this blog, and turned it into a proposition about this period in history. The proposition is that we can view the past, present, and future of Earth as passage through three ages: the age of nuclear cold war, the age of global warming, and the age of singularity.

What defines an age is the dominant factor, actual or potential, in the events of that period. There will be many other things happening and the dominant factor may have nothing to do with them; the dominant factor is dominant because it transcends everything else. It can affect other things, but other things cannot affect it (much). While dominant, it evolves according to an internal logic of its own.

The age of nuclear cold war was the period in which the threat of unrestricted nuclear warfare between America and Russia was the dominant factor. I can’t say exactly when it began or exactly what preceded it. Perhaps what came before it was a “European world order” dominated by relations among the European maritime empires. Perhaps the nuclear age began in 1945, or only when the superpowers began to accumulate thousands of nuclear weapons. But it’s clear that the possibility of mutual nuclear war loomed over many other world events, like decolonization, the population explosion, the space race, and the spread of television.

Those other processes had their own logic and momentum, but if the superpowers had actually nuked each other in an atomic World War Three, it would have been a divide in history like few others. Much of the northern hemisphere would be radioactively poisoned. There might have been a “nuclear winter” lasting for months. The postwar world might have been dominated by big neo-medieval Third World states.

Anyway, that never happened, and after the Soviet Union abolished itself at the end of 1991, even though the nuclear arsenals still existed, the odds of massive nuclear war became so low, that it’s fair to say that the dominant factor in Earthly events became something else.

I say the new dominant factor was global warming, even though the high point of global warming as a political concern didn’t arrive for another fifteen years, because the physical process of accumulating excess carbon dioxide was already happening in 1991 (and for years before), and it already implied an upward change in the atmosphere’s equilibrium temperature, that was far beyond humanity’s ability to affect. So even as the population explosion continued, and the Internet spread, and a peculiar world war against terrorism took shape, and the economic balance of the world shifted… the most decisive thing happening was that steady increase in CO2 parts-per-million; decisive, more for what it implied about the future, than for what it was causing in the present.

But just as planetary nuclear war never actually happened – and not because the nuclear weapons were actually abolished – my thesis on this blog has been that the true global warming apocalypse will never arrive, and not because of political action (at least, not in any form currently considered). Instead, the progress of technology will eventually produce, in some place and time, a concentration of technological power which will become the new dominant factor. For that event I have used the name “singularity”.

The technical capacity which would decisively indicate the end of the age of global warming, and the beginning of the age of singularity, would be the ability to draw down all that excess CO2, in a relatively short time. That would imply that the shift in climate equilibrium caused by more than a century of coal- and oil-burning, was no longer beyond reach, that now some other factor could dominate over that process. (In that regard, a false dawn could come about through aerosol geoengineering, but that is simply a palliative cooling that masks the spike in temperatures, which would come back quickly if the population of cooling aerosol particles was not regularly replenished.)

However, such a radical capability is not going to come about in isolation, just as a biotech revolution would not provide the ability to rejuvenate the human body, while leaving all else unchanged, and just as an artificial intelligence revolution would not merely produce the capacity to imitate human nature with silicon chips. Sustainability, longevity, and computers we can talk with, look like they would merely be side effects or symptoms of a much broader explosion of possibilities, and that broader context is what would truly characterize the next age.

I don’t have the time or energy to develop significant new thoughts about that next age today. I will say that Eric Drexler’s Engines of Creation may still be the most important single statement about what that age could be like, and the quest for “friendly artificial intelligence” may be the best single idea so far, for those who want the age of singularity to turn out well rather than badly. I definitely have differences, to put it mildly, with some of the details contained in those manifestos, and it may be that other visions and impulses will end up having a stronger influence on how events unfold, anyway. But they still have value as a starting point for anyone wanting to come to terms with the future that we face.

Between two worlds

April 24, 2015

“Between two worlds” is the title of an exhibition of the works of David Lynch, currently showing in my hometown, Brisbane. But I shall also use it to title this brief reflection on Maria Konovalenko’s post on “Fighting Death”. (One of Maria’s favorite bands, Nickelback, plays in Brisbane soon, too.)

What Maria says is sensible – and the fact that it is not regarded as sensible, tells you that there is psychological resistance in humanity; and ‘diagnosing’ the cause of this, might be regarded as important work in itself. But instead I want to take Maria’s view for granted, and look outward from it, at what it says about the human condition.

We, humanity, have risen from an abyss, wrote F.M. Esfandiary (who I have suggested is Maria’s precursor). He meant, I suppose, that we came from Darwin’s world of natural selection, evolution through variation and death, and its outgrowth as human history and culture, the world of killing and gods where these conscious animals called humans found themselves.

That is the abyss, the terrible world that produced us and contains us. And we have risen from it, to the extent that we resist that order of things, first through humaneness, love, justice, knowledge, everything that ameliorates; and now, potentially, through an overthrowing even of the aging process, thanks to hard-won knowledge of natural cause and effect, and of how to intervene in it.

(I have imputed a lot of extra detail in interpreting F.M.’s remark, but I am sure he would agree with it all.)

So that is where we are. It might be regarded as a strange miracle just to have this possibility of escape from the abyss, when its quadrillions of former residents did not. But let us look further ahead… The capacity to rejuvenate the human body is not coming about because there is a single ontological switch waiting to be flipped, from world with aging to world without. It is coming as a side effect of a broader knowledge and power, which opens a riotous Pandora’s box of new material and biological forms.

This radical explosion of possibility includes many outcomes just as unfriendly to human aspiration, as that natural abyss from which we came. The movement to create Friendly artificial intelligence is a movement to tackle this challenge, by way of the values and goals of the superhuman intelligences one might expect to be the hegemons of a posthuman world (a movement which Maria knows and supports and gives prominence in her ideals).

So once again, we are between two worlds. In David Lynch, there is the world of daily life, and there is an unseen world that intervenes mysteriously, meaningfully, and supernaturally in the mundane. It could be that the title of the Lynch exhibition refers, or also refers, to some other polarity, like that between happiness and horror…

But either way, there is also an existential polarity in the world according to transhumanism. We come from the abyss, we fight to transform the world, but this transformation itself creates the problem of posthuman conditions that could be hostile to us, or just alien to us. We exist suspended between the abyss and the unknown.

One traditional template for interpreting this state of affairs is tragedy: that sense that human effort is simply doomed, that decision to be heroic even in the face of doom. The human condition in the abyss has always been tragic – our whole past is sad, wrote Esfandiary in 1970 – and transhumanism is simply our final tragedy, the attempt to escape the abyss. In it, all the themes already known to human experience find renewed expression: love, joy, pain, sadness, and more.

Such is the life of those humans who would face the challenges of transhumanity. But there is another dimension to the situation too, that other sense of being between two worlds: the uncanny. It is simply strange to even be in this situation, to be the product of billions of years of traveling through the galaxy, to be briefly alive at the time of the great attempted escape from the abyss.

One may deal with this strangeness in different ways. One may simply submit to this worldview that life has handed to you, and tell yourself to accept it (“think like reality “). One may look for reasons why this is normality: perhaps some “great filter” philosophy, and hypothesis about cosmic demographics, which says that the majority of sentient beings live in such circumstances. One may even have doubts about the correctness of this picture of reality, and look for another.

I have no conclusion. These are words written in the dark on a handheld device, words soon to be added to this blog for the edification of search engines. There are things unsaid. There is transition.

Carbon dioxide approaching 400 parts per million

May 1, 2013

It went up by 5 parts per million in just two years.

Science and future politics

January 19, 2013

Recently I got into a discussion with a young blogger, “Emily”. It started out as a debate about whether string theory is science; but it turned out that she also had strong views about the need for scientists to assert themselves in politics and public life. The discussion was happening here, but I’m having trouble posting my comments, so the next round goes here instead.

(more…)