Underlore

Update:

Every movement in political history is about addressing the conflict and creating a compromise between The Company and the individual.

I’ve been asked more than once “Well, what are you doing?” with regard to my comments about society. My answer is I’m not “doing” anything because the scope of action typically meant by that question involves grassroots type political activism: carrying signs, writing letters, being a lobbyist, etc. But these activities are separatist in that they all only really work on specific elements from within the context of a system wherein a centralized power structure exists, a structure that must exist for very basic logistical reasons relating primarily to common goods type problems where the interest of the group conflict with the individual.

Some things can only be accomplished at the moment by central management, such as radio frequency organization and designation, or national defense and highway systems. Another example, in sane countries, is health care.

Take Chomsky for example, one could argue that his views are incredibly wide reaching, that his view is a foundational type position wherein he is attempting to attack the one problem that leads to all other problems but the fact is that this is not the case.

The one problem is not a question of human determination, political action, or “intellectual self-defense” as he eloquently puts it. This is the mistake that all preachy “if only we would…” type arguments about how to generally improve humanity. Behavior is ultimately rational, and it must be altered in the same way.

There is the more fundamental question of why is it that these organizations exist at all. And that is what I am about, I want people to realize that the existence of these institutions in the first place has a very clear origin.

Chomsky and others spend a great deal of time talking about corporations and governments and systems of information dissemination and control but the underlying assumption is that these systems will always exist. He also states that in order for self government to be possible people must grow beyond what they are now. Easy to say.

As a well read intellectual and student of history I am sure its clear to him that an anarchy can’t just form in a vacuum and that if it did it would quickly degenerate into mob justice and the re-evolution of corrupt government and corporations would begin again, without some sort of unifying motive for preserving the new absence of system. This motive must out weigh the motive for accumulating power and wealth that gives birth to governments. Also the size and composition of the new non-state must by nature or technology obviate common goods problems which demanded the existence of the old.

There are concrete practical needs that the centralized systems exist to address. Getting rid of government without an understanding of why it exists and what purposes it serves beyond the greed of its employees would be like taking off your clothes in a snow storm because they are itchy and ugly.

This is where violent revolutionaries have it wrong because simply removing the government will accomplish nothing if the same set of environmental factors continue to apply, because those factors will in time shape the new government just as surly as it shaped the old. This is why governments are so similar the world over. If you think they aren’t similar you are simply not paying attention.

Thus to avoid the recurring evils perpetrated by the state against the people a new approach must be found. I believe this approach should be non-violent since governments are abstractions and like the Azazel demon simply “move” from person to person. So long as one human remains alive the government in theory has a potential solider thus simply shooting officials only serves to harm other people which is self defeating.

My contention is that the best way a person can fight the emergence of corruption and deception in the centralized systems is to undermine and attempt to obviate the problems that they exist to solve in the first place. Don’t like the corruption in the cancer institutes? Cure cancer.

Developing Chomsky’s “intellectual self-defense” and taking political action in the form of non-participation are valid responses if one has the desire to affect change, and if you assume that the states existence is a given and if you want to minimize violence. But while I do want to minimize violence because I have a hedonistic utilitarian view of life’s purposes, I do not agree that the centralized state must exist and will always exist in some form or another. Now granted, some people will always associate and there will always be collective action or leaders but I don’t think that the future will allow the existence of a top-down centralized structure again for logistical if not ethical reasons.

In time it will not be necessary or indeed even possible to organize such a hierarchical structure. An extreme but easy to see example would be a society spread out over an entire galaxy. Assuming the speed of light has no work around, that society would be literally impossible to rule in any dynamic way from a central location. It’s nature must then be ad hoc.

It’s been asked of Chomsky how can an individual help when the enemy seems so massive and monolithic and my answer is much more specific than his, which amounts to betterment of the self and a general fostering of awareness. Yet more “if only we would…” talk.

I think his vagueness is a result of him not really having an answer and I also think that he would say the same if asked properly, since obviously if he had the real solid answer he’d have used it by now and everything would be fixed. He doesn’t pretend to know what’s best for everyone, he doesn’t seem to have an agenda other than the elimination or neutralization of other agendas. In this way his position is fundamentally negative. Not that it’s bad, just that it seeks to remove more than it seeks to add. This is rational in a way because his shtick is very scientifically rigorous and an addition in this context is always going to be somewhat nebulous. His position doesn’t require much faith and it comes with a lot of evidence that such and such is bad. He revels in specifics.

Mine on the other hand is a positive. I have a concrete vision of the future, which could in fairness be called faith, and in order to accomplish this future which basically is free for all, certain disruptive technologies must be developed and disseminated. So my advice is that if you want to take apart The Company and you recognize that sit-ins, protests, charity, and even suicide bombing are pointless in terms of getting your goals met, then you need to choose one of these core disruptive technologies and do what you can to aid in its creation and dissemination and it’s that simple.

To be clear my definition of “core disruptive technology” is any technique, machine, or knowledge that when applied obviates a common good problem upon which the current power structure depends for justification. A good example would be a cheap, inexhaustible, portable power source. That would obviate the need for a power grid.

Some would say to me well that’s not what you’re doing (solving the power problem) and my answer is there is an implied additional option and that is to encourage others to aid in the creation of these technologies when one is equipped to do so. I have no other way to meaningfully contribute to these fields as of yet, so I’m attempting to guide others who perhaps do in that direction because in my experience intelligence and political frustration often go hand-in-hand and my writing is geared towards people who are dissatisfied with society generally and by society I mean Western industrialized culture, American society, and so on. My writing however is modular in many ways and while I may be writing to the theoretical would-be anarchist like myself, you can cherry pick my work somewhat safely. For example it is perfectly reasonable to agree with me on religion but not on economics or to agree on economics but not on politics, and so on. Indeed I don’t want everyone to agree with me, because that would make the areas where I am wrong (though I can not see them by definition, they must exist) infinitely more dangerous. Diversity is strength and protection.

The list of disruptive technologies that I spoke of is a very short list in general but that may be due to my own ignorance, however I do know some of them and they are as follows.

Artificial intelligence: Because with an artificial intelligence one has access to information processing that is openly undistorted, that is free from constraint, and a plethora of other advantages that lead to empowerment of individuals, that lead to the placing in the hands of an individual person what was previously only available to a grouping of persons, which is the root of what I refer to as The Company that is the state, monolithic religion, and corporations. The common good problem that AI solves is intellectual organization, processing, and specialized intellectual training.

Synthetic biology: The creation of custom life forms from inert materials allows for complex organic and inorganic manufacturing on an individual low-cost basis. For example, imagine being able to put a tablet of synthetic bacteria into a tub full of sugar water and ending up with a batch of insulin. Obviously that would be good for society and caustic to the systems that currently distribute insulin for profit. The common good most obviously and immediately attacked by SynBio is drug manufacture. But that is not the end of it. Synthetic life could lead to the formation of others on this list, such as desktop manufacturing. Why continue to play with inert machines when one could create life forms to have all the advantages of them but are self assembling, and self repairing? Think Species 8472 from Star Trek minus the malevolence or even the intelligence.

Desktop manufacturing: The ability to convert extremely cheap and abundant materials into complicated previously mass-produced or exhaustively manufactured forms, one layer of molecules at a time. The disruption here would be almost across the board in terms of product distribution and sales (and therefor the American lifestyle). Just imagine the effect on say Wal-Mart of a replicator as in Star Trek or a maker as in Transmetropolitan. The infrastructure need eliminated? Mass production, factories, distribution. Virtually the entire materials economy as it now exists.

Molecular deconstruction: Imagine being able to literally dump your trash into a machine that will turn that trash into new product perhaps even food. Need eliminated? Sewage and sanitation systems, land fills, recycling, and waste disposal. SynBio or even careful manipulation of existing biology can already do this. A crude version is the common garden compost heap, but a more advanced version is Paul’s vision of the future of mushrooms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5frPV58tY.

Gynoids: Female shaped androids, developed expressly for the purposes of companionship and sex. The social impact of the hunt for a suitable mate is impossible to overestimate as is the cost of competition stemming from mutually exclusive goals or mate competition. It’s a well understood fact demonstrated most clearly by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs that in order for a person to become self actualized their animal needs must be met and one animal need that cannot be met easily because it requires the consent of another animal is sex. You can’t expect a person who is starving to display perfect table manners and I think that if enjoyable sex were on tap or at least available in a completely guilt free harmless way you would see an immediate and intense positive impact. The need obviated is sex. It seems odd for most of you to think of the state as a provider of sex but it is in the same way it provides for food. It regulates industries which in turn supply sex. Sex bots are with regard to sex supply roughly equivalent to desktop manufacturing and food supply. This assumes that it is obvious that the need for the sex act FAR outstrips the need for the product of sex, namely reproduction. (I say female for a variety of reasons, mainly centered on the fact that violent crime is a generally masculine phenomenon. I don’t think the introduction of male sex bot would change much, women would probably reject them for the most part, and they aren’t crushed and controlled by the need for sex like men are.)

Intelligent androids: In general I list this one separate from Gynoids because frankly Gynoids are going to be much easier to produce than something akin to Andrew in Bicentennial Man or other Asimovian and humanoid robots first and foremost because Andrew requires AI.

One of the biggest reasons for centralization is the central organization of labor so as to reduce its costs and increase its effectiveness. If labor became just another fixed initial investment with minimum maintenance costs I think the exploitation that is inherent in the materials economy would be radically reduced almost over night because even the most exploited human worker still costs a good deal. An intelligent multipurpose robot capable of making other robots if materials were provided would lower it’s own costs. Indeed I predict the first commercial robots (humanoid) will have safe guards and needless complexity built in to prevent self repair and assembly, much less manufacture. The need obviated? Labor organization. All the things which have grow up around labor that require the government to arbitrate because labor and humans go hand in hand.

My goal in writing this little essay has just been to provide an answer for people who wish to immediately begin taking action or for people who are looking for a direction for their life.

Now it may be arrogant of me to presume that I can answer such a question but, you know, if the shoe fits, wear it. I am pretty arrogant and I suppose it’s fitting that I’m not ashamed of that.

At least the things that make me happy and feel good about myself are in theory things which make other people happy so I truly hope that this helps you for purely selfish reasons.

Thank you for your time.

Update: For a clear example of how one person getting behind a disruptive technology can change things, one need look no further than Julian Assange’s Wikileaks. In this case the technology is information distribution and distributed journalism. We no longer need centralized oversight in this context and the damage to The Company and it proportional boon to society is awe inspiring.