NationStates Jolt Archive

I've recently come to be absolutely terrified of where technology seems to be heading. Green Anarchism seems to only be looking better and better in the face of Artificial Intelligence on the scale of "The Singularity Is Near", "Brave New World"-esque worlds (And in the former, Universes).

So, what do you all think? If TSIN is right, and the Millennium generation is on the threshold of a choice between either totally restarting technology and civilization, or progressing to this new future, what will you choose to support? How come?

The fact that you're terrified is a bad sign. Don't fear anything - fear makes you become unreasonable.

If technology bothers you so, I would suggest becoming Amish as a better course of action. ;)

Both are stupid ideas. What we are likely to acheive through the new technology you seem to fear is greater freedom and international co-operation as the internet allows instant communication and global acountability. Instead of a dystopian world new technology will create a world which, while not utopian, is not that bad.

I hope so. It just seems that technology makes things increasingly dynamic, which increases the probability for bad things to happen, as well as good things.

Hopefully more good things than bad. :)

I've recently come to be absolutely terrified of where technology seems to be heading. Green Anarchism seems to only be looking better and better in the face of Artificial Intelligence on the scale of "The Singularity Is Near", "Brave New World"-esque worlds (And in the former, Universes).

So, what do you all think? If TSIN is right, and the Millennium generation is on the threshold of a choice between either totally restarting technology and civilization, or progressing to this new future, what will you choose to support? How come?

You'll love trollgaard. He hates civilisation too.


Also, the future would have to be an incomparable horror to justify abandoning technology and effectively killing countless people in doing so.

You're a nice fellow. :/

I don't hate civilization. Just I'm afraid that technology's effect of increasing the dynamic nature of civilization will null any possibility for a sustainable, democratic society. So I voted for option 4.

You're a nice fellow. :/
Welcome to NSG :fluffle:

I don't hate civilization. Just I'm afraid that technology's effect of increasing the dynamic nature of civilization will null any possibility for a sustainable, democratic society. So I voted for option 4.

How exactly is technology going to eliminate democracy?

Hm. Maybe I should just leave NSG now then? :wink:

It won't by itself. However, any ideology in it's extreme can potentially, and since technology seems to be exponentially increasing in terms of computational advancement, it seemed a worthy subject of debate and a prudent choice for me to say that we should watch how much we blindly go about the current cycle of tech. advancement.

The only scary part about your post is green anarchism. Fortunately "Green" and "Anarchist" is incompatible with each other, since there will be no government to enforce anything green.

I seriously don't know why people are afraid of AI. The Artificial Neural Network today is so primitive it is still struggling with basic problems like distinguishing a cat from a dog, and recent development isn't exactly looking all that good either. Plus no matter how advance an ANN is it still lacks the limbic system that animals have. So there's a higher chance that killer monkeys are going to take over the world than AI.

The only scary part about your post is green anarchism. Fortunately "Green" and "Anarchist" is incompatible with each other, since there will be no government to enforce anything green.

Would you and everyone else want someone who dumps his trash over your home as a neighbor? Anarchy is more about having no central ruler or authority, which does not mean people cannot organize into cooperatives, or highly decentralized units run through a direct democratic way.

And I believe, like many scientists, that nothing will ever reach the organic intelligence and sentience of the "biocomputer" that is the human brain, for computers cannot process several things in parallel.

Life isn't going to end on this planet until it gets too hot for life to exist (due to the sun, not us). Our species might die off, but that's not the end of the world.

Would you and everyone else want someone who dumps his trash over your home as a neighbor? Anarchy is more about having no central ruler or authority, which does not mean people cannot organize into cooperatives, or highly decentralized units run through a direct democratic way.

The question isn't rather I want people next to me to dump garbage into my backyard, rather it is how would you prevent another group, who has no restriction to pollute or use technologies, from just taking over and using your entire neighborhood as a garbage dump. You can't exactly fight guns and tanks with sticks and rocks. And if you are to fight their technologies with technologies of your own, then you already defeated the purpose of Green Anarchism.

Given the choice, I'd probably support a reversion to the recent (2-3 centuries ago) past. Technology is rapidly destroying all the interesting things about life and washing over it with a bland, flavorless society. Life was better when maps still had parts marked "Here there be dragons."

The salient point to remember is that while technology incurs the risk of extinction, abandoning it ensures it. If mankind does not succeed in developing itself to the point where it can escape Earth and successfully preserve other living organisms, all of our achievements and the entire saga of life, from the earliest unicellular organisms to the dazzling array of living creatures today, will be completely and utterly destroyed. Already many organisms have perished as a result of our actions over the past 100,000+ years and I don't think we can stop the devastation of our environment without embracing the radical technological change occurring as we speak.

Like it or not, there is really no other option than to make sure technological development proceeds in as friendly a path as possible. This is entirely possible, even at an accelerating pace of change. Attempting to stop it will simply heighten the risks and dampen the rewards, or even worse allow those with far worse intentions to take the lead and begin directing it along their own path. Ultimately, that's the most basic tenet of civilization: use it or lose it. Those who fall behind die or suffer the indignity of oppression and slow cultural annihilation at the hands of those who took advantage of their enemies' stagnation.

Given the choice, I'd probably support a reversion to the recent (2-3 centuries ago) past. Technology is rapidly destroying all the interesting things about life and washing over it with a bland, flavorless society. Life was better when maps still had parts marked "Here there be dragons."
Nuts to that, I'm not going to be someone's property because I don't have a penis.

I could go either way, the green option sounds nice and quite and peaceful. That said I think I'd rather cross the bridge and see where it leads; potential death is a small price to pay for interesting times so option 1 for me.

Both are stupid ideas. What we are likely to acheive through the new technology you seem to fear is greater freedom and international co-operation as the internet allows instant communication and global acountability. Instead of a dystopian world new technology will create a world which, while not utopian, is not that bad.Oh wait I cannot use the internet as a means to achieve global domination?

*Deletes website that contains giant hypno frog.*

Nuts to that, I'm not going to be someone's property because I don't have a penis.
No, it's much better to be someone's property because you don't have a million dollar personal fortune.

The question isn't rather I want people next to me to dump garbage into my backyard, rather it is how would you prevent another group, who has no restriction to pollute or use technologies, from just taking over and using your entire neighborhood as a garbage dump. You can't exactly fight guns and tanks with sticks and rocks. And if you are to fight their technologies with technologies of your own, then you already defeated the purpose of Green Anarchism.

I'm not a green anarchist, I just believe that all this "look it's the future" will eventually create an unsurmountable genetic, cybernetic and nanotechnological divide between the rich and poor that will be geometrically superior to the highest Gini coefficient of today's world.

And I consider primitivism completely silly. You can't solve problems by going backwards. Or we could return to feudalism to see if the next paradigm would be better than capitalism.

But with the Second Law of Thermodynamics at hand, nanotechnology of the type that would create the gap is currently a far and distant thing, while that immunological aspects inherent to the human body make the two last types of things that could lead to "Elois and Morlocks" science fiction for a long time.

Now technological singularity is about technology making man completely obsolete. It sounds good in theory all that stuff, but people forget the type of the world we live in today.

This is an interesting thread on it. Unfortunately the original article about capitalism, socialism and nanotech is gone:

http://forums.redpepper.org.uk/index.php?topic=208.0

*Edit: tl;dr, but I got the basis below http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/TranshumPolitics.htm

Berube argues that socialist intervention would be required to create a full-featured nanotechnology since capitalist firms cannot be expected to develop a technology which would make households independent of their goods, and the market altogether. Secondly, the threat of malicious or accidental use of nanotechnology is so grave that strong state intervention would be required to ensure safe and secure use. Third, Berube repeats the post-work/guaranteed minimum wage argument. He argues that nanotech would destroy the market economy as we know it, along with the necessity to work.

How exactly does nanotechnology make households independents of purchase goods? It isn't magics where something are made out of nothing. Sure you can have much faster computers and stronger building materials, but like other machines, it won't just self replicate then make anything and everything you ever need. You are still consuming energies and raw materials. Not to mention the need for an environment free of external particles, like a lab, to produce anything at all.

If there are something to worry about technology it will be things like the mass use of antibiotics on farm animals. It is almost like we are asking for an incurable plague.

Have you taken your SOMA today?

Poll Option #5.

Nanotech will eventually make planned obsolescence obsolete and drastically reduce the scarcity issue if properly applied to the point that the very justification for a market becomes very limited, if not completely obsolete.

Or, with everything depending on them, corporations can patent molecules and alike, and claim enough monopoly to exert complete control over everybody's life for example, leading to a dark age of Corporate despotism over the world.

*Edit: Provided oil doesn't run out and civilization does not collapse before fusion power is discovered.

"Christianity without tears — that's what soma is."

;)

Anyways, I'm quite surprised that the majority of people wish for a future where every molecule in the Universe is a part of one cybernetic entity. The first two options were supposed to be ridiculously extreme. :?

Nanotech will eventually make planned obsolescence obsolete and drastically reduce the scarcity issue if properly applied to the point that the very justification for a market becomes very limited, if not completely obsolete.

Of course, even if nanotechnology will make planned obsolescence obsolete it's not hard to imagine that the same companies will simply dominate research and development of new products, moving from manufacturing to focusing entirely on design. You could have the home nanofactory for supplying your material needs, but you're still going to need to buy the materials and coporate intellectual property to produce them...

...and I think you know who would be selling those programs. Furthermore, I bet they will restrict the capabilities of such systems to ensure only their products are compatible, or that there is a finite capacity.

Welcome to NSG :fluffle:



How exactly is technology going to eliminate democracy?

2) I'm guessing he theorized that information technology would give the gubment access to info on anyone, anywhere at anytime.

Welcome abourd Renewed Life. :)

Nanotech will eventually make planned obsolescence obsolete and drastically reduce the scarcity issue if properly applied to the point that the very justification for a market becomes very limited, if not completely obsolete.

Or, with everything depending on them, corporations can patent molecules and alike, and claim enough monopoly to exert complete control over everybody's life for example, leading to a dark age of Corporate despotism over the world.

*Edit: Provided oil doesn't run out and civilization does not collapse before fusion power is discovered.

Planned obsolescences can be both in physical form and superficial trends. Things like clothings and shoes can still be replaced regardless of physical damage. I think we got to learn from history, like the early stages of GM and Ford. What happens when the same model aren't selling anymore? Change the exterior a little bit and call it a new model. Scarcity will always exist because it exist as a relationship. As long as there are inequality in the distribution of material goods, there will always be demands. The poor will desire the material goods of the rich, and the rich will try to distinguish themselves from the poor through consumption. I have not seen rich people stop buying cars because they already have one to drive, nor have I seen rich people stop buying the latest cellphone just because they already have a functional one. By expanding supplies, rather than ending scarcity or market, simply means that everyone continues to fight to consumes more. I am certain that humans being will find new ways to consume this seemingly endless supply of goods in todays standards.

That aside fusion isn't exactly new. We know how its done, we know how to replicate it either with electromagnetic or laser. The problem is that since we are not the sun, and do not have the same gravity, we have to input energy to force fusion to take place. We simply have yet figure out any way of making the net energy output greater than energy input.

However, nanotechnology does provide a key to more efficient (and much cheaper) solar panels than those we have today. It can in theory solve the energy crisis that is ahead of us.

I've recently come to be absolutely terrified of where technology seems to be heading. Green Anarchism seems to only be looking better and better in the face of Artificial Intelligence on the scale of "The Singularity Is Near", "Brave New World"-esque worlds (And in the former, Universes).

So, what do you all think? If TSIN is right, and the Millennium generation is on the threshold of a choice between either totally restarting technology and civilization, or progressing to this new future, what will you choose to support? How come?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Furthermore, I bet they will restrict the capabilities of such systems to ensure only their products are compatible, or that there is a finite capacity.

And likely, there will be a group of people focused towards breaking such restrictions.

That aside fusion isn't exactly new. We know how its done, we know how to replicate it either with electromagnetic or laser. The problem is that since we are not the sun, and do not have the same gravity, we have to input energy to force fusion to take place. We simply have yet figure out any way of making the net energy output greater than energy input.


This is untrue. We do know how. We just don't know how to do so in a controlled manner that doesn't destroy the entire system that started the fusion to begin with.

Case in point. Hydrogen bombs.

This is untrue. We do know how. We just don't know how to do so in a controlled manner that doesn't destroy the entire system that started the fusion to begin with.

Case in point. Hydrogen bombs.

Right I was thinking more toward a contained process. Yes I acknowledge that humans have gotten very good at making WMD at this point. Although it is unfair to call hydrogen bombs a purely fusion process when it is more of a fission/fusion hybid. Seeing as it takes an atomic explosion to provide an environment for fusion, I think this shows the challenges of fusion power instead.

Hmm, a chose between Al Gore's wet dream and the Singularity? As in the point when Machines become so smart they create better versions of them selves, and wipe out mankind?

Tough call.

Really. I'm not kidding. Look at this from my perspective. I live in some tiny ass town in the middle of nowhere surrounded by farms. If these machines use nukes I'm fair enough away from major targets to be safe to go outside and watch the mushroom clouds settle. If they use nerve gas like sarin or VX, it'll be over fast. If they send roving death squads, I can fight and go down fighting, which is the best of the other options for the Singularity.

I'll take the Singularity.

I've recently come to be absolutely terrified of where technology seems to be heading. Green Anarchism seems to only be looking better and better in the face of Artificial Intelligence on the scale of "The Singularity Is Near", "Brave New World"-esque worlds (And in the former, Universes).

So, what do you all think? If TSIN is right, and the Millennium generation is on the threshold of a choice between either totally restarting technology and civilization, or progressing to this new future, what will you choose to support? How come?

The Singularity.
Simply because I hate Al Gore.
Also, if things go the way I hope, the robots will watch too much Star Trek and get ideas. Borg Empire ftw!

I say we restart civilization, and then have a singularity. It'll be great, you guys.

We'll get rid of the devil, and become God.

The Singularity.
Simply because I hate Al Gore.
Also, if things go the way I hope, the robots will watch too much Star Trek and get ideas. Borg Empire ftw!

I think I see where you're going with this. Then all the robots will no longer be able to make more of themselves and their software will degrade and the 100,000 people living in mine shafts that escaped the robot death squads can re polulate the earth....

tecnology itself isn't the problem. culture's values which USE tecnology in ways that are careless of survival's dependency on nature are. and then add to that there being such numbers of us as to push the envilope of nature's cycles of renewal our existence depends upon. and then add to that the common popularity of emotional attatchment to economic idiologies that motivate those cultural values to begin with.

no the problem isn't tecnology, though how we USE tecnology is one part of it. no the real and biggest part of the problem, IS US.

and of course this doesn't have to keep being. we can set about doing certain things that will ease the burden of the problem correcting itself, or we can, as we appear dead set on doing, continue to do nothing of the kind, and face a major future of hurt.

I've recently come to be absolutely terrified of where technology seems to be heading. Green Anarchism seems to only be looking better and better in the face of Artificial Intelligence on the scale of "The Singularity Is Near", "Brave New World"-esque worlds (And in the former, Universes).

So, what do you all think? If TSIN is right, and the Millennium generation is on the threshold of a choice between either totally restarting technology and civilization, or progressing to this new future, what will you choose to support? How come?

I really have no idea what you are talking about but I read yesterday that scientists have just managed to produce blood from embryonic stem cells. So maybe in 20 years time or so, nobody wold need to be a doner.

How is that scary, rather than exciting? Yes I'm excited for the future of our technology.

Anyways, I'm quite surprised that the majority of people wish for a future where every molecule in the Universe is a part of one cybernetic entity. The first two options were supposed to be ridiculously extreme. :?

Thats never going to happen.

The only scary part about your post is green anarchism. Fortunately "Green" and "Anarchist" is incompatible with each other, since there will be no government to enforce anything green.

I seriously don't know why people are afraid of AI. The Artificial Neural Network today is so primitive it is still struggling with basic problems like distinguishing a cat from a dog, and recent development isn't exactly looking all that good either. Plus no matter how advance an ANN is it still lacks the limbic system that animals have. So there's a higher chance that killer monkeys are going to take over the world than AI.

People are afraid of artificial intelligence because of movies like Terminator which give the impression that all an AI will ever want to do is kill all humans as quickly as possible.

But that's ridiculous because the very nature of artificial intelligence means they will be forced to rely upon us to live. It'd be a symbiotic relationship.

And besides, I'm pretty sure once an AI gets to the point of human intelligence, emotions, morality, and the like will all be a part of the basic package anyway. We've seen with many other animal species that the closer they get to human intelligence, the more emotive they become and the closer they come to possessing a sense of morality, so it seems like a logical conclusion to make.

read yesterday that scientists have just managed to produce blood from embryonic stem cells. So maybe in 20 years time or so, nobody wold need to be a doner.

How is that scary, rather than exciting? Yes I'm excited for the future of our technology.
I also caught that blood-from-stem-cells story (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/universal-blood.html) a couple of days ago, and I too found it pretty damned exciting. Between it and the reports linked in the 'wireless electricity' thread it looks to me to have been a pretty good week for (publicly acknowledged) progress. I find it hard to understand the sort of neo-Luddite thinking that gets displayed from time to time in various areas of the Internet... I wonder if I'd be more inclined to pay attention to their points of view if they chose to express them as cave paintings.

So, what do you all think? If TSIN is right, and the Millennium generation is on the threshold of a choice between either totally restarting technology and civilization, or progressing to this new future, what will you choose to support? How come?

There is no realistic way that we'll be "restarting technology and civilization". None. The genie is out of the bottle, etc. Progress is, by definition, the only way that we can, well, progress, and so my support, or lack thereof, is irrelevant - there are just too many people working in too many fields for any individual choice by persons or governments to make any real difference. Some countries will choose to hamper progress in their particular geographical area as best they can (as happens with some areas of genetics research at present) but it will make no difference at all in the long term because other people, working elsewhere, will simply do it on their own.

There are, of course, risks involved in a great number of the technologies that are currently being researched and it's very easy to succumb to the hysteria that some of them seem to have generated. Kudos to you, I suppose, for fixating on one of the variants of 'technological singularity' since it's been a while since I've seen a thread of this nature, but you could have picked any one of dozens of nightmare scenarios. Flavour of the month at the moment is, naturally, CERN's LHC, which we've already had at least one thread on and which will, no doubt, be brought up again as the days tick down to its first full-power operation. We should try to vary our doomsday predictions a little though... let's have a 'gray goo' panic thread, or one on colony collapse disorder, or something.

I find it hard to understand the sort of neo-Luddite thinking that gets displayed from time to time in various areas of the Internet... I wonder if I'd be more inclined to pay attention to their points of view if they chose to express them as cave paintings.

Bwahahah, indeed!


We should try to vary our doomsday predictions a little though... let's have a 'gray goo' panic thread, or one on colony collapse disorder, or something.

In todays newspaper (okay, okay it was The Sun) we have a double spread story about the state of Britain today, along with the usual 'Immigrants' we are told that for the first time the over 60's out number the under 17's.

We're going to be overrun with old people!

People are afraid of artificial intelligence because of movies like Terminator which give the impression that all an AI will ever want to do is kill all humans as quickly as possible.

But that's ridiculous because the very nature of artificial intelligence means they will be forced to rely upon us to live. It'd be a symbiotic relationship.

And besides, I'm pretty sure once an AI gets to the point of human intelligence, emotions, morality, and the like will all be a part of the basic package anyway. We've seen with many other animal species that the closer they get to human intelligence, the more emotive they become and the closer they come to possessing a sense of morality, so it seems like a logical conclusion to make.

Not exactly, animal evolution starts with the fish brain (things like cerebellum and basic sensory processing), follow by the reptile brain (limbic system). Not surprisingly anyway since they first need basic motor skills, follow by basic drives and incentive to act. The reason why animals have emotion is because evolution somewhat requires limbic system before a neo cortex.

Now a computer isn't subjected to natural evolution. Neural Network's basic function is simulate a expanded neo cortex at best. In order for it to take any actions at all it will require direct human input. It can compute, relate, and give outputs, but it can't feel. So it is more like human act as the "emotional" part of the computer while the computer act as an "expanded rationality" to do what we want. Until someone figure out how to program in an artificial limbic system, which is unlike in the near future, we can be certain that computers will not spontaneously develop free will of any kind.

Note: AI can't exactly "relate" at this point. Though that is the task that AI developers are working on right now, to do simple things like learning to compare a cat from a dog.

The only scary part about your post is green anarchism. Fortunately "Green" and "Anarchist" is incompatible with each other, since there will be no government to enforce anything green.
Educate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism) thyself (http://www.social-ecology.org/lgp/).


I'm not a green anarchist... and I consider primitivism completely silly. You can't solve problems by going backwards.
It's important to note that only some green anarchists are primitivists. Many, such as Murray Bookchin, embrace technology.


Al Gore's wet dream...
Al Gore a green anarchist?

Perhaps one needs to be reminded of some basic political terminology? It'd help in, say, discussing politics on an internet forum.

In todays newspaper (okay, okay it was The Sun) we have a double spread story about the state of Britain today, along with the usual 'Immigrants' we are told that for the first time the over 60's out number the under 17's.

We're going to be overrun with old people!
Ahhh, has that finally happened? I haven't had a chance to read my paper today as yet, but hopefully there'll be some be some interesting stats in it for me to ponder. I'm finding myself gladdened by the news though since I find that, in general, the people I meet who are over 60 are more likeable and just generally more interesting that those I meet who are under 17. I'll not bang on about it here though, since it would be more than a little off topic :)

We've come to far to abdandon what our destiny is. Screw the Green Anarchists. I want our race to hurl itself out among the stars and unseat eternity from its throne. One day, people will walk under the skys they themselves walked under a thousands years before. We have a chance for immortality and greatness. I refuse to let go of that.

Screw the Green Anarchists.
Och, but we're so cuddly!

And we're not all anarcho-primitivists.

A botnet is the most likely software to become conscious, presumably it will be too busy trying to sell us fake viagra to enslave us...

Educate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism) thyself (http://www.social-ecology.org/lgp/).

Wait how do those two links proof that Green Anarchism will somehow function without leeching from a capitalistic society with government? Yes I know people can live in the US and call themselves a Green Anarchist, but that doesn't prove that it will somehow be sustainable without government protection.

Something funny, do you know that North Korea call themselves The Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_korea

Wait how do those two links proof that Green Anarchism will somehow function without leeching from a capitalistic society with government?
It shows that ecological and anarchist theory/practice are quite compatible; contrary to your previous statement.

It shows that ecological and anarchist theory/practice are quite compatible; contrary to your previous statement.

Right in fantasies, assuming that everyone else in the world is an Green Anarchist. Now onto the hard part, how to make green happen in the real world, where people have different views, without the use of a government.

Right in fantasies, assuming that everyone else in the world is an Green Anarchist. Now onto the hard part, how to make green happen in the real world, where people have different views, without the use of a government.
A good start would be to read the second of the links I posted. Bookchin, one of the foremost eco-anarchist/libertarian socialist theorists (his Post-scarcity Anarchism is a highly recommended read; a hugely important text in eco-anarchist thought), writes eloquently about such issues, among other writers.

A good start would be to read the second of the links I posted. Bookchin, one of the foremost eco-anarchist/libertarian socialist theorists (his Post-scarcity Anarchism is a highly recommended read; a hugely important text in eco-anarchist thought), writes eloquently about such issues, among other writers.

You know, writing about something and having it reflect reality are two very different things. Marxism was bad enough, and now they decided to bring something worst like anarchism into the equation. Two wrongs really doesn't make things right.

Above all, Communalism seeks to transform cities into arenas for a new democratic political sphere, based on face-to-face democracy, structured around citizens' assemblies at the town and neighborhood level, confederated over broader territories.

People's communes in the great leap forward failed pretty badly.

So I guess you are right in a sense, having a system without a central power will force primitivism, and ultimately green. After all, people will fight for control over food and basic utilities. Towns and individual groups becomes enemies with each other due to limited resources, wars between neighborhoods and towns will break out out of survival needs. Since there isn't any more incentive for scientific development in a large scale, nor are there incentive for developments, the society will eventually drive itself into a 3rd world community.

Of course this still fails at defending themselves from outside invasions and imperialism; against an enemy with a government and organized army. You still cannot prevent external forces from taking over without a centralized power.

Al Gore a green anarchist?

Perhaps one needs to be reminded of some basic political terminology? It'd help in, say, discussing politics on an internet forum.

Al Gore's one of those hippies that thinks dumping shit into our drinking water is a bad idea. Clearly he's some crazy anarcho-primitivist dude.

You know, writing about something and having it reflect reality are two very different things.
I quite agree.

Which is why I'd pick at your unfounded "it'll never work" attitude, and statements such as:

After all, people will fight for control over food and basic utilities. Towns and individual groups becomes enemies with each other due to limited resources, wars between neighborhoods and towns will break out out of survival needs. Since there isn't any more incentive for scientific development in a large scale, nor are there incentive for developments, the society will eventually drive itself into a 3rd world community.
Any basis for such claims?

Reflecting reality, y'know...

So I guess you are right in a sense, having a system without a central power will force primitivism, and ultimately green.
Bookchin is no primitivist, and neither are most green anarchists.


Al Gore's one of those hippies that thinks dumping shit into our drinking water is a bad idea. Clearly he's some crazy anarcho-primitivist dude.
He suggest human intervention may adversely affect the climate... he must hate all technology!

Bookchin is no primitivist, and neither are most green anarchists.


Honestly, I'm having trouble seeing how primitivism is even compatible with green-ness or whatever word you use. Most methods of getting food without reasonably advanced technology are quite destructive environmentally.

Honestly, I'm having trouble seeing how primitivism is even compatible with green-ness or whatever word you use. Most methods of getting food without reasonably advanced technology are quite destructive environmentally.
As far as I understand it, (most) primitivists would argue for an abandonment of large-scale communities, and a 'return' to tribal-style living. The thinking being, smaller communities can reap the benefits from low-technology agriculture without damaging the environment.

You can figure out the flaws on your own...

As far as I understand it, (most) primitivists would argue for an abandonment of large-scale communities, and a 'return' to tribal-style living. The thinking being, smaller communities can reap the benefits from low-technology agriculture without damaging the environment.

You can figure out the flaws on your own...

The bit where low-technology agriculture still requires setting lots of stuff on fire.

The bit where low-technology agriculture still requires setting lots of stuff on fire.
Yeah, and the whole 'tribes are loving and peaceful and wonderful and great' thing.

You can't stop entropy. It doesn't matter what you do, it goes it's merry way. Green anarchy or high-technology, neither is proof against it. So, given the choice, I'll take the third option - green technology.

Of course, even if nanotechnology will make planned obsolescence obsolete it's not hard to imagine that the same companies will simply dominate research and development of new products, moving from manufacturing to focusing entirely on design. You could have the home nanofactory for supplying your material needs, but you're still going to need to buy the materials and coporate intellectual property to produce them...

...and I think you know who would be selling those programs. Furthermore, I bet they will restrict the capabilities of such systems to ensure only their products are compatible, or that there is a finite capacity.

I would hope that one could live comfortably with public domain and copyleft programs.

I don't hate civilization. Just I'm afraid that technology's effect of increasing the dynamic nature of civilization will null any possibility for a sustainable, democratic society. So I voted for option 4.
Democracy is antithetical to individual freedom, so losing that is a bonus.

Democracy is antithetical to individual freedom, so losing that is a bonus.

But anarchy is too loud.

I would hope that one could live comfortably with public domain and copyleft programs.

No doubt. Of course, you wouldn't be fashionable, but you'd still be able to meet your material needs comfortably...that's something a lot of people today can't even achieve, let alone afford the latest in fashion. Resource constraints will still exist, however, even if at levels far beyond those seen today. That is, of course, unless we find a way to provide infinite resources but as far as I know that is physically impossible barring the ability to tap an infinite number of universes for raw materials.

This is all rather speculative beyond the nanofactories, of course.

Restart...or wait, don't restart civilization. Let the current crash and burn and then let it be...

I've recently come to be absolutely terrified of where technology seems to be heading. Green Anarchism seems to only be looking better and better in the face of Artificial Intelligence on the scale of "The Singularity Is Near", "Brave New World"-esque worlds (And in the former, Universes).

So, what do you all think? If TSIN is right, and the Millennium generation is on the threshold of a choice between either totally restarting technology and civilization, or progressing to this new future, what will you choose to support? How come?
What choices do you really think we have?

bilderberg group reduce population (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=bilderberg+group+reduce+population&meta=)