Globalism and the Future

[Bollocks]

Globalism is the death of Democracy, what need is there for popular will when you have the last and final order of things?

Democracy implies the ability to set any sort of policy change. With all policy of any consequence being determined entirely by trade agreements and the like, there will be no democracy in such a world order. This is why the most celebrated institutions of Globalism put as much distance between the people and actual decision making. I know I'll get flak for it, but its why the EU commissioners aren't directly elected, its why TPP/TTIP will use a tribunal only accessible by business interests and their lawyers, not by labour unions and environmental groups.

If you have the perfect system you don't need input from the proles, only to manage them.

The TPP and TTIP do allow the presence of all groups. If I recall properly green peace has a seat on the negotiations. Also the proles can be affected by populist ideas that only set back progress. Which is why there needs to be a limit to direct democracy.

[Yvaelle]

I think outlying areas can become to a degree self governing, possibly acting in loose affiliation with a City-State actor.

I didn't get that far before going for lunch, but that was my thinking as well - in time - when cities become largely self-governing - the most important market interactions between the rural areas will not be at a state or national level either, but as a hub-and-spoke model toward their nearest city state. So yea, I expect probably the highest degree of self-governance to occur in these rural areas, but I suspect the city-states to create laws and system which are tailored for their city: akin to cellular design/manufacturing.

Scaling it up to a global level, why would the City-State of Los Angeles, and the City-State of Dallas want to be tethered together by a national government? The answer is they probably wouldn't - nor would any other City-State - because each have independent market forces, cultures and ideologies, environmental conditions, etc.

Nations attempt to standardize what is naturally different.

National market forces are vague to the point of absurdity. The primary import/export partners for California are Baja (Mexico), Sonora (Mexico), Washington (US), British Columbia (Canada), Oregon (US), and Guang Dong (China). The economies relevant to Californians is not the continental US - it's the Pacific Rim. What works best economically for the City-State of Los Angeles, is alignment with other pacific rim economies - not trying to tether it to the economies of the Appalachian Mountains, New England, and the Deep South.

National cultures are fictional at best, non-existent in practice, and offensive at worst (rude stereotypes, like pretending all Americans have a southern drawl, or pretending all Brits are poncy dudes in top hats and monocles). The culture of New York City is not at all similar to that of Wyoming, the culture of Oregon is far closer to that of Vancouver, than it is to Atlanta. We often like to think that we're all "Americans" (or Canadians, or <insert your nation here>) - but in reality - what that means to us differs depending on where you're standing.

National environments are also ridiculous - it's hot in the South, it's cold in the North - weather is different in different places: it has an impact on industries and activities and cultures, and yet when we talk about Nations we ignore differences like this.


So ultimately - Nations are an archaic organizational construct - a relic of European Imperialism - but a meaningless institution in the 21st century. As the forces of the 21st century continue to stress the flaws and cracks in our already-archaic system - new systems will fill the gaps: and the logical one to me is the city-state model: for that is where power is concentrating.

- - - Updated - - -

The TPP and TTIP do allow the presence of all groups. If I recall properly green peace has a seat on the negotiations. Also the proles can be affected by populist ideas that only set back progress. Which is why there needs to be a limit to direct democracy.

There aren't really TPP/TTIP negotiations. Someone drafted it, now governments are asked to sign it. The only negotiation is how much money they need to hand to the politician in authority to pay for them lifting their wrist and flicking the pen.

The limit to direct democracy is education. It requires that we have an educated populace, and an informative and neutral platform to compare/contrast the platform in a purely constructive/deconstructive manner - but not in the anti-intellectual / uninformative / biased / corrupt media we suffer today.

I think direct democracy is the inevitable evolution of our representative democracy and our progressive values, but I know that we aren't ready for it yet. With that said, so that you don't think it's too far off, remember that it only needs to be better than the current (horribly flawed!) system of representative democracy: which is set a bar so low that even the whisper of a direct democracy dream is almost enough to be superior: pitfalls though it clearly has.

[Damajin]

The limit to direct democracy is education. It requires that we have an educated populace, and an informative and neutral platform to compare/contrast the platform in a purely constructive/deconstructive manner - but not in the anti-intellectual / uninformative / biased / corrupt media we suffer today.

Well that's a long way off, if it all possible given who holds the levers of education at this point. Hat tip to George Carlin for getting it absolutely right:



Have to break that grip and reassert the tenets of a classic, expansive education.

[Theodarzna]

I didn't get that far before going for lunch, but that was my thinking as well - in time - when cities become largely self-governing - the most important market interactions between the rural areas will not be at a state or national level either, but as a hub-and-spoke model toward their nearest city state. So yea, I expect probably the highest degree of self-governance to occur in these rural areas, but I suspect the city-states to create laws and system which are tailored for their city: akin to cellular design/manufacturing.

Scaling it up to a global level, why would the City-State of Los Angeles, and the City-State of Dallas want to be tethered together by a national government? The answer is they probably wouldn't - nor would any other City-State - because each have independent market forces, cultures and ideologies, environmental conditions, etc.

Nations attempt to standardize what is naturally different.

National market forces are vague to the point of absurdity. The primary import/export partners for California are Baja (Mexico), Sonora (Mexico), Washington (US), British Columbia (Canada), Oregon (US), and Guang Dong (China). The economies relevant to Californians is not the continental US - it's the Pacific Rim. What works best economically for the City-State of Los Angeles, is alignment with other pacific rim economies - not trying to tether it to the economies of the Appalachian Mountains, New England, and the Deep South.

National cultures are fictional at best, non-existent in practice, and offensive at worst (rude stereotypes, like pretending all Americans have a southern drawl, or pretending all Brits are poncy dudes in top hats and monocles). The culture of New York City is not at all similar to that of Wyoming, the culture of Oregon is far closer to that of Vancouver, than it is to Atlanta. We often like to think that we're all "Americans" (or Canadians, or <insert your nation here>) - but in reality - what that means to us differs depending on where you're standing.

National environments are also ridiculous - it's hot in the South, it's cold in the North - weather is different in different places: it has an impact on industries and activities and cultures, and yet when we talk about Nations we ignore differences like this.


So ultimately - Nations are an archaic organizational construct - a relic of European Imperialism - but a meaningless institution in the 21st century. As the forces of the 21st century continue to stress the flaws and cracks in our already-archaic system - new systems will fill the gaps: and the logical one to me is the city-state model.

A return to localism is IMHO the best possible outcome, if your globalism can co-exist with my localism then we are square with the Old Gods and the New.

Particularly myself as a Language activist and advocate for minority and smaller cultures, the ability of these groups to better control their own affairs through localism is preferable to me. The problem of the big unitary orders of Europe is that they tended to squash the local to try and make something bigger, and almost universally it was one very strong group imposing its culture on the rest. The Parisians with their French, the English with their English, all at the expense of the region, the town, ect.

Plus with better translation technologies and just hopefully an increase in bilingualism and multilingualism (Learn Spanish my fellow Californians, it won't fucking kill you) we should be educated enough to let communities be autonomous culturally.

[Deleted]

The right-wingers need to stop stealing the left-wingers boogeymen. The Extreme Left protests against Globalism since the 80s.

I swear, the conservative right went so far right that went crossed the circle and reached the communist spectrum on the left.

- - - Updated - - -

Give it 5 years and with anti aging technology you'll rethink retirement, and governments will rethink of pensions and Social Security. In 10 years we're going to have to get serious about jobs since optimizations and automation have reduced jobs to a new low. Democracy will play a huge role in fixing a lot of that broken right there. Financial systems will be controlled by the banks and will hold on to the bitter end. The root of all financial evil is found at banks.

Incoming Ludite terrorism in 15-20 years. I'm not even joking.

[Vash The Stampede]

Incoming Ludite terrorism in 15-20 years. I'm not even joking.

Probably worse things than breaking crap will happen. For one thing, most of the jobs lost won't be from manual labor but from offices due to AI. How you going to break AI that probably sits in giant building half way across the world? Here's a AI Robot that is free and has already overturned 160,000 parking tickets. It's free, click it.

If people take anti-aging technology there's going to be a group of people that will go around hunting them down and killing them, cause people are bat shit crazy like that. I predict that will happen. About 30% of people will be sequentially homeless in first world countries for a few years before they rise up and take control over the country.

Globalism will have it's push backs. We are already seeing it with racism and feminism that has grown as a result of this fertile globalism. Right now people are imposing their beliefs and customs to other people around the world, cause with the Internet we can. Brexit happened and everyone around the world shits bricks.

[Yvaelle]

A return to localism is IMHO the best possible outcome, if your globalism can co-exist with my localism then we are square with the Old Gods and the New.

I think the equilibrium state for globalism will ultimately be more localist than people fear (an oppressive world government). I think there will be, for example, a Government of Terra. But I also think that local government will become increasingly important - and the connective tissue that we need is actually rooted in trade agreements, and AI - able to stitch together disparate systems seamlessly. To give us greater global access than ever before, but increased local agency.

That said, there is something called the Change Curve - implementing any change first involves a period where everything works worse, before it can work better than the original state. The more radical the change, the worse things often get before they can improve. What's coming in our lifetimes, is radical change.

The right-wingers need to stop stealing the left-wingers boogeymen. The Extreme Left protests against Globalism since the 80s.

I swear, the conservative right went so far right that went crossed the circle and reached the communist spectrum on the left.

- - - Updated - - -

I've definitely experienced this before, where I'm so far out on the Left sometimes that I'm peering beyond my own position - and realize I'm staring into the icy blue eyes of far Right fascism.

Incoming Ludite terrorism in 15-20 years. I'm not even joking.

I actually have predictions around this too, that around 2023 we'll start seeing real rumblings in a neo-luddite movement in the developed world - and by 2029 - if there is going to be a world war 3 - it will happen around that time. This is because up until that point, we will continue to see automation taking jobs all over the world, in all professions. This will create a transitional hardship.

We will see the beginnings of a merging between machine and man beyond that of today - people like Connal and myself - will have iPhones 16's implanted in our brains, augmented intelligence, and augmented human capability (either genetic or mechanical). This will create division, a disgust for the 'other' (cyborgs like Connal and myself, robots, etc).

The tipping point though, will be that around ~2029 is when I expect we'll see the breakthrough of 'true AI' - or at least - AI smarter than humans in all facets (if not a truly perfect self-learning algorithm): whose existence alone will rapidly overshadow the power of humanity, as opposed to machines, on Earth: it is the symbolic end they will all be fearing - the birth of strong AI is as symbolic as the Anti-Christ of the Neo-Luddite Apocalypse. Whether it is ultimately beneficial for them will be wholly irrelevant, it will be the crescendo of all their rising fear. This will be the Neo-Luddite tipping point.

The problem is, it's all inevitable anyways. Whether you want self-driving cars, or brain-chips, or mechanical cheetah legs, or gene therapied binocular eagle eyes in your skull - it's not a choice we are making - it is what comes around the next bend in the technological river of time, upon which we all float. The Neo-Luddites can grow scared of the roaring rapids, such as the transitional mass unemployment of automation, but try as they might - they can't stop the river.

The Neo-Luddites can swim as hard as they can upstream - but the rest of us will float on - and eventually even they, kicking and screaming and exhausted for the effort, will float downstream too. 2029 is a waterfall. We'll start hearing the rising roar years sooner, by 2023 we'll see them panic at the sound of it, and it will only get louder as we approach - but at some point we will all go over the deep end: and everything will be drowned in chaos for awhile. Some will die, and some will emerge and float on.

My goal, why I am progressive, is that I feel preparing people for that change - to accept and prepare for it - is like training them how to react to rapids, and survive waterfalls - because panicking and swimming upstream in the technological river of time is not a viable solution. We need to be prepared for change, and we need to bring as many people into that change with us as possible - because every technological convert that Connal and I seduce to our progressive ways - is one less person on the other side of the war of 2029 - one less impoverished and outcast Neo-Luddite that has no stake in the future we are all rushing toward.

Inclusiveness is needed.

[Theodarzna]

My goal, why I am progressive, is that I feel preparing people for that change - to accept and prepare for it - is like training them how to react to rapids, and survive waterfalls - because panicking and swimming upstream in the technological river of time is not a viable solution. We need to be prepared for change, and we need to bring as many people into that change with us as possible - because every technological convert that Connal and I seduce to our progressive ways - is one less person on the other side of the war of 2029 - one less impoverished and outcast Neo-Luddite that has no stake in the future we are all rushing toward.

Inclusiveness is needed.

I think conflict will be inevitable if its "You must be X," and adopt some linear way of thinking about the world. This assumes two opposing forces in which people are not free to choose what they like but instead must obey someone else's visions for the world and how they aught to live in it.

The Luddite's get much criticism, The Luddites' goal was to gain a better bargaining position with their employers. They were not afraid of technology per se, but were "labour strategists." The Luddites were a response both to the Bloody Code and other measures which served to undermine the lives of legions of people. We do not appreciate it now, but at a time, much of the way people work and live was not the case.

For example people worked under the task system more than wage labour. This was before the idea of Time = Money and thus wages per hour. More over people were very generously compensated in that they not only say got paid to make a sweater but they could keep the left over materials, same with say ship builders whom would make their homes out of the left over wood and such. The Luddite's saw the factories as a massive shift in power out of their hands, as well as increasing State power depriving them of their ancestral pay wages and further making their lives precarious and difficult.

This is were I get annoyed by futurists and people like that is that it seems a lot of you don't know the history of these movements. The future is going to have to have a place for everyone, including people that don't want an iPhone in their brain. Conflict can be avoided, but as with the Luddites, that conflict emerged because there was no compromise, the Capitalists and the State were one in the same and their dictated their will upon others.

[Damajin]

I think conflict will be inevitable if its "You must be X," and adopt some linear way of thinking about the world. This assumes two opposing forces in which people are not free to choose what they like but instead must obey someone else's visions for the world and how they aught to live in it.

It's absolutely inevitable under those premises, and also generally inevitable anyways due to the fact that regardless of education there are those types of people who were born to be monkey wrenches in the system, regardless of what system it is. Spiritual black holes that are going to take the education and turn it against anything not only just because they can but because that's where their compulsion is. It's that anomaly representing an escalating probability of failure deal in the Matrix. These futurists will never solve it without resorting to the exact kind of Authoritarian tactics they've spent their entire existence working against, and it begs the question of whether they actually would resort to it, and whether or not they'd realize that by doing so they'd just start the cycle of inevitability all over again.

I don't believe the Utopian urge is weak enough in them not to try.

[Yvaelle]

I think conflict will be inevitable if its "You must be X," and adopt some linear way of thinking about the world. This assumes two opposing forces in which people are not free to choose what they like but instead must obey someone else's visions for the world and how they aught to live in it.

The Luddite's get much criticism, The Luddites' goal was to gain a better bargaining position with their employers. They were not afraid of technology per se, but were "labour strategists." The Luddites were a response both to the Bloody Code and other measures which served to undermine the lives of legions of people. We do not appreciate it now, but at a time, much of the way people work and live was not the case.

I don't mean to denigrate their position at all - I empathize with it even - but I also think the Neo-Luddites are going to be fighting a futile battle against a change they can no more hold back, than they can push against the rising tide, or swim against the roaring river.

I say the river pulls us all, they say "Not me!" - there will likely be other intermediate positions between us - and there are positions beyond me which are more actively swimming downstream - but I don't think the factions will truly polarize until the Neo-Luddites both experience hardship at the hands of technology, and experience disgust with those that may embrace it: only then are we ripe for polarization, and then violent conflict.

For example people worked under the task system more than wage labour. This was before the idea of Time = Money and thus wages per hour. More over people were very generously compensated in that they not only say got paid to make a sweater but they could keep the left over materials, same with say ship builders whom would make their homes out of the left over wood and such. The Luddite's saw the factories as a massive shift in power out of their hands, as well as increasing State power depriving them of their ancestral pay wages and further making their lives precarious and difficult.

This is a good point that the model of labour significantly changed back then - and I actually predict something similar will occur even sooner than 2023 regarding labour practices - which will also inflame the Neo-Luddites.

You may have heard of the Sharing Economy - in which the plebs own nothing, but instead share assets - we rent our property rather than buy homes, we Car-share rather than own vehicles (or we buy a self-driving car, and rent it out when we don't need it, and tell it to come home at a certain time when we will need it later). We rent Netflix access rather than buy Blu-rays.

The same thing is coming for human labour: rental models. What we will see soon, is a major shift toward a task-based contract-managed model of labour, in which all employees are temporary and attached to project requirements - not salaried annual employees as we have now. You could have an hourly wage of hundreds of dollars an hour (ex, lawyers, doctors, certain trades, already do) but you don't have job security: nobody will have job security in the future.

This is were I get annoyed by futurists and people like that is that it seems a lot of you don't know the history of these movements. The future is going to have to have a place for everyone, including people that don't want an iPhone in their brain.

It will, I completely agree - but the gap will only grow more dramatic as technology changes the capabilities of humans. The growing gap between augmented humans, and vanilla humans, will create conflict and disparity - this is what I hope to avoid.

Conflict can be avoided, but as with the Luddites, that conflict emerged because there was no compromise, the Capitalists and the State were one in the same and their dictated their will upon others.

I think the state itself in this case is, if anything, attempting to slow this change - not accelerate it. If anything, the state will be Neo-Luddite - they will seek to preserve the status quo. The problem is, as automation multiplies human wealth, as AI logistics multiplies human wealth, as augmented human intelligence multiplies human wealth - and as wealth is increasingly concentrated - via corporate/capitalism - the inevitability here is that the power of nation-states will become irrelevant: they will no longer be in control.

There will come a day when Google is richer than America, run by their new CEO - Cyborg Connal - an augmented human, riding upon the back of an AI-dragon - whose mere shadow on the ground far below is enough to terrorize all who see it into submission. The Old Masters will rise against it, and they will be the first to burn in the flame-wake that such technological power breeds.

Far to the north, rumors say, are people immune to any cold, who never hunger, are impervious to mortal wounds, impossibly long-lived - whose Night-King Yvaelle commands their gene-enhanced magic and incomprehensible ultra-progressive culture.

And somewhere inbetween, in the lands of Status Quo, men stand defiant against the return of (techno-)magic to this world. All but oblivious to the looming perils across the narrow sea of automation, or beyond the great wall of genetic enhancement. Consumed with their own internal power struggles, the threats they understand - right up until the last season - when everything will change.

Neo-Luddite winter is coming. All vanilla men must die. All men must rent.

[Yvaelle]

Who would be "hired" for a task faster? Who's quality of life would be "better"?

The war, if it happens, won't be a force issue. It will be an "obligation" issue. People that do not want their brain, body, etc, altered but feel they are being left behind because other people are doing it, and so are more advantaged.

This is why basic income, and a truly free/libertarian "world" is what I am after... to stop this resentment. You can choose to be "natural", I can choose to modify myself as I see fit, and neither of us will have adversely affected the other "side".

Thanks this described what I meant by a war far better than I implied. It is not so much two factions battling in trenches - it is a war in the streets - perhaps of violence - but mostly of meleeing ideologies. It is essentially a global civil war - of neo-luddite terrorism - of neighbour-against-neighbour. I think that it definitely will result in rising violence - but perhaps "world war" is melodramatic (though it is conceptually closest to the sheer enormity of the event) - it is more like... World Rift 1.

In which everyone disagrees, and the discussion keeps getting more heated - and then some fool shoots Archduke Franz Ferdinand at a concert in Hungary (or some similarly trivial, yet symbolic, event) and suddenly everything is a mess.

Unless the people that want this just get up and create a new society on say Mars, with Mecho-Elon Musk in charge, using the martian sands/dust to create solar capturing devices, and domes to expand the Martian Cyborg/Android empire.

Mecha Elon on Mars needs to be a comic book, someone call Stan Lee and get him started

[Theodarzna]

I think the "You must be X", actually is not so much what I or @Yvaelle are talking about.

It is more if a sea change of a few things. Some of it is going to be a world view/paradigm shift, some of it is going to be "If I don't have X I cannot really compete".

The Paradigm Shift is the "hardest" one to achieve... because you have to realize/stop seeing yourself as a "self". By that I mean you should see yourself as a conscious being in a universe (made of it), on a small rock near a star, who has a brain that process information, and creates memories that are then used to create "personality", and all of that is conditioned by nature and nurture.

So adding a "cpu" to your biological processing unit (your brain) is not so much an issue when you stop seeing yourself as an artifact of the world, but a pattern in it, and ultimately in experience/existence. (The CPU is also part of existence, using the same matter that makes you up)

People are attached to "bodies", cultures, Ego, Personality, etc, because they identify as those things. When in reality those things are all conceptual ideas programed into you either via nature (as part of your genetic code) or nurture (as part of your society/language, etc)

The second part of it, if I and @Yvaelle have an iPhone connected to our brains, always pulling down information at the speed of light, and using AI algorithms that is predictively making available the topic/language, etc, etc, we are thinking, writing or talking about, how much of an advantage would that be to someone that does not have this device?

Who would be "hired" for a task faster? Who's quality of life would be "better"?

The war, if it happens, won't be a force issue. It will be an "obligation" issue. People that do not want their brain, body, etc, altered but feel they are being left behind because other people are doing it, and so are more advantaged.

This is why basic income, and a truly free/libertarian "world" is what I am after... to stop this resentment. You can choose to be "natural", I can choose to modify myself as I see fit, and neither of us will have adversely affected the other "side".

- - - Updated - - -



Unless the people that want this just get up and create a new society on say Mars, with Mecho-Elon Musk in charge, using the martian sands/dust to create solar capturing devices, and domes to expand the Martian Cyborg/Android empire.

Welp, you know I'd prefer to go full Lovecraftian bio-modification before I start being a bunch of microchips. Something about being organic sits well with me, Though you are free to come spend time in my city, the shoggath will be very friendly.

I think in a world that grants that level of freedom, that sort of competition can be avoided; the competition for resources and a nice life are lessened with such abundance.

[Elegiac]

So not the form that represents the people, so you try to throw up a defense of "Oh Democracy will come back," then weasel out of it with "Oh I hate Democracy, I is ultimate edge lord!" and now its back to "It might come back but differently!"

One is an educated assessment of future political evolution. The other is a preference based on personal opinions regarding the utter incompetence of overly democratic governments.

Please learn to distinguish between an 'is' and an 'ought' argument.

But no specifics or anything. Dude just admit it, your okay with being managed and deprived of active citizenship. Its just surprising the guy with the Socialist International flower avatar doesn't at least give a pretense to representing the people, Or is it surprising how Soviet like the guy advocating Incremental change is.

My preference for trustee representation doesn't mean I am against representative institutions.

[Elegiac]

As the forces of the 21st century continue to stress the flaws and cracks in our already-archaic system - new systems will fill the gaps: and the logical one to me is the city-state model: for that is where power is concentrating.

The city state model only works when every actor has rough parity with another and no one can become preponderant; as we've seen in prior such international 'polis' style networks all it takes is for one actor to gain leverage over the other. Something which is far more easily facilitated with the advent of modern communication and logistical technologies.

Moreover, as humanity advances the capital input for technological projects is only going to increase; a 'loose confederation' of city states is not administratively capable of footing the bill or directing the resources for such endeavours, nor is overly democratic government remotely suited to long term projects of that nature.

So yes, while urbanisation is going to increase we are more than likely going to see a return to Hellenistic and Oriental style empires comprised of a network of large urban centers; moreover, how democratic they will be is up in the air. Democracy as we understand it is intrinsically tied to the nation-state and won't survive in its present form under more cosmopolitan pressures.

We may see a shift to more direct democracy fostered by technological advancement, or we may see a rejection of overly democratic government in favor of 'Mandarin' style authoritarian capitalist states such as China and Singapore. As it stands, the expansion of democracy that we saw in the last century has halted - not a promising sign.

[Theodarzna]

I think the equilibrium state for globalism will ultimately be more localist than people fear (an oppressive world government). I think there will be, for example, a Government of Terra. But I also think that local government will become increasingly important - and the connective tissue that we need is actually rooted in trade agreements, and AI - able to stitch together disparate systems seamlessly. To give us greater global access than ever before, but increased local agency.

That said, there is something called the Change Curve - implementing any change first involves a period where everything works worse, before it can work better than the original state. The more radical the change, the worse things often get before they can improve. What's coming in our lifetimes, is radical change.

That period, has me gravely concerned that is cannot come to pass, can anyone put a number on how many perish, how much misery? Societies can not endure much stress, and social order is difficult to maintain.

Going full tyranny as Didactic seems to advocate, seems more likely just because power tends to flow one way until the current power class is killed off and anarchy ensues. I fear the Anarchy will prove to great for that to come to pass.

[Elegiac]

Going full tyranny as Didactic seems to advocate

I don't advocate tyranny, nor is tyranny mutually exclusive with democracy.

[Damajin]

I think the "You must be X", actually is not so much what I or @Yvaelle are talking about.

It is more if a sea change of a few things. Some of it is going to be a world view/paradigm shift, some of it is going to be "If I don't have X I cannot really compete".

The Paradigm Shift is the "hardest" one to achieve... because you have to realize/stop seeing yourself as a "self". By that I mean you should see yourself as a conscious being in a universe (made of it), on a small rock near a star, who has a brain that process information, and creates memories that are then used to create "personality", and all of that is conditioned by nature and nurture.

So adding a "cpu" to your biological processing unit (your brain) is not so much an issue when you stop seeing yourself as an artifact of the world, but a pattern in it, and ultimately in experience/existence. (The CPU is also part of existence, using the same matter that makes you up)

People are attached to "bodies", cultures, Ego, Personality, etc, because they identify as those things. When in reality those things are all conceptual ideas programed into you either via nature (as part of your genetic code) or nurture (as part of your society/language, etc)

The second part of it, if I and @Yvaelle have an iPhone connected to our brains, always pulling down information at the speed of light, and using AI algorithms that is predictively making available the topic/language, etc, etc, we are thinking, writing or talking about, how much of an advantage would that be to someone that does not have this device?

Who would be "hired" for a task faster? Who's quality of life would be "better"?

The war, if it happens, won't be a force issue. It will be an "obligation" issue. People that do not want their brain, body, etc, altered but feel they are being left behind because other people are doing it, and so are more advantaged.

This is why basic income, and a truly free/libertarian "world" is what I am after... to stop this resentment. You can choose to be "natural", I can choose to modify myself as I see fit, and neither of us will have adversely affected the other "side".

- - - Updated - - -



Unless the people that want this just get up and create a new society on say Mars, with Mecho-Elon Musk in charge, using the martian sands/dust to create solar capturing devices, and domes to expand the Martian Cyborg/Android empire.

That'd certainly be possible as well, and is likely the only truly peaceful resolution we'd see. We've had this discussion before a few times and I'm still not convinced that bound to the same Earth that a drive to exterminate the other side as a legit threat wouldn't exist and compel conflict.

Of course, somewhat amusingly this notion of separation and isolationism essentially mirrors the mindframe of most nationalists so it asks the question of whether so called progressives, futurists and whatnot can ever reconcile that particular tactic which is something they've long spurned and advocated against. Since at that point it'd be safe to say machine-men would be more utilitarian than anything else, hopefully so.

[Theodarzna]

Well, I mean biological, synthetic, or mineral based CPU's... you could have a growth/Trill symbiont or nodule in your brain that is "alive", but is connected to a network of sorts, etc...

I agree, I think freedom to be as you wish, and resources that are managed in such a way so that everyone has what they want/need, is how you get away from the adversarial aspect of the conflict.

So it wont matter that someone is superhuman, or not, everyone has what they need/want to live life happily. Some may do it in metropolitan cities, some may do it in forests, or glens like Lily Dale, others may create virtual worlds where magic can be used, etc... there should be no judgment so long as it is all free willed, and people are enjoying themselves, or exploring, or whatever it is they like to do.

This I see as more likely. The idea of competition IMHO would imply a world as is, but with better tech, which IMHO would be the worst of all scenarios because it would be an unfathomable tyranny and despotism eventually of whomever can become the dominate God-Person.

Some humans may just simply choose to farm and take up primitive crafts simply because it offers a convenient life, knowing that should it be totally necessary one can go to the cities for gidgets and gadgets. In a world were people do not necessarily need to work for a living but can depend on the communal productive capacity of their neighbors, or indeed of an AI assuming such a thing can exist, I'd see little reason to actually fight.

While Ideology certainly can motivate, I will say that without the threat I am doubtful it would be that severe.

[Lord Berserker]

Globalism is just a codeword for Socialism.

[Yvaelle]

This I see as more likely. The idea of competition IMHO would imply a world as is, but with better tech, which IMHO would be the worst of all scenarios because it would be an unfathomable tyranny and despotism eventually of whomever can become the dominate God-Person.

Insofar as capitalism is a system of competition which is zero-sum, this is already true, as measured by wealth.

In terms of the accelerating concentration of wealth by the rich - around 2030 one person will own half of all the wealth on Earth - and if our current trend continues - by around 2080, a single person will own all the wealth on earth: that is the God-Person.

So obviously that won't work, which means a new system will rise before then - because the current one has an expiration date.

Some humans may just simply choose to farm and take up primitive crafts simply because it offers a convenient life, knowing that should it be totally necessary one can go to the cities for gidgets and gadgets. In a world were people do not necessarily need to work for a living but can depend on the communal productive capacity of their neighbors, or indeed of an AI assuming such a thing can exist, I'd see little reason to actually fight.

While Ideology certainly can motivate, I will say that without the threat I am doubtful it would be that severe.

The threat isn't so much a lack of supply - the historic threat throughout all human history - but the turmoil of the transition. If it is managed well, then perhaps a utopia is in our future. If it is managed poorly, then fear and revulsion will incite violence - to futilely hold back the technological tide.

- - - Updated - - -

Globalism is just a codeword for Socialism.

Civilizations are all socialist, just to different degrees