A popular conceit of science fiction is that humans will at some point create a post-scarcity society in which the costs of production are so infinitely low that we are liberated from labor and need merely speak the words Tea, Earl Grey, Hot, from which command, with the tiniest cell-phone tinkle, appears a steaming cup in an alcove in the wall. And while life on a Culture Orbital sounds real nice an at, as a Pittsburgher would put it, let me propose to you that those who relegate the notion of existence without scarcity either to a nanobot future or to an Arcadian past are accepting the dour Present's bill of goods. For what is scarcity, and what are the costs of production? What necessity of human life and happiness is actually as opposed to artificially scarce? Now opposition to anarchist modes of thought generally falls into one of two camps. On the one side are those who say that in the absence of organized thugs with guns controlling all human life on earth, organized thugs with guns would take over. I like to think of this as crackpot Vicoism--I mean, one man's barbaric era of self-reflection is another man's Kali Yuga; it is true that history, like music, often recapitulates its major themes, but you will forgive me for doubting that the entire human cosmos is stuck on the spin cycle. Anyway, the other major objection holds that the sheer complexity of our material society requires a hierarchical, rule-bound, command-based social organization lest the factories decay, the fields wane fallow, the possibility of booking a transatlantic flight on Kayak for the following day be extinguished in an orgy of wanton travel agency. And while it may indeed be true that certain apparently pleasant aspects of modernity would be less readily available in a world that did not require them . . . well, a better world would not require them. Many of these precious conveniences of modern life are merely symptoms of a gross decadence, and much material progress is in fact evidence of human decay.
40 comments:
I submit to you as a counter to this the fact that women don't die in childbirth in the "developed" world with anywhere near the frequency that they used to. While I'm sure there's no need, in an anarchtopia, to return to an era when wan upper class ladies died in their beds while tending to the business of ensuring an heir, there is only so far one can go in lauding the simple virtues of an agrarian past and complaining about our obsession with iphones without recognising that we do, as a rule, end up with fewer dead women and infants and that many more previously life-threatening ailments are now "simple and preventable".
Were you listening to the Dude's story?
Hm, yeah, that is a very super interesting objection that I definitely should have considered. Maybe I should have said something like, "let me propose to you that those who relegate the notion of existence without scarcity either to a nanobot future or to an Arcadian past are accepting the dour Present's bill of goods."
On the other hand, McDuff, you also have a slurry of cancers and diseases caused by exactly that same system.
Its a good thing we now have the science to diagnose 30 bajillion mental illnesses and the medicines to treat them.
Like beer, industrial civilization is the solution to and cause of all life's problems.
Anyway, the real point here is that we are already in an age of material abundance. There is in fact no reason rooted in material scarcity as to why the technotopia should not already be realized. I don't know what fuck all that has to do with agrarian past, it has to do with recognizing the carrot dangling at the end of that stick just in front of you is not getting any closer.
[some] say that in the absence of organized thugs with guns controlling all human life on earth, organized thugs with guns would take over.
Just so. Now, it is true that I think an anarchist society could be stable, but only if it could somehow be started and run stably for a while, perhaps a generation. But that's quite the leap, innit? Political organization is path dependent. Long did I sit in the anarchist camp with no notion of how to get there from here. Finally, I gave up on that as jejeune.
the other major objection holds that the sheer complexity of our material society requires a hierarchical, rule-bound, command-based social organization
Our society does require such organization. But this is no objection to anarchy, unless you are some sort of primitivist. Anarchy can deliver hierarchical order, no problem. It can't deliver a führer, but that is not needed for most social projects.
What Justin said and also, this is a pretty obvious mistake (fallacy?), that anything good resulting from X could only have been caused by X, that because, say, Saddam (of Iraqi fame) improved the living conditions of factory workers, only Saddam could have made this happen. All praise Saddam or Hitler or slavers or...
mortality is tough for mcduff
it's funny when "as a society" "we" burn fuel to generate the energy needed to convert food crops into a form that can be burned for energy, making both food and energy seem scarcer than they are lulz. it's base irony but it's a hoot.
THEY'RE GONNA KILL THAT POOR WOMAN!
Well, if one is a proper Marxist, the revolution can't come until the paradigm of production ends, hence the Star Trekkian edge to that particular form of utopianism. This, of course, is my primary objection to Marx - that we have the necessary resources to sustain such a system.
I agree that we have clearly reached the point where scarcity need not exist, should our society be fundamentally equal, however, we require further technology to sustain it [i.e. controllable fusion or some such]. Absent that technology, we will quickly retreat to Arcadian nightmares regardless of what we do... And yes, McDuff, more women will start dying in childbirth again.
,good morning everyone ..she said as she fell from the sky... ,plop.flut' .. would this be a good time to mention ..that whois needed to take a break so he could focus fully on being the only one to read and study justin's manifesto ...,
we have clearly reached the point where scarcity need not exist
"Clearly" even. Wow. Scarcity will and must always exist, in any possible society. It will exist because scarcity is a function of human desires, and human desires are neither finite, nor (even when finite) mutually compossible.
Also: although the above is sufficient as a refutation, just let me add that scarcity also appears whenever goods are finite, and most goods are. That's another thing that will never change. The universe is going to remain finite.
"The universe is going to remain finite."
just give it some time. i heard that the universe is still expanding and that it has an infinite amount of not yet space to expand in to.
id rock the shit out of a culture orbital... but i imagine anarchist utopia would be more along the lines of leguin's anarres
It will exist because scarcity is a function of human desires
Um, no. Scarcity is a function of our technical capacity to transform resources into energy. Human desires are superstructure.
GODDAMNIT! IS THERE A RALPH'S AROUND HERE?!
...you will forgive me for doubting that the entire human cosmos is stuck on the spin cycle.
If I may invoke St. George:
"...the theory that civilisation moves in recurring cycles is one way out for people who hate the concept of human equality...It does not much matter if the lower orders are getting above themselves, for, after all, we shall soon be returning to an age of tyranny."
Perhaps McDuff is a Satarran.
The present is amazing! The future is bright! As long as you understand that in order for Us to have this Utopian world, we need to sacrifice the majority of the world to penury and slum living. But I'm sure the billions of people living in nearly literal shit holes from Jakarta to Mexico City to Mogadishu sleep well knowing that their Betters have iPhones and anti-depressants to deal with their social anxiety. Infant mortality is down, so more children get to experience the character building effects of grinding poverty! YAY!!!
Scarcity will and must always exist, in any possible society.
Aren't you the sort who likes to warble on about how our underclass is obese and has too many televisions? Goddamn its good to have IOZ back, I may be unemployed and homeless, but so long as I can participate in the circle jerks in these comment threads, the revolution can wait.
Justin, yes that is my sort. Our underclass is obese; you can read this hatefact for yourself in this scientifical CDC "data brief".
I see this circlejerk as 95% wank, 5% outreach. You never know when impressionable young minds might be reading.
wish the quality of the comments was a bit closer to the quality of your posts since your break...
IOZ, I'll have to flip back through one of my collections of scifi. There was a dark little story that inverted the whole notion during a discussion between characters--basically, the premise was that equal access to ease and comfort was indeed possible, but simply unsatisfactory to those pulling the levers. Anyway, I put it poorly. I still think Banks, for his skill, sidesteps it by making his Minds peculiarly benevolent, for the most part.
Go up to the next post, Nony. There is some other nony quoting Foucault in an especially awesome way.
I'm sorry, I thought you also said this :
Anyway, the other major objection holds that the sheer complexity of our material society requires a hierarchical, rule-bound, command-based social organization lest the factories decay, the fields wane fallow, the possibility of booking a transatlantic flight on Kayak for the following day be extinguished in an orgy of wanton travel agency. And while it may indeed be true that certain apparently pleasant aspects of modernity would be less readily available in a world that did not require them . . . well, a better world would not require them.
My point being that there are a number of things which would be more difficult to obtain in a world lacking certain systems which are not quite at the level of frivolity of transatlantic journeys on a whim.
We get a lot out of Victorian-standard plumbing in this society, it's true, and there is a lot of authority and hierarchy in the US medical system which can be safely disposed of, but the Victorians were not known for their lack of authoritarianism, and cheaper more rudimentary healthcare systems still use Big Pharma(TM). The evil corporations may cause face cancer for all, as they are wont to do, but this does not change some simple facts about the fragility of this mere flesh and the number of wee bairns prone to split their mammies open when they come tearing out of the womb, only to themselves succumb to some bacterial culture and get buried before they're a year old, height of genetic bad manners though that behaviour is. Some of this "living" shit is just dangerous, and some of this technology makes it less dangerous.
Burn it all down, fair shizzle, because it is all corrupt and perhaps the tradeoff of a bit more honest death at the hands of simple viruses is worth the removal of dishonest death at the hands of cruise missiles. But let us not make the decision too easy on ourselves by pretending that all technology is equivalent, and that our consumption of the rich would eradicate flights and kindles but leave behind a comprehensive system of vaccination.
So you're saying I should adopt a more . . . Fabian nihilism?
"Victorian-standard" meets "Fabian nihilism"? Yes, it's time to invoke the pre-scifi solution to the scarcity problem: Bellamy's "Looking Backward". He had it right all along.
McDuff - you believe in viruses? That's some serious 19th century shit! at least from a cutting edge cell biology perspective
Goodness, the sheer nonsense pampered First Worlders utter. Go spend a weekend in Somalia. You'll come running back to your iphones and eeeevil flat screens before sunup on Sunday.
Only those who live in the warm embrace of luxury and medical and technological (this is a blog after all) progress can be so addled and sanctimonious.
why is it always Somalia with you people? why not Af-Pakistan or Libya. i say you can't claim to have lived until you've lived in one of "your own" warzones.
GO SPEND A WEEKEND IN HARD VACUUM AND THEN WE'LL SEE HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A SPACE COLONY!!!!!
"What necessity of human life and happiness is actually as opposed to artificially scarce?"
I'd probably start with fresh water here, followed closely by the area of arable (or foragable) land. Considering how damn many people we have, the oil we dig up to produce our food comes up as rather important too, even if you don't give a shit about maintaining the killing machine that supports our medical and entertainment infrastructure.
"history, like music, often recapitulates its major themes, but you will forgive me for doubting that the entire human cosmos is stuck on the spin cycle"
I find that surprisingly optimistic of you. I look at, say, the last 250 years and find myself impressed that radically different people's ideologies, some of which didn't even try to imitate Rome, pretty much amounted in the end to authoritarianism with different brand names. I look at a couple millennia of subversion of religions of peace, and come away similarly impressed. Hell, Jack at least threw a counterexample at me.
I take home the lesson that the content of an ideology pretty well does fuck-all to guide social behavior. But sure, post-industrial anarchy (ma'am, if you can keep it) never got going long enough to corrupt itself, and maybe this time it'd totally be different. Good luck with that.
But I agree with you in the end (as usual). I just don't know what anarchy really has to do with it, other than to supply another optimistic alternative. I do believe our whole amassed history influences us a little ("path-dependent," I like that). And that different things are possible or likely at different scales, and, well, different levels of scarcity. Given that this current gigantic crapfest is in fact resource-limited, I also expect major shrinkage in the future, if it is not already happening, rather than reaching a sci fi utopia. At which point human values will surely change to accomodate the situation, and maybe in ways you don't expect either.
Nice speaking with you, but I've got an appointment back on Planet Earth.
You folks keep typing away on your primitive laptops and iphones, over your agrarian networks. But be sure to take a break once in a while and grab a cold beverage from your GE fridges.
(Why Somalia? It's a case study in anarchy.)
gangs with guns, gangs with knives, gangs with clubs - it's the human condition
"material progress" as we know it is based on fossil fuels - as fossil fuel availability becomes more restricted this will have noticeable and then quite substantial effects - who knows if it's good or bad?
"Wanton travel agency" hehheh, I see what you did there.
This post calls for someone to utter "Tavistockian agenda". Someone other than me.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/nuclear.htm
For what is scarcity, and what are the costs of production? What necessity of human life and happiness is actually as opposed to artificially scarce?
Er - land, water, air, energy, and all material goods?
ajay & Keifus,
but would these things be scarce if people held to an ethic of "take only what you need," and capital weren't governed by the profit motive, or if there somehow *was* money in feeding poor people? could universal subsistence be provided for? (i've heard things said like: "we have about 6.7 billion people on the earth, and we produce food for 11.5 billion people. There's no shortage. It's only that one part of the world is eating more, and one part of the world is starving.")
of course you'd also do well to ensure that the technologies relied upon to produce and distribute this supply of food didn't also poison the water or the air.
gluttony, and/or hedging in the face of uncertainty may well be part of human nature, though, so maybe it isn't right to call the phenomenon *artificial* scarcity. kinda too bad that economics as we know it, (which is FAKE anyway,) won't (can't?) assign more value to human life/not poisoning the ecosystem as opposed to counting profits solely in terms of currency.
Of course we do that (in large part) with fossil water and by the miracle of the Haber process. Whether we can feed eleven billion people for another fifty years (my kids will care about this, and maybe even I will) is an important question that probably has a well-thought-out answer somewhere.
(I've read a little about it, but never delved quite deep enough to get a feeling for how much analysis the various estimates of peak population really include.)
I think that new resource pressures may well steer human nature to a different place--maybe that's all that ever matters--but (don't tell IOZ), I think anarchism is really a critique of the present too.
Post a Comment