#that's literally it. it's not a hard symbiosis to maintain

[crimeronan]

I feel like I would consider myself polyamory agnostic in a way, like I would maybe like for it to happen but I often fear that I don't have the ability to manage even one partnership, let alone multiple relationships, since I am often. So tired. I often find myself idealizing the "late" stage of a relationship when everyone already has settled into what to expect of each other and knows not to take it personally if someone falls asleep mid movie, for example. All this to say, how do you handle your relationship structure as a disabled/chronically ill person? Do you have any advice/thoughts on how it works for you? (I feel like perhaps you have posted about this before and I am just forgetting...)

oh this is a really good question! i'm not sure how relevant my life experience will be to you, particularly given that i started dating all three of my current partners before becoming disabled/crippled. but i am happy to share!

first off -- i 100% get romanticizing the late stage of relationships, sometimes you just need things to be chill and flexible. but i also don't think that this stage necessarily Needs to be reserved for Late Relationships?

like.... the older i get, the more upfront i've decided to be about my needs, especially with new people. granted, a lot of the people i meet these days are either disabled themselves or Get It -- my social circle is mostly queer spoonies in their 20s and 30s + much much older retirees that i hang out with at the local pool.

some people prefer not to be so open so quickly about their limitations, it is hard and scary to be visibly disabled, harder still to ask for help & admit that you might be inconvenient / a burden / take up extra space. this USED to be me until i said. eh. fuck it. after a certain point, wounded pride is just a mental construct

basically, like. when i'm online these days, you'll see me be clear about my limits with strangers - i'll say that if i stop replying to chats or asks, it's not bc i hate you, it's bc i'm tired or forgetful. that i can't guarantee responses to ppl, even people i'm already friendly with. that if my mood is bad or my pain levels are high, i won't engage in much social interaction at All. that my capabilities fluctuate wildly depending on the day and that i cannot be relied upon for consistent scheduling or posting or creative output

i'm similarly open with people irl. it helps that i'm often using mobility aids when i'm talking to people. the mobility aids sorta strip the possibility of pretending not to be disabled. it's kinda the elephant in the room. but it means that i can be like, "as you can see, i am very crippled. i may need flexibility with any plans that we make. due to being very crippled."

if people get upset by this or simply don't have the capacity to deal with it, that is fine! that's not either of our faults, no one's done anything wrong, we're just not in the right circumstances to mesh. i don't get hurt by that personally. i've honestly found that it saves SO much time and hassle and potential drama/heartache to set expectations right away. the only other option is to exhaust myself and end up failing to meet expectations regardless and losing the friendship after burning up a bunch of energy and social bridges. painful and bad!

so like... i can meet a new person, and if they're cool with My Whole Deal, then there's no waiting period before we're familiar enough for flaky behavior. i can be like, "i'm not sure i'll be able to walk tonight, is there a place to sit down at the event?" or "i'm flaring a little, is it okay for us to be kinda flexible about tomorrow's schedule?" or "hey, i'll get back to you as soon as possible i promise, i'm just fogged TO SHIT today [peace sign]" from day 1. it's great

i'm not saying that you Have to do this; i am aware that it breaches like seventeen laws of general social etiquette. i'm just saying that i have met many people who are totally chill about this! as long as you're chill and respectful of the other person as well, you can do whatever you want forever

that was not even relevant to the initial ask, so. AS FOR MY PARTNERS.

i actually don't find that my illness makes it harder to navigate my relationships at all. like i mentioned, i've been with all three partners for Many Many Years now. we know each other Extremely well, we're all extremely turbo autistic, we all have blunt communication down to a science. so saying "i'm not up for doing [x thing] tonight, can we take a rain check?" is super easy.

in fact, my partners can basically intuit a flare from just my physical movements and tone of voice, even before i say a single word. we are VERY familiar with each other.

.....and, alright. after fighting the urge to longpost i've decided to put the rest under a cut. YOU'RE WELCOME 4 THE RETURN OF YOUR DASHBOARDS. "why didnt you put it under a cut so much earlier" read my posts boy

anyway. click readmore to hear me expand upon just how fucking incredible and awesome and kind and generous and loving my People are

there ARE some ways that the illness has made it more difficult for ME to be the kind of partner that i want to be -- for example, i often lack the energy to provide proper emotional support during stressful situations, i have a shorter threshold for pain/irritation than i used to, i can't give 100% of my energy anymore and there have been times when that has resulted in hurt feelings in my partners.

(there have been far more times, though, when nobody's feelings are hurt and it's literally fine.)

in every case where feelings DID get hurt, we've talked stuff out and fixed it within like an hour. bc we all trust each other and know that we don't WANT to hurt each other's feelings. i never ever Ever say things with the intention of wounding my partners, and they know that. they never say things with the intention of wounding me, either, which is why our very blunt "hey, you need to change something you're doing" convos go so well. there's no need to tiptoe, it doesn't hurt me to know what they're thinking or feeling or needing.

sometimes things are just hard and shitty and we're all doing the best we can. this is just part of adulthood i think. especially adulthood in late stage capitalism, etc. the Biggest key to my polycule is that we are all much happier as a family than we would be without each other. the relationships are about as wholesome and healthy and non-toxic and openly communicative as they can get

the Other key aspect when dealing with my illness is that.... being polyamorous has actually been... SOOOOOO MUCH BETTER than being 1) alone, OR 2) in a monogamous relationship EVER WOULD BE?

it is Extremely Stressful for my family to deal with me being this sick. i am aware of that. but i haven't had to bear the brunt of it. not only do they support me, but they also all communicate with and support each other. so no one person is bearing the entire weight of the stress or pain or fear. and i don't have to comfort people over my own symptoms, which most disabled ppl i think would agree is.... exhausting

when i'm too fucked up to speak aloud, let alone support my partners the way i usually do, they ALWAYS have EACH OTHER as a safety net.

this safety net has been beyond vital for me personally, too. round-the-clock care from a single partner is insane and exhausting and leads to unraveling tempers. but when you live with two partners who can help cover your chores and cook and make sure you don't die of your Symptoms (TM)? that's much more doable.

it's HARD, bc literally everyone in the house is disabled to some degree, but it's doable. (it being hard is part of why my QPR is going to move in with us soon. extra hands!)

a few weeks ago, rafi (partner of 7ish years) went on a short vacation to visit family in california. and justice (QPR of 3ish years, best friend of 8ish years) booked an impromptu next-day plane ticket to come stay with me and vi (partner of 11ish years) while rafi was gone. because i was Very Sick. i was flaring horribly the whole time she was here, and she made meals and cleaned and ran errands and picked up medications and returned phone calls and lay in bed with me watching low-stakes tv shows and made sure i didn't stroke out without anyone there to help.

this meant that i basically got to stay in bed the whole time, which was very very Very needed. and vi -- who has a bad back -- wasn't unduly taxed with Literally All of the household upkeep in rafi's absence.

the same principle has applied when i've needed my partners to help cover my share of bills or my household chores or my errands or whatever. since there are three other people involved, the Immediate Support Net is much wider than in a monogamous relationship. especially bc all three of them have their own familial and friend support networks to reach out to!

having more people around is actually awesome for me. i don't feel like i'm expending a lot more energy than i would in a monogamous relationship, but i AM receiving a TON more support and care and love than would be possible in a monogamous relationship.

i guess the conclusion i'd make is: no man is an island, humans are hardwired to build large social support groups, and in a good relationship, you'll receive At Least as much as you give. right now i'm receiving a SHIT TON MORE than i give, and i do often feel pretty bad about it despite knowing it's not my fault.

but these people have chosen to be my family. and if they ever want to stop choosing me then they absolutely can. and if they need more from me or they need something Different from me, then they'll literally just tell me.

(i know they will literally just tell me because all three of them have literally just told me in the past. they're three people i can implicitly trust to say things like "hey, this thing you said made me sad / was unhelpful" and "hey, i'm really stressed out about [x thing], can we make a plan to deal with it?" and "hey, this situation is pretty serious and i know that you don't want to face it but i really need you to. i will take on whatever i can for you and support you the whole time")

so: yes it has been hard to some extent, managing three relationships while also being sick. but it is also a wonderful setup with a million unthought-of advantages & i am much better cared-for and much better AT caring because of it & i fucking Shudder to think how horrific being sick would be without them.

i love my family so much.

#long post #replies #polyamory #this barely scratches the surface bc it's just a few examples of how our dynamics work but hopefully it is clarifying #polyamory is an advantage that has saved my Entire Ass. my partners are wonderful. #all relationships do take work but my three relationships don't take So Much Work that there's no benefit you know #the work is really easy. it's just. you take care of me when i need it and you can. i take care of you when you need it and i can #that's literally it. it's not a hard symbiosis to maintain #autoimmune tag

[buzz-london]

Yuga Dharma of Yuga Purusha ((Horses for courses!) (my essay for 'Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies') 

Ramayan and Mahabharata have Vishnu playing the central role of Yug-Purush – man-of-the-hour who decides the fate of the world, formulates history and decides the course of the future.

Yet, Vishnu-avatar in Ramayan is very different to the Vishnu-avatar in the Mahabharata.  Both itihases (histories) record how ‘god-incarnate’ behaves in a totally diametrically opposed manner.  One has to wonder why!

In fact when we examine the 24 avatars of Vishnu, each one seems to be very different!  Their ways of establishing Dharma seem to very widely.  For example, Parashuram, Varah and Narsimha are exceptionally fierce where as Rushabh and Nara-Narayan are exceptionally placid.

Why is God not behaving in a consistent manner?   Why are God’s actions not predictable? Why is God not behaving like GOD?

For the purposes of this essay, we will mainly look at Ramavatar and Krushnavatar, discussing other avatars to understand what is means to be a Yug-Purusha and uphold Yug-Dharma.  

Shri Rama of Ramayan is very ‘human’.  In Valmiki Ramayan, Rama rages, cries, despairs and even blames his father’s lust for the miseries visited upon him.  Rama’s resolve to fight Ravana is unswerving, but his despondence during setbacks in his life are endearingly ‘human’.  His rejection of Sita is shockingly melodramatic and his desperate desire to please-everyone-all-the-time is achingly admirable – though frustratingly impossible!  Rama is admired as the son, brother, leader, friend everyone wants.  Yet, his behavior as a husband, father and king leaves us aghast.  

By contrast, Shri Krushna of Mahabharata is rarely despondent.  His relatives are far more troublesome than those of Rama, and yet he rarely gets upsets or admonishes them for their lack of propriety.  He weaves through the quagmire of complex relationships with hundreds of characters in the epic.  He adheres to rules, bends them, breaks them and makes them up as he goes through life.  His focus on establishing a ‘Dharma-Rajya’ in Arya-vart is unwavering and despite setbacks, he marches forward with this singular aim.  Though incredibly complex, Krushna remains the most enigmatic and interesting of all the Vishnu avatars.      

Establishing Dharma is the key to all avatars of Vishu.  But what we have to ask is, What is dharma?   Whose dharma? Which dharma?

Does the Yuga Purusha determine what the Yuga-Dharma should me? Does the Yuga Dharma determine what the Yuga-Purusha should establish as the law of the land?

Rama was the latter – he followed the Yuga-Dharma to the letter. Krushna was the former – he decided what the Yuga-Dharma was and made sure others helped him establish it!

In the SMB Gita, chapter IV, shloak 7, Shri Krushna states, ‘Yada yada he Dharmasya, glanir-bhavati Bharata, abhyuthanama dharmasy, tadatmanum srujamyahum’.  This can be paraphrased as ‘Oh Arjun, whenever Dharma is impacted, I come to its rescue.’  

Dharma’s principles may be eternal, but its application in the here-and-now is fluid.  Each Yuga has its own version of what is the ideal way to practice dharma.  Dharma, as interpreted by rishis, kings and citizens seems to be different.  If we look superficially, with the change of a Yuga, dharma seems to change. God’s own enforcement of Dharma seems to changes.  These enforcements are sometimes violent, sometimes peaceful, sometimes mysterious.  But each and every time, the result is the same.  Dharma and order are re-established.  This can be succinctly described by the English term, ‘horses for courses’.  God does whatever is required to establish Dharma.

Everytime Yuga-Purusha comes, ALL sections of society are forced to confront their excesses, account for it, repent and re-establish social-order by leading a balanced life in accordance with Dharma. *The intellectuals have to climb down from their ivory towers and engage with the wider community. *The ruling class has to restrain itself from excessive use of its powers and let the citizens lead a fulfilled life.   *The entrepreneurs and businessmen have to rein in their relentless pursuit of profit and realise that anything other than a fair-deal is robbery by any other name.   *The working class have to realise the value of their work and relish ‘work’ rather than see it just as a toil of a mindless automaton.  

No one is above Dharma.  As part of the rituals of coronation of ancient Indian kings, after he receives the sword-of-state and the royal crown, the king proclaims, “A-dandyosmi!” (I am now above all reproach / oversight / punishment).  The Raj-Guru gently taps the crown three times and reminds him, “Dharma dandosi, dharma dandosi, dharma dandosi!” (Dharma can still punish you!)  In English courts, we use a similar maxim, written by Dr Thomas Fuller in 1733, “Be you never so high, the law is above you!”  Even the law makers are not above the law!  Recently, in the British Parliament, the government and the Priminister had to be reminded that they are not above the law – ‘Dharma dandosi’ enacted in 2019!

Only when every section of society benefits and progresses, can Dharma (in its widest sense) be truly established.  God does not work for one side or another.  God has no ‘favourites’.  God favours equilibrium.  Hence, to establish Dharma, is to establish balance.  Dharma is impartial.  God is impartial.  When required, God comes as an axe-yielding ParashuRama and when required, he comes as a peaceful preacher – Horses for Courses.  

No one lives in isolation.  We all live in symbiosis.  When one party tries to rise at the expense of others, crushes the rights of others to benefit itself, they disturb the delicate balance of Dharma.  When that ‘balance’ swings too far to one side, it results in oppression of the ‘powerful’ over the ‘powerless’.  Who is ‘powerful’ verses who is ‘powerless’, changes from one Yuga to another, one place to another.  Everyone has the chance to become ‘powerful’ at one time or another.  Not just China or Russia, even nations as small as Britain and Japan have had the chance to occupy center stage in world history.  What they do with their power determines their legacy.  History will record if they were benevolent or malevolent ;  cruel or kind ; progressive or regressive ; dharmic or adharmic while they ruled.

Just as too much sunshine can wither the crops and too much rain can drown it, even excess of ‘goodness’ can unbalance the universe.  For example, Vishnu comes as Vamana to gently curb the ‘goodness’ of Bali and re-establish the power-balance between good and evil in the universe.  To the casual observer, robbing Bali of his empire and pushing him in the Patala seems like an ‘own-goal’ by God!  Here was an honest Danava, devoted to dharma and dedicated to the welfare of his subjects.  Why remove him from power?  But God wants to make sure everyone has their due and no one is deprived of their fair share.  As stepbrothers, Devas and Danavas are both given fecund kingdoms to enjoy.  Both places are equally good and they both reflect the characteristics of the people who were suppose to occupy them.  But, when Patal tries to dominate Swarga or when Swarga tries to dominate Patal, universe becomes unbalanced.  Through his avatars, God works hard to make sure no one is bullied into submission and everyone has the chance to enjoy their ‘place-in-the-sun’.            

Changes in interpretation, and application, of Dharma are reflected with the symbolic ‘colours’ given to each avatar.  *1 In Sat Yuga, the character of the avatar is described as ‘White’.  In Treta Yuga, the avatar’s character is ascribed the colours Red and Yellow and by end of Dwapar Yuga, the avatar is described as ‘Dark (blue)’.  

The White colour of the avatar symbolically reflects the simple, straight forward ideas and applications of Dharma in Sat / Kruta Yuga.  Matsya, Hansa, Varah etc reflect the straightforward efforts God takes to establish of dharma.  

In Treta Yuga, attributes of Vishnu’s avatars are described by colours Red and Yellow.  At the start of the Treta Yuga, Vishnu has to be aggressive in forcefully applying Yuga Dharma – hence Red.  ParashuRama is the angry version of God’s ‘justice’.   Those who are found wanting, are judged and punished without waiting for lengthy ‘due process’.  However, by the end of Treta Yuga, requirements from the avatar have changed and this is symbolically reflected by the colour ‘Yellow’. The ‘golden Avatar’ of Rama has regal poise.  Rama patiently suffers ‘due process’ to establish Dharma-Rajya at great personal cost.  He waits 14 long, lonely, arduous, years in the forest to sit on the throne and rule as Dharma-Raj.  To the ‘golden avatar’, personal privations were nothing in comparison to ‘peace’ achieved during Rama-Rajya for the entire society.  As a result, till date, Rama-Rajya is synonymous with Dharma-Rajya in South-East Asia.  Hence, from North India to Cambodia, there are several cities with the name ‘Ayodhya’ and countless rulers with the name ‘Rama’.

During the of Rama-avatar, ParashuRama symbolically passes the mantel of Yuga-Purusha to Rama by handing over his bow to Rama.  The Red, angry Avatar of Vishnu, who as a Rishi’s aggrieved son had decimated Kshatriya clans 21 times over, hands over the job of maintaining Dharma to a Golden Kshatriya prince!  It is a dramatic, diametric change.  From Rishi-Putra killing Kshatriyas to forcefully establish dharma, to a Kshtriya killing a Rishi-Putra (Ravan) to reluctantly establish dharma.  From an extrovert, dynamic avatar who imposes his will on the people, to an avatar who is painfully introverted, who tries desperately to establish dharma through consensus.  They both cause a lot of bloodshed, but one relishes the bloodletting, while the other abhors it.  ParashuRama feels that violence is the only way to keep the ruling class in check, while Rama seems to reserve violence as the last option to check unruly rulers (eg Vali and Ravana).

In Dwarpar Yuga, God’s enigmatic application of Dharma has literally become ‘dark’, impenetrable!  By the time of Krushna, cycle of Yuga has marched on. God incarnate has to use multiple approaches to bring peace in society.  Though not exclusively, this does include using a great amount of violence to establish Dharma.  Shri Krushna uses the full range of Sama, Dama, Danda and Bheda to reestablish Yuga Dharma.  By using diplomacy, economic pressure, army and ‘intrigue’, he manipulates the political environment of the era to bring about peace.  Though he never sits on any throne or claims any crown, he is openly acknowledged as the king-maker of the epoch.  

While ParashuRama is an outsider, forcing the rulers to bend to his will, Rama is an insider, coaxing fellow rulers to his will.  Both feel the process changes them.  They start out enthusiastically, but end up bitterly ruing their role in bringing order to the world.  Krushna however works as a catalyst, working tirelessly to ferment change without changing himself.  Even as empires rise and fall around him, Shri Krushna smiles knowingly, always enchanting everyone around him.  God’s singular purpose of coming as an Avatar is to liberate all the souls that come within his / her ambit.  Through wise words and wars, God aims to cut karmic bondage of any and all those who meet them.  

How is the use of violence justified for establishing Dharma by Yuga purusha?  How can a dharma-avatar use something so adharmic as violence to establish dharma?  Is everything fair in love, war and establishment of dharma?

God is compassionate.  When God kills, s/he liberates the souls s/he kills.  God removes the karmic bonds of those who die in his presence.  Thus they are freed from the need to be reborn.  Just as fire reduces everything to ash – burning sandalwood and a thorn bush with equal vigour, dying in God’s presence helps sever the good and bad karmas of the soul.  Unfettered by their karmas, souls that die in the presence of God attain moksha.  This reduces the number of souls who ‘burden’ Mother Earth.  This helps achieve the goal of any avatar.  Even Buddha-Avatar’s goal was to release souls from the samsara and lead them to nirvana.    

Taking his cue from Rama and Krushna, both warriors par-excellence, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi renounced violence and defeated the biggest empire the world has ever seen with ‘non-violence’!  Taking account of ground realities, though he invokes the ancient avatars of Vishnu, he used different tactics to establish order and Yuga-Dharma in Kali Yuga.  Taking inspiration from Vishnu, the sustainer of the universe, Gandhiji helped re-establish dharma, bring back balance, humble and empower the ruler and the ruled alike, and establish a level playing field for both.  Man became a Mahatma, creating a new definition of Yuga-Dharma.  

In each Yuga, the subtle application of dharma changes.  Yuga-Avatar establishes Yuga-Dharma and releases the maximum number of souls it can during its ‘karya-kala’ (time while the Avatar is active on Earth) from their karmic bondage.  Shri Rama and Shri Krushna, along with other avatars of Vishnu, have helped re-balance the universe, bring peace and establish Dharma.  How they did this (abhyuthanama dharmasy) was unique to each of them.

#hinduism #rama #Krushna #philosophy #mythology #education #Gandhi

[timeclonemike]

The Last Machine: The People

For background on the setting, click HERE.

For background on the Chimera Virus, click HERE.

Lost Eagle Country and its de facto capital of Postville are thriving because they are in a prime position to benefit from the skills and talents of all the surrounding communities. This alone has done much to overcome the knee-jerk isolationism that those communities adopted after the Chimera Virus started changing things, in an attempt to keep the virus out. It helps that these communities have all cultivated an immunity, and wild strains of the virus are less common than they once were. Still, old habits die hard, and when travelers left their isolated refuges to meet up and start trading, they brought more than a few customs along with their augmented DNA.

Humans: Superficially unchanged from The World That Was, the humans of Lost Eagle Country are still fundamentally different from their precursors on a genetic level. In many cases this expresses itself as a form of hair, iris, or skin pigmentation that would not occur naturally before the virus. Some communities that managed to get a quarantine established and maintain it have avoided even these changes, but by 2125 the vast majority have collapsed for one reason or another; resource exhaustion is the most common, followed by infighting, and finally by breach of Quarantine. Only one “Holdout” community of humans is known to exist in Lost Eagle Country, and they don’t much care for visitors. The rest of the humans either hail from the farming town of Millstone, or wandered in from some other place and decided to stick around.

Dwarves: Descended from humans that took refuge in underground shelters, Dwarves are proportionately smaller than humans of the same weight, by about a foot on average. Their bones and muscles are, by comparison, stronger and tougher compared to a human, although being slightly smaller does mean they do not have the same leverage, so this increased strength is more apparent in some situations than others. Dispute what rumors say, dwarven beards are not unisex, but they are considered symbols of authority and virility, at least in the more traditional freeholds. Outside of them, it’s not uncommon to see clean-shaven dwarves, or dwarves with fake beards, especially in the somewhat more cosmopolitan Postville where social circles are wider and the threat of censure or exile from the freeholds carries less weight. These freeholds can be found just about anywhere, but the largest Dwarven Freehold is deep under Mt. Glory (not its original name) which provides Lost Eagle Country with the largest single percentage of its raw mineral wealth.

Elves: Elves are taller than humans by about a foot on average, while maintaining the same weight; they have increased leverage but comparable strength, which is more useful in some situations than others. More obviously, their ears tend to be leaf-shaped, and they exhibit a few other traits that make them seem tree-like or plant-like such as photosynthesis; this is a result of elves being descended from humans who took refuge from the Chimera Virus by living close to nature and far away from other people. When the virus did reach them, it was through flora based vectors, rather than fauna. At the time, this was considered a vindication of the survivor’s attitudes about society as much as a viable survival strategy, and as a result the first generation of elves tended to be insufferably arrogant to the point of elitist. This lasted all of one generation before elven society underwent a schism, resulting in the Light Elves and the Dark Elves. Light Elves tend to retain the same attitudes of superior scorn towards literally every other living creature on the planet, and remain close to their original home in what they call the Forest Primeval, and what literally everyone else calls St. John’s Woods. The Dark Elves are much more social compared to the Light Elves, and are fairly easy to identify by the tattoos that they give themselves using a bio-luminescent bacteria. While this makes the “Dark” Elves stand out more, the resulting symbiosis with their photosynthesis means that they can be more active at night or in the dark than the Light Elves can.

Gnomes: Gnomes appear similar to humans, with webbed membranes between their fingers, increased lung capacity, and an ability to tolerate much higher salt levels in drinking water. This is due to the nautical nature of their original community. Before the Chimera Plague, there was a group of people who organized a contingency plan in the event of a completely different type of epidemic; a zombie apocalypse. The plan was, in the event of the living dead rising from the grave, they would all get together, head out to sea, and wait until the undead all returned to the dust of the earth. This plan might have actually worked to outlast the Chimera Plague as well, only the Zombie Survival Fleet lost one of their Farm Barges within a few days of putting to sea. This crippled their ability to survive away from land for an extended period of time, and they were forced to cobble together a hasty Plan B; making their way upriver back into the mainland and establishing themselves there. By the time they managed to find a suitable place to drop anchor, the Chimera Virus had already been making the rounds among the crew of the various ships. The Gnome town of Romero (named for... well, take a wild guess) is one of the major shipping routes in and out of Lost Eagle Country, and does as much for the local food supply through fishing and aquaculture as Millstone does through cereal grains and vegetables. Despite what rumors say, Gnomes do not have gills, but it is true gnome children are often taught to swim before they can walk on their own.

Dragons: Dragons, despite the name, are not massive winged reptiles. In size, shape, and general proportions, they resemble humans. The obvious differences are scale-covered skin and sometimes tails. Despite their reptilian appearance, Dragons are decidedly warm blooded and are not incapacitated by temperature extremes any more than anyone else in Lost Eagle Country. They make their home in the town of Elsie on the side of Mt. Humble, in the same mountain chain as Mt. Glory that the Dwarves live under, and while they do provide Lost Eagle Country with most of its lumber (considering the elves in St. John’s Woods tend to be very possessive) they are most known for the power of flight. That is to say, the Dragons were the first to rebuild the infrastructure for air travel and air freight, and their airships and ultralights are a common sight in the skies. The reason for this is as simple as a head start; the original settlers of Elsie were the crew and passengers of an experimental aircraft that was used to escape the chaos of the Chimera Plague, which made an emergency landing on Mt. Humble. The technical knowledge of aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering was passed down through the generations until the community was stable enough to harness it, which proved fortunate for Lost Eagle Country as a whole as the Invader’s army was first spotted from the air, and the Dragon’s air force continues to provide Postville with up to date intelligence while denying the Invader the element of surprise.

Beastkin: A somewhat pejorative term that was eventually appropriated by the people it was used to describe, mostly because it was the least worst of the available options. (And yes, “furry” was one of the options.) Beastkin are descended from those who were exposed to the full brunt of the Chimera Virus as it ran roughshod over the planet, rather than being quarantined from it in an isolated region. As a result, Beastkin come in a bewildering variety of shapes and sizes, which has had a number of social and biological consequences. First and foremost, Beastkin do not come from a culture of isolation and exclusion; their survival actually hinged on the opposite, establishing and maintaining connections with other survivors while The World That Was fell apart around them. Second, because the Chimera virus never burned itself out in the creation of a shared chimeric genotype, Beastkin have not been able to standardize anything they use around a specific common body type, in size or shape or ability to interact with. As a result, Beastkin settlements are unique among post-apocalyptic towns and cities for being accessible to those who may not have the same type or number of limbs and sense organs. Finally, being out in the world as it fell apart left the Beastkin in the best position to rebuild and also gave them first pick of places and materials to salvage. This allowed them to maintain a fairly advanced technical and scientific infrastructure by post-apocalyptic standards. Beastkin can be found all over Lost Eagle Country, but their “home” city of Arcadia lies beyond the Banshee Desert, and it is from there that Postville gets its most advanced medication, precision instruments, and books.

#The Last Machine #Summary #The People

[transhumanitynet]

Liberal Democracy, the Third Way, & Social Futurism

Liberal Democracy, the Third Way, & Social Futurism

  1.0 The Flaws of Liberal Democracy

  The developed nations of the Western world are currently characterised by a political-economic system typically referred to as “Liberal Democracy“*. Up until very recently, there has been a tendency for all major political parties to converge on an ostensibly moderate, centrist, Liberal Democratic position. This position is characterised by Representative Democracy on the one hand, and commitment to Liberalism (both social and economic, but with emphasis on Market Liberalism) on the other. This worldview is frequently depicted by its proponents as the polar opposite of and only ethical or viable alternative to Authoritarian forms of social organization.

  1.1 Liberal Democracy and Authoritarianism

  Of course, for decades there have been those who questioned that narrative. While things were apparently going well for Liberal Democracy these critics were never going to be paid much attention by the general public, and it was trivially easy for the establishment to marginalize them on the basis of their frequent association with discredited ideologies such as Marxism. Things have shifted since the Great Recession, however. To put it simply, things are no longer going so well for Liberal Democracy, and it is not quite so easy to dismiss alternatives out of hand. We will discuss the matter of alternatives in parts 2 & 3 of this article, but first we should take this opportunity to examine the claim that Liberal Democracy and Authoritarianism are diametrically opposed.

I would argue that Liberal Democracy is in fact not only inherently Authoritarian (or at least not nearly as liberal or democratic as it claims to be), but that it fosters more direct forms of Authoritarianism – even Totalitarianism – in developing nations and relies upon them to justify its own agenda. Here I will briefly consider three aspects of this complex relationship; The track record of Liberal Democratic governments (both domestically and abroad), the symbiotic relationship between Liberal Democracies and directly Authoritarian governments, and clear tendencies amid the most ideologically extreme proponents of Liberal Democracy.

  1.2 The moral failure of Liberal Democracy

  Liberal Democracy is regularly argued to be the most ethical of political-economic systems, thanks to its apparent emphasis on giving the people a voice, and ensuring their freedom to act as they see fit within society. I believe that not only are these false claims in a number of important ways on a domestic level, but that the implicit and explicit foreign policy of Liberal Democracies denies the people of other nations those same freedoms.

On the domestic level, I believe that Representative Democracy is not true democracy at all. It is a system which allows governments to give the impression of democracy, while they and their favoured private-sector partners more or less do as they please. Centrist Liberal Democratic parties control parliaments in a kind of “revolving door” arrangement, which coupled with their increasingly similar policies means that there is no true choice to be found in elections at all. It is true that there is a strong argument to be made for decision making by meritocracy where expert knowledge is critical, but many currently centralised societal decisions could be made by referendum and decentralised direct democracy (i.e. according to the principle of Subsidiarity).

Additionally, the Liberal Democratic claim to “freedom” tends not to mean any such thing for the average citizen who is not economically self-sufficient, but is instead a friendly sounding name for the policy of giving corporations Carte Blanche in matters of broad societal interest. On that point, I would assert that Liberal Democracy is an ideology organised around defense of the most dysfunctional aspects of Capitalism, and it is nigh impossible to assess one facet of this belief system without considering the other. In other words, “Liberal Democracy” is not really the ideology of true liberty or democracy, but of Capitalism.

It can be hard to convince people living in developed nations that Liberal Democracy isn’t actually very liberal or democratic, especially in the midst of good times. When Capitalism is bringing home the bacon, people are usually not inclined to be bothered that they don’t have half the freedoms or democracy that they imagine. Internationally, however, it is easier to see that Liberal Democratic deeds speak much louder than words. Aside from Western support for Authoritarian regimes (more on that below), we can note an almost non-stop string of military interventions dating back to World War II. These wars began by benefitting certain Capitalists indirectly (i.e. mostly Military-Industrial Complex contractors), but in recent decades it has become clear that war itself is an exercise in profit-making, and that most of that profit comes from oil. Despite plenty of moderate and humanitarian rhetoric, the West never engages in serious work to rebuild devastated nations, unless it is to install an Authoritarian “client” regime.

  1.3 Symbiosis between Liberal Democracy and Authoritarianism

  The West – exemplified primarily by the United States – has an appalling track record when it comes to installing and supporting Authoritarian regimes in nations which have some value as a client state, but which are not contenders to be developed into full-blown Liberal Democracies in the near term. I only hesitate in laying the blame for this trend solely at the American door because other major powers have indulged in this game in the past, and would do again in the future given the chance. For now, all of the other major nations seem to fall into the categories of “US client state” or “emerging competitor”.

I am sure that many defenders of Liberal Democracy would cite Realpolitik, and claim that even the most benevolent superpower would have to operate strategically in a wider context of less-than-ideal partners. Perhaps so. But there is another, equally valid way to characterise this relationship between the Liberal Democratic West and its Authoritarian partners in the East and South. This is to say that they are two sides of a single coin, or two partners in a single symbiotic relationship. Authoritarian client states clearly benefit from Western support, usually in the form of military and/or covert logistical aid (e.g. in the case of Augusto Pinochet’s regime in Chile). The same is true for non-state clients such as the Afghan Mujahideen.

Liberal Democratic states primarily benefit from these relationships by opening up new markets, although there are sometimes additional strategic benefits to maintaining such clients. Advocates for Liberal Democracy invariably spin the creation of new markets in terms of spreading “Freedom” and “Democracy”, when in reality what is being exported is Capitalism. The lack of true freedom and democracy we see in Liberal Democratic states is even more acute in these client states, where the Authoritarian regimes typically allow foreign corporations to act as they see fit, exempt from any reasonable level of regulation. This of course represents a bonanza for the companies, the most powerful of whom effectively control the deep policies of Western governments through lobbying and control of core institutions.

In short, we are told that Liberal Democracy stands in lone opposition to Authoritarianism, but in fact it is not truly liberal (in the sense of offering deep freedom) or democratic (in the sense of the people having any real voice), and it deliberately fuels Authoritarianism in order to expand the Capitalist sphere of influence. Not all Authoritarianism is the product of Capitalism run amok – far from it, and contrary to the Marxist just-so story on these matters – but I do feel that we must address this false claim of opposition between two phenomena that are in fact very closely related.

As much as we do not want to gloss over complex truths, it is often helpful to draw attention to important ideas through the use of a simple image, or shorthand. We can encapsulate this idea of a complex symbiotic relationship between the Liberal Democratic West and various forms of Authoritarianism in the East and South by thinking in terms of a puppet show. We may watch such a show and see apparent conflict between two characters, but behind the scenes there is only one motivator, one puppeteer. We should not take this image literally, and indulge in unhelpful conspiracy theories of people orchestrating worldly events from “behind the scenes”. All I am saying is that where we are told that there are two different entities with different values and motivations – First World Liberal Democracies and Second/Third World Authoritarian regimes – there is in fact only one.

The picture I have painted above hinges on close cooperation between Western governments and corporations. I and others have characterised that as a “Corporatist” relationship in the past, and the various possible meanings of that term lead to complications that we don’t have time for here. Most broadly, we can characterise a Corporatist system of governance as one in which government and business are deeply and deliberately integrated. Corporatism is at essence about gathering influence, and using every tool available to achieve that end. Government is used to further the Corporatists’ business concerns, and private businesses are conversely used as tools of government. Furthermore, just as the division between public and private is dismantled, the Corporatist quite happily uses the Authoritarian apparatus of other states to achieve their goals where necessary. There are no boundaries to the Corporatist, no sense of loyalty or identity which stops them playing the game from all sides.

  ​1.4 Ideological paradoxes inherent to Liberal Democracy

  Given that Liberal Democracy is the ideological mask of choice for our current Corporatist system, it is an interesting irony that the Right or Economic wing of the Libertarian movement opposes Corporatism as a corruption of “true” Capitalism, while at the same time we might reasonably argue Libertarianism to be the ideological vanguard of Liberal Democracy. On the outermost edge of Economic Libertarianism we find the Anarcho-Capitalists, who take the basic tenets of Economic Libertarianism to their logical conclusion, and so are instructive in making the core beliefs and trends in that movement clear. Where the Libertarians tend to argue for a bare-minimum (“Night Watchman”) state apparatus, the Anarcho-Capitalists would have no state whatsoever. Where the Libertarians claim to prioritise personal and social freedoms but tend to emphasise economic freedoms, Anarcho-Capitalists invariably claim that economic freedom is the root of all other freedoms.

  The problems with Liberal Democracy I have outlined are particularly vivid in their Libertarian incarnation. In defense of Libertarianism I would say that the core impulse of what we might call “Good Faith” Libertarians is to defend personal freedoms of all sorts, which is perfectly laudable. The problem is that of Liberal Democracy writ large; that all too often when Economic Libertarians talk of “freedom”, they at least implicitly mean the freedom of large organizations to do what they want while ordinary human citizens might be free in principle but are in fact enslaved by circumstance. The ‘circumstance’ I refer to is commonly known as Structural Violence. In other words, the freedom of companies comes at the expense of the true freedom of regular people when it is taken too far.

  Libertarianism makes the inherent paradox of Liberal Democracy clear. Liberal Democracy is in truth the ideology of late Capitalism, in which progressive ideals like freedom and democracy are perverted in service of the needs of a Corporatist Establishment. (Right-wing, Economic) Libertarian heroes such as Ayn Rand tell fables in which Übermensch-like innovators are oppressed by evil collectives, and these childish stories reflect an innate Libertarian fear and hatred of true democracy.

  Reality is never as simple as an Ayn Rand story. As I have discussed at length elsewhere, Capitalism has been a powerful force for good on a number of levels, and there are Authoritarian forces opposed to Capitalism which are even greater threats to civilization. Similarly, while it is good to recognise the problem of Corporatism and strive for true liberty, it is a particularly tragic irony when someone imagines that problem can be solved by becoming a cheerleader for the Liberal Democratic system.

  The next two installments in this series will consider alternatives to Liberal Democracy. Just as a desirable alternative would in fact be more truly democratic, it would also be more truly liberal, and worthy of those activists who seek a better paradigm rather than to be just another puppet on the strings of the current one.

  *It is important to note that where I refer to “Liberal Democracy” and particularly “Liberal Democrats” above, I am referring to the wider political system and not political parties who share that name (e.g. the UK Liberal Democrats). Such parties are, however, very much an enthusiastic part of the system I am criticising here.

  2.0 The Social Futurist Alternative

  Most broadly, Social Futurism stands for positive social change through technology; i.e. to address social justice issues in radically new ways which are only just now becoming possible thanks to technological innovation. If you would like some introduction to Social Futurist ideas, you can read the introduction page at http://socialfuturist.party. In this post I will discuss the Social Futurist alternative to Liberal Democratic and Authoritarian states, how that model fits with our views on decentralization and subsidiarity, and its relevance to the political concept of a “Third Way“.

  Part 1 of this article offered some strong but necessarily brief criticisms of Liberal Democracy, essentially saying that not only does it not deliver the promised freedom and democracy but that it and non-Western Authoritarian regimes are united in a kind of Corporatist symbiosis. The aim of this second post is to discuss a few aspects of the Social Futurist alternative that I advocate.

  2.1 The Virtual, Distributed, Parallel (VDP) State

  One of the ideas proposed in the “Social Futurist policy toolkit” is known as the VDP State. The idea is described as follows in the article linked above:

  We advocate the establishment of communities with powers of self-governance known as VDP States, where VDP stands for “Virtual, Distributed, Parallel”. ‘Virtual’ refers to online community, orthogonal to traditional geographic territories. ‘Distributed’ refers to geographic States, but ones where different parts of the community exist in different locations, as a network of enclaves. ‘Parallel’ refers to communities that exist on the established territory of a traditional State, acting as a kind of organizational counterpoint to that State’s governing bodies. Two or three of these characteristics may be found in a single VDP State, but it is expected that most such communities would emphasise one characteristic over the others. Alternatively, a VDP State may emphasise different characteristics at different stages in its development.

  Given Social Futurist emphasis on voluntarism, VDP State citizenship must be entirely voluntary. Indeed, the entire point of the VDP State is to broaden the range of governance models which people may voluntarily choose to engage with, where they are currently told that they simply have to accept a single model of governance.

  For the purposes of this article, there are three aspects of the VDP State (VDPS) idea to think about. One is the question of how a VDPS can avoid the problematic trappings of Authoritarianism, Corporatism, and Liberal Democracy. Another is the relationship between the VDPS and its citizens. Finally, we must also consider the matter of feasibility; How can such a thing seriously be established and maintained?

  Encoding Social Futurist Values into the VDPS

  Clearly, any Social Futurist state worthy of the name would have to be designed to systematically avoid the problems associated with Authoritarianism, Corporatism, and Liberal Democracy. The widely acknowledged answer to the problem of Authoritarianism is Decentralization; i.e. to design the state as a network of communities and services operating according to the principle of subsidiarity. As long as a common set of shared principles and goal states are recognised by all elements of the state, then a single authority tasked with making all executive decisions for the entire network is unnecessary, not to mention fragile, dangerous, and inefficient.

  The question of decentralization and subsidiarity is considered in more detail in the second section of this article, so now we must ask ourselves what problems Corporatism and Liberal Democracy pose which are distinct from and additional to the threat of Authoritarianism. It would appear that if the essence of Corporatism is to deliberately violate boundaries in order to accrue centralised influence, then decentralization is the answer to it, also. Beyond these forms of creeping control, the remaining problem I’ve identified with Liberal Democracy is its inability to live up to its defining claim to exemplify freedom and democracy. Direct democracy fits naturally with the idea of a decentralised network of federated communities. Cross-community referenda and citizens’ rights can be guaranteed by a single set of principles shared by all parts of the state network (formal agreement with the principles being a minimum requirement for a community to join the network). Finally, the problem of structural violence can be solved with automation in combination with Universal Basic Income, being a transition phase into full technological Post-Scarcity.

  I have tried to not only keep these proposals as simple as possible, but also to explain them in terms of traditional political ideas and themes. A key element of Social Futurism, however, is acknowledgement that we live in an era of accelerating technological development. All of the proposals offered above could in principle be encoded in the function of decentralised software and hardware tools, potentially making the “Social Contract” of a VDPS an explicit, tangible thing. The Zero State community has begun work toward implementing these ideas through the creation of a cryptographic Distributed Autonomous Community (AKA Decentralized Autonomous Community, Cooperative, or Corporation; DAC).

  The Social Futurist Citizen and their relationship to the VDPS

  It is my belief that we cannot simply focus on the nature of the VDPS and ignore any consideration of its citizens. I have established in earlier articles that the voluntary nature of VDPS citizenship and a right to “free exit” must be enshrined in the core principles of any such state if it is to comply with Social Futurist ideals. This is the foundation stone of a growing list of Social Futurist state obligations to treat citizens fairly, and of course all citizens must abide by the core principles of the state if they wish to retain that citizenship. Beyond that basic obligation, however, what qualities might we expect such people to have?

  Because Social Futurism seeks to avoid onerous restrictions upon people of the sort found (explicitly) in Authoritarianism and (implicitly in) Liberal Democracy, there can be no requirements of citizens beyond behaviour compatible with principle (and of course to comply with the law, which must itself be principle-compatible). Beyond the matter of official requirements, however, we might reasonably discuss ideals that citizens may wish to aspire to. Indeed, the very concept of the Social Futurist Citizen might be held up as just such an ideal. The Social Futurist Citizen would be a person who not only complies with principle and derived laws as a matter of course, but who also seeks to fulfill the spirit rather than simply the letter of those principles. Such a person would not only avoid crossing the bounds of unacceptable behaviour, but their example would demonstrate the true spirit of the principles to others.

  Just as we would expect a fully realised Social Futurist VDP State to employ the most effective technologies available – to integrate them into its deepest infrastructure – we should expect the same kind of commitment from the Social Futurist Citizen. Most generally we could characterise this expectation in terms of the Transhumanist idea; that we can and should improve the human condition. Given our emphasis on voluntarism and evidence, I don’t think we can say much about ways in which people may choose to become “better than well”. For now, we can leave this matter with an acknowledgement that in Social Futurism both the State and its most committed Citizens would seek to evolve into a greater fulfillment of the same principles and ideals.

  Establishing and Maintaining the VDPS

  Ideals and hypothetical evolutionary processes aside, the single most pressing question about VDP States is how to realistically establish and maintain them. Previously I have noted that this is a serious issue, and that the answer would largely depend upon the nature of any given VDP State. For example, a primarily virtual state would be the easiest to build and maintain, including questions of defense which would mostly boil down to matters of information security. A primarily virtual state would, however, be the least satisfying when it came to meeting the needs of physical communities. There are certain things that a decentralised software environment can do to empower a distributed group of people – the internet has made that quite clear – but ensuring shelter, food, hygiene, and defence are not among them.

  A primarily distributed state (i.e. a network of physically separate communities) has a different set of strengths and weaknesses, more or less the inverse of the virtual state. It can meet the physical needs of its citizens as long as supply lines and territorial integrity can be maintained, but defense is no longer merely a matter of information security, and requires serious resources. This is particularly true where such communities exist on territory claimed by another state, or where organised piracy is a serious threat.

  The strengths and weaknesses of a parallel state are a more complicated matter, depending on the nature of both the new state and its host. Both may be considered to be more or less permeable, which is to say flexible about the integrity of their borders and what they allow within them. A relationship between a parallel and traditional state may be viable as long as at least one of the two is highly permeable (or both are moderately so). For example, a strongly enforced traditional state may allow an informal intentional community to call itself a “state” on its territory, and a weak state may even be obliged to tolerate a powerful microstate within its borders. But two low-permeability states cannot peacefully coexist in the same space; a strongly enforced traditional state simply will not tolerate a powerful microstate on its territory without some special mutual agreement (such as that between Italy and the Vatican).

  Taking these factors into account, it seems clear that the most effective approach to establishing a VDP State would be to see it as a network, with different nodes within that network emphasising different characteristics. So there would ideally be a mixture of (1) highly permeable parallel state nodes in low-permeability countries, and (2) low-permeability nodes in high-permeability countries, together constituting (3) a distributed state of physical enclaves, plus (4) a network of virtual nodes providing communications support. Such a network would be resilient to local failures of supply lines or territorial integrity, and would of course be a natural fit for implementing the Social Futurist ideal of Subsidiarity.

  On the theoretic level, decentralization is required in order to pass the moral test which Authoritarianism and Liberal Democracy both fail so badly.

  2.2 Decentralization and Subsidiarity

  We can see that the Social Futurist idea is strongly interrelated with the idea of decentralization, on both theoretic and pragmatic levels. On the theoretic level, decentralization is required in order to pass the moral test which Authoritarianism and Liberal Democracy both fail so badly. On the pragmatic level, Social Futurist practice can only be implemented by establishing alternative, distributed, voluntary networks which operate outside the bounds of traditional institutions. This section will briefly explore how that could work and would affect modern society.

  I have previously considered how Socialists and Libertarians (or any traditionally incompatible pair of ideologies) could co-exist within a decentralised network of enclaves and affiliations, to the extent that they could all agree to respect a common set of principles. I believe that we can and should extend those ideas to explore the Zero State idea of cooperative networks, how they might apply to networks of physical enclaves, and also how these ideas map on to models of responsible business and innovation.

  I have previously argued that cooperative networks can accommodate disparate points of view, even apparently incompatible ideologies, by allowing different groups to govern their own affairs while remaining embedded in a wider confederation defined by a single set of unifying principles. Such principles act as the basis for cooperation across the entire network, and make a number of decentralised cooperative modes possible.

  For example, clear principles can make it instantly apparent if the behaviour of one part of the network is no longer compatible with the whole. In other words, if a group “goes rogue” and starts acting in ways that clearly contravene the wider network’s principles, then the network’s response should be dictated by those same principles. In an extreme case, clear principles make it possible for the network to develop a kind of decentralised “immune response” to deal with both external and internal threats.

  Where there isn’t good reason to do things differently, freedom of action should apply at all levels of the network where the principles are not being contravened. In other words the principles should apply to groups and organisations as much as to individuals, starting with the principle of free exit. This means that as long as any group satisfies the demands of principle then it should be able to manage its own internal affairs as its members feel is appropriate, and in turn the principle of subsidiarity is satisfied. That said, it is probably a good idea that the principles insist upon any networked group or organisation having a single self-chosen coordinator or point of contact. This is not necessarily a leader or democratic representative of any sort (Social Futurism would favour direct democracy within networked groups), but simply someone who can act as a spokesperson for the group within the wider network, and vice versa. The Social Future Institute operates exactly this kind of system, enabling various direct-democratic project groups to coordinate their efforts in line with a single set of principles, with no central controller telling everyone what to do.

  It is useful to distinguish between organizational affiliates and geographic enclaves. Both are potential nodes in a cooperative network, but like the different forms of VDP State they have different strengths and weaknesses. Networked organisations (e.g. companies, activist groups, charities) can often operate internationally, and can sometimes establish significant physical presences, but those presences will usually be subject to the authority of a State of some sort. Geographic enclaves (e.g. colonies, intentional communities) are necessarily limited to acting in one location, but their activity can encompass the entire life-experience of participants. In order to achieve a degree of resilience, networks should try to spread their bets by including nodes of various types. Beyond a certain common interest these different types of node should be expected to have different concerns and priorities, underscoring the need to devolve decision making authority to the most local level practicable in any given matter.

  2.3 The Third Way and Radical Centrism

  Given this emphasis on diversity and subsidiarity across a resilient network, it is worth considering how such a network might encourage a balance of social justice concerns, trade, and innovation. If we think of businesses or trading entities as nodes in the network, then we can easily see that their right to connect with other nodes (i.e. other companies and communities of potential clients and customers) will be predicated on compliance with the basic network principles. Companies which do not comply with the principles will not be allowed to act as part of the network, which means no engagement with any of its nodes. If any part of the network tries to circumvent the ban and trade with a company that contravenes principle, then it too would be ejected from the network. This creates incentive both to comply with the principles and to only engage with compliant nodes, as long as network membership is valuable (e.g. for allowing trade access).

  Of course, international companies have a tendency to play host countries off against each other for tax breaks and so on, and any company which wanted to trade within the network but not do so in accord with principle may well try to exert pressure on the network by taking its business elsewhere. In order to minimize this kind of risk, cooperative networks should (1) develop principles which reward responsible business and innovation, and (2) enlarge the network through growth and cooperative agreements with similar networks. The point of enlargement through cooperation or growth is to give hostile companies (or indeed any hostile entity) a smaller space of alternatives to work with. If refusing to trade with one network will come at too great an opportunity cost, then traders will think twice about doing so in an effort to avoid regulation.

  Neither Left nor Right, nor “Liberal Democratic” Centrist

  Our core concern is with balancing the engines of societal innovation (whether we’re talking about technology or businesses that develop it) with social justice. Of course, that is a concern shared with every political activist who isn’t so extreme as to believe that one thing should be pursued wholly at the expense of the other. We must understand that committed Left- and Right-Wingers invariably believe that their point of view is the best way to achieve such balance, while the “other side” has views that are inherently extremist and dangerously unbalanced. Sometimes such people will even have a point, as both the Left and Right have at least some good ideas which society ignores at its peril.

  In other words, it is sometimes the case that the Left or the Right is objectively correct on some matter, but this is simply because they’ll be advocating an idea which happens to be correct. That does not mean that every other idea advocated by the same broad coalition of people and ideologies will also be correct (or indeed appropriate for any given society). Added to this, we mustn’t forget that ideas have a way of migrating, or being advocated by different factions at different times. For example the Right has for some time been associated with prioritising economic growth over social issues, but now that so-called “Austerity” is a touchstone of the Right, the Left has moved to promote the idea of economic stimulation as an essential societal goal. Taken together, these things show that it is a mistake to focus on whether “the Left” or “the Right” is best, and better to focus on the best ideas.

  There is already a movement to advocate the best and most progressive ideas, whether they are currently “owned” by the Left or Right in any given country. That movement is as nebulous and multi-faceted as either the Left or Right, and is most commonly known as the “Third Way” or “Radical Centrism“. Personally I prefer Radical Centre over Third Way, simply because it is slightly more informative. Both labels speak to a balance between ideas from the Socialist Left and Capitalist Right, but the word “Radical” should in principle distinguish a true third alternative from the situation we have in Western governments these days, where all of the major parties blur into an indistinguishable mass of so-called Liberal Democratic centrism. As the Third Way Wikipedia page demonstrates, the mainstream paradigm of centrism is that of Tony Blair, David Cameron, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, even George Bush Jr. It isn’t a dynamic exploration of the best ideas for society so much as stagnation and entrenchment of a dysfunctional Capitalism and professional political class.

  Part 1 of this article flatly rejects the current global political-economic system, which is said by definition to be better than any other possible system, despite the evidence in front of our very eyes. I would prefer to see a system that more truly promotes social freedoms and citizen engagement in decision-making processes. I believe that a true Radical Centrism would indeed be Radical, and make a break with the historical dysfunctions of Liberal Democracy. In their place, a true Radical Centrism would attempt to build a better system from the ground up, drawing on the best ideas of both the Left and Right, and transcending the flaws of both.

  I have already written an article which identifies some of those ideas (“Social Futurist revolution & toolkit”), and so will not dwell on them here. Instead, I will simply note that I believe Social Futurism to be a Radical Centrist position in the true sense. It is not the only possible true Radical Centrism of course, but it is the one I advocate, because it represents a mix of ideas that I personally support. I will discuss Social Futurism at some greater length in the next part of this series, but for now I would like to close by looking at an example of how a true Radical Centrism could integrate ideas from across the political spectrum and develop them into something truly innovative rather than the insipid balancing act which typically plays out in Western governments.

  Growth and the Marius Principle

  A core belief of Market Liberalism which has all but become a defining feature of Western civilization is the idea that the economy must constantly grow. Aside from the degree to which this is a matter of ideology for some, there would certainly be serious consequences if our economies stopped growing for too long while our central institutions are utterly dependent on credit. In addition to this problem, we have become addicted to a kind of false growth, largely based on financial speculation and debt. The financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent Great Recession made it abundantly clear that when a major institution is found to be insolvent, the consequences have the potential to wipe out large swathes of the banking system upon which society has become utterly dependent. In short, debt pushes us into a need for growth, and false growth based on debt breeds cumulative risk.

  We cannot simply abandon the idea of growth unless we wish to court disaster, but we can try to seek healthier forms of growth, and to reduce the fragilities in our society that make any temporary lack of growth so dangerous. As to the question of reducing fiscal fragility, we could accept the Right’s call for fiscally responsible government, but at the same time we would need to reign in companies which create systemic financial risk – and certainly not bail them out when they fall into difficulties of their own creation. So far, this is a classic centrist position, if leaning a little toward Economic Liberalism and Libertarianism, but it is not particularly radical. The Social Futurist policy toolkit includes advocacy of Full Reserve Banking and other more radical ideas, but another truly radical thing would be to attempt solving the other half of the equation: To address the question of acceptable growth.

  The idea of putting constraints of what kinds of growth are acceptable (i.e. prioritising social concerns over free trade) certainly looks like Left Wing policy, while the idea of prioritising economic growth at all costs comes from the Right. The issue gets considerably muddier when we introduce what we might call the Marius Principle. This is the idea that true growth, or healthy growth, can only be based upon resources that are either being created or made accessible to the system for the first time. Simply rearranging resources that are already available and not adding any significant functionality is not true growth, but merely speculation. In this model “fiat” money is not a true resource, as nothing is actually being created beyond an agreement to transfer potential control over extant resources. Invention is one way of driving true growth, as increased value correlates with an actual increase in the ability to do things which previously could not be done. In the old days communities would “make new resources available to the system” by invading their neighbours and stealing resources, or exploring new lands. I do not advocate the former, but the latter is an option in the form of space-based industries such as solar power production and off-world mining. Yes, it is easier in the short term to simply speculate and trade in debt than it is to open up new frontiers, but we as a civilization will pay dearly if we cannot grow out of this infantile phase and learn to look outward.

  ​I call this the Marius Principle after the Roman general and statesman Gaius Marius, who reformed the Roman army by introducing the recruitment of landless citizens. These new soldiers were invariably poor, and they had to be paid in some fashion, so Marius promised them a share of land from any territory conquered under his command. In essence there was a need for resources to meet an obligation (to the soldiers), and Marius determined that the soldiers should therefore be directly motivated to secure those resources. In a single move this vastly increased the size of the Roman army, increased soldiers’ motivation and loyalty, and increased the reach of Rome. If we look past the military context of Marius’ situation to see his deeper strategy, we see that it can be applied to today’s economy: Give private enterprise serious incentive to innovate and explore (while disincentivizing speculative and parasitic behaviours), and you will get more innovators and explorers, with greatly enhanced motivation, and true growth for the entirety of society will be made possible. Of course, such a program is truly radical, and would require us to step outside the limited thinking that characterises current parliamentary centrism.

  In summary, part 1 of this article criticised the current centrist paradigm of Liberal Democracy. In part two I began by discussing the idea of VDP (Virtual, Distributed, Parallel) States offering a Social Futurist alternative to Liberal Democracy. Such States would essentially stand outside the current system and be characterised by a direct democratic network structure. I discussed the role of principles, citizenship, and pragmatic concerns in creating such an alternative societal model. From there I addressed the importance of decentralization and subsidiarity, before moving on to consider how ideas from across the political spectrum might be balanced and incorporated in such a system. Finally I argued that Social Futurism is a truly Radical Centrist or Third Way ideology, and gave an example of the kind of policy we might expect from that ideology. In part 3 I will examine ways in which we might expect Social Futurism to relate to Techno-Progressivism, Natural Law, Resource Economies, The Zeitgeist Movement, and Socialism.

  3.0 Social Futurism & Related Concepts

  The first two articles in this series criticised the dominant political paradigm of the Western world (Liberal Democracy) and briefly outlined the beginnings of an alternative called Social Futurism (SF). The aim of this final article is to begin exploring relationships between the core SF idea and a few relevant concepts.

  3.1 Social Futurism, Techno-Progressivism, & Socialism

  As things currently stand, Social Futurism is essentially a synonym for Techno-Progressivism, but that may change as both positions develop over time. The picture is further complicated by the fact that different theorists will inevitably favour different interpretations of these schools of thought, and some combinations of those interpretations will be more compatible than others. For now, it is perhaps most helpful to identify their core commonalities. I have claimed that Social Futurism is essentially an integration of social justice and technological concerns. Similarly, Techno-Progressivism stands broadly for progressive social change (the Wikipedia page mentions “the achievement of better democracy, greater fairness, less violence, and a wider rights culture”) but also insists that progressivism must complement and be applied to technological developments. Again, we may refer to the summary on the Techno-Progressivism Wikipedia page:

  Strong techno-progressive positions include support for the civil right of a person to either maintain or modify his or her own mind and body, on his or her own terms, through informed, consensual recourse to, or refusal of, available therapeutic or enabling biomedical technology.

Of course, any view which sees questions of personal rights and techno-social change as being interrelated is going to be relevant to Futurist schools of thought such as Transhumanism and Singularitarianism. There are some minor complications there (with certain Transhumanists disliking Techno-Progressivism, and vice versa), but for the most part these are broadly like-minded streams of thought. In addition to emphasis on social justice and technology, Social Futurism and Techno-Progressivism share an opposition to Bio-Conservatism. In fact they are arguably defined by opposition to that viewpoint, which holds that society should be particularly hesitant to adopt new technologies, especially when those technologies may alter the traditional human condition or social order. In other words, Bio-Conservatives oppose new technologies because they upset the status quo. Finally, Social Futurism and Techno-Progressivism both champion ethical technological developments, but simultaneously oppose unethical and dangerous applications of technology. That willingness to assess the relative risk and benefit of any given technology could in principle lead to agreement between Techno-Progressives and Bio-Conservatives on specific issues.

  The four core commonalities described above (emphasis on [1] social justice and [2] technology, opposition to [3] Bio-Conservatism and [4] dangerous or unethical practices) make it clear why it is reasonable to consider Social Futurism a synonym for Techno-Progressivism. Indeed, that would be a truism if we could not identify any meaningful differences between the two schools of thought. In looking for such a potential difference, we might reasonably start by examining the term “Social”. That label implies some connection between Social Futurism and Socialist thought, even if that connection is not prescriptive or even necessarily intended. We need to consider the historical relationship between Socialism and Progressivism, and any continuing influence it may have on the relationships between Socialism, Social Futurism, and Techno-Progressivism.

  Socialism itself is a complex of ideas, methods, and attitudes. It is far from a monolithic ideology, despite what some people believe. Traditionally those who favoured open interpretations of Socialism’s goals and approaching them via the methods of parliamentary democracy have been called Social Democrats. Social Democracy has a lot in common with the Labour Movement and a number of threads within historical Progressivism. Marxists (by which I include Marxist-Leninists and other forms of Communist), on the other hand, take a narrower view of what counts as Socialism, saying that unless a society’s means of production are owned by the workers instead of a class of Capitalist investors then a system cannot be considered Socialist. Of course there are all sorts of shades and nuances of belief to be found here, but the key point is that Marxist beliefs hinge upon a concise core definition of Socialism, and Marxists reject all other interpretations as “Populist Socialism”. This is important to note, because Populist Socialism is often taken to imply or even be an outright synonym for Fascism, for both valid historical and less valid propagandistic reasons.

  There is much to commend a concise, consistent definition of the core principle at the heart of a movement. If nothing else, it makes it clear what the movement stands for, and helps protect against “mission drift” or even outright hijacking by entryists. Social Futurism (henceforth SF) would benefit from having an easily identifiable core principle rather than a nebulous collection of values and commitments. Whatever candidates might emerge for that principle, however, it seems safe to say that it cannot be the Marxist principle of worker ownership which stands at the centre of Communism. The reason for this is that both Techno-Progressivism and Social Futurism as they currently stand are advocated by a broad range of pro-technology social activists, many of whom oppose the dysfunctions of Capitalism but only a small proportion of whom would actually support its total abolition. In short, SF is potentially compatible with Marxist ideas in the broadest sense, but there is no a priori reason to allow it to be limited by Marxist sensibilities and indeed alienate many SF advocates in the process. This logic applies to both Social Futurism and Techno-Progressivism as they currently exist, and so could be counted as another reason to consider the two terms synonymous.

  Having established that position – that SF is concerned with techno-social progress and social justice but not limited by Marxist definitions – a certain situation seems to be inevitable. This is that, from a doctrinaire Marxist perspective, SF falls into the category of Populist Socialism. Marx himself would probably have categorised it as “Utopian Socialism” (a term he used to distinguish the views of earlier Socialists from his own perspective). Given the close connection between SF and other Futurist lines of thought, I believe that SF advocates should be encouraged to feel comfortable with their characterization as Utopian Socialists, despite the fact that the label is clearly intended as a slur. Similarly I would be dismissive of Marxist claims that SF is merely “Populism”, especially when those claims are delivered in an emotive fashion or without constructive thought on where points of agreement might be found.

  Any unsubstantiated or implied association with Fascism is to my mind an example of authoritarian bullying to accept Marxist doctrine or else, and in my opinion opposition to such authoritarianism must be a critical component of a mature SF. To be constructive and conciliatory, however, I will once again stress that I think SF needs a core principle which will cement its commitment to meaningful change toward deep social justice, and if that principle is not Marxist then we must make it clear (1) why that principle is of greater net value than the Marxist one, and (2) how Marxists can approach their own beliefs and goals if they wish to cooperate with SF advocates. Discussion of candidate principles and the issues mentioned above is a huge topic, beyond the scope of the current article. Having marked that topic for future consideration, we can now turn our attention to a different, but related matter.

  3.2 Internationalism, Nationalism, and the European Question

  An ideological commitment common across different forms of Socialism is the idea of Internationalism. Internationalism asserts that common causes which unite people across borders (such as social issues) are more important than the concerns of any given nation, and/or that the deepest concerns of individual nations are in fact best served through international cooperation rather than isolation or competition. Radical forms of Internationalism propose that all people should be able to freely move across borders as they see fit, or indeed that nations should cease to exist.

  There are good arguments to be made for these views, as long as they do not come bundled with authoritarianism, and therein lies the rub. There is of course a common right-wing conspiracy theory interpretation of Internationalism which depicts a drive for authoritarian “one-world government”, and it does reflect a true correlation between support for Socialism and Internationalism. We need to ask ourselves if there isn’t a valid question to ask here, buried somewhere under the distraction of conspiracy theory, and whether anything about the inherent logic of SF speaks to the issue of Internationalism. Firstly, given the connections between Socialist and Internationalist attitudes on the one hand and Socialism and SF on the other, it shouldn’t be surprising that a number of SF advocates are also ardent Internationalists. So the question that follows is not whether some current Social Futurists & Techno-Progressives are Internationalists, but whether they must be. Whether or not there is an inherent ideological connection between Internationalism and SF.

  I believe that not only is there no such explicit ideological connection as things currently stand, but that there cannot be. The reason for this is that even though one or more schools of thought grouped under the SF labels could in theory declare a strict adherence to Internationalism, it would have to do so at the expense of certain personal freedoms which are already central tenets of Social Futurism. In other words, up until this point SF has gone to great lengths to emphasise a priority on personal freedoms insofar as those freedoms are not being used (whether deliberately or accidentally) to reduce the freedoms of others. Insofar as SF might be considered Socialist, that would have to be an anti-authoritarian or even Left-Libertarian form of Socialism. Internationalism is often cast in terms of personal freedom (e.g. to cross borders unhindered), but Leftists sometimes forget that true freedom worthy of the name also includes the freedom to maintain one’s own community of choice, as long as that community doesn���t harm others by its existence. This is the Left-Libertarian idea writ large, enacted on the scale of communities rather than individuals.

  This is an awkward issue, because the very assertion that anyone should enjoy freedom to determine the form of their own community (including laws, traditions etc) is the hallmark of a modest form of Nationalism, which is invariably taken to be the antithesis of Internationalism. I say “modest” because extreme Nationalism which advocates expansion of one community’s influence at the expense of others’ is in fact Imperialism, and not defensible in terms of a freedom to determine one’s own community. Again, hardline Internationalist Marxists (e.g. Trotskyites) would often be quick to denounce freedom to determine one’s own community as the seed of Fascism. My own point of view is that although any given SF advocate may not feel any kind of Nationalist inclinations themselves, they must allow for freedom of community if SF is to have any plausible claim to being non- or even anti-authoritarian. Of course, any kind of community supported by SF advocates would have to avoid authoritarian and imperialist tendencies in itself, and there is no reason whatsoever why many small communities of choice cannot exist together in a wider cooperative network, enjoying mutual respect and support.

  In this way, we can see that Nationalist and Internationalist ideas need not necessarily oppose so much as complement each other, if approached from a constructive point of view. SF cannot oppose the freedom to determine one’s own community and remain true to its own anti-authoritarianism, but it can insist that any Nationalist impulse be tempered and complemented by Internationalist cooperation between networked communities. We might illustrate this idea by making a comparison between a nation-state and a family’s home. No-one should have the right to simply invade that family’s home and take it for their own as long as the family are not harming anyone by insisting on their own private space. At the same time however, that family should enjoy the benefits of connection to and support from the wider community as long as they in turn do their part to support the wider community they are a part of.

  In order to ground these considerations in the real world, to see what their implications are, I would like to very briefly consider the question of Europe. After all, Europe should be particularly sensitive to SF sensibilities (given its technological and political history), and it is a continent currently thinking hard about the relationships between its constituent nations. I believe that the argument above should lead Social Futurists and Techno-Progressives to advocate further evolution toward a Federal Europe which respects the continued existence of constituent nation-states but emphasises cooperative integration between those states. One might argue that we are already on track to such a thing existing, but that it is simultaneously anathema to both strident Nationalists and Internationalists for different reasons. From the perspective I’ve described it is most interesting to ignore such criticisms for the moment, and instead look closer at the details of how cooperation could work at the different scales of a thoroughly reformed EU.

  Holarchy

  I would like to briefly glance at how things might work on three scales; that of continent-sized federations, of nation-states within the EU, and of communities within any given European nation-state. The key theme here is the idea that the same principles apply across all scales, like a kind of Holarchic system.

  Federal Unions

  To start with, we already live in a world of major blocs which balance prioritization of their own goals with the demands of interdependence. It is quite clear that there are advantages available to states than can assemble into larger meta-states for the purpose of negotiating relationships with other large powers. No-one would expect an independent Oklahoma or Florida (or even California or New York) to have the same international leverage that those states enjoy as part of the larger United States of America, and the same is true for any state within the EU, Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China (admittedly an authoritarian bloc, rather than a federation), or less traditional agglomerations such as NATO, OPEC, or BRIC. So we live in a world of cooperating entities at the largest scale and will continue to do so – that’s simply a fact of life – even if that cooperation is unfortunately not always as peaceful or constructive as we might hope for. The only real question is what kind of meta-state we would advocate; i.e. how it should operate internally, on the level of constituent states and the smaller communities they are composed of in turn.

  States and Nations

  That, of course, is the tricky question. The most ardent Internationalists do not believe that people should have to tolerate any national borders whatsoever, and I will consider that issue further in the context of The Zeitgeist Movement, in the next section. On the other hand, Nationalists across Europe are currently using the ongoing economic crisis to clamour for greater dis-integration of the European Union, and the reclamation of greater national independence. In my opinion the European Union has been characterised by an unfortunate degree of centralised political control from Brussels in combination with too little economic uniformity, but total dissolution of the Union would be a disaster for its constituent nation-states.

I do not believe that we face a simple, stark choice between no EU at all, and a centralised authoritarian one. After all, few would take the idea seriously that the USA is inevitably and inherently authoritarian and so must be entirely dismantled rather than working toward a sensible balance of rights and responsibilities! So, our question is what kind of European Union (or indeed USA, or Russian Federation, African or South American or Chinese Federal Republic) Social Futurists and Techno-Progressives should advocate. I feel that the EU should evolve toward a state of fully common economic and military policy, but with a written constitution guaranteeing strongly devolved political decision making in all other areas. No solution to the European question will satisfy everyone and the road to any solution will be rocky, but this approach would maximise stability and external influence while preserving as much freedom of self-determination as possible, in exactly the manner I argue should be the hallmark of a SF/TP approach to such questions.

  Local Communities of Choice

  This is the part where things get really interesting. Many people will develop their views on Nationalism and Internationalism with an eye on one particular scale within this scheme, but not apply the same view equally at all other scales. For example, Nationalists will frequently argue the right of self-determination for their nation but then not afford the same right by the same logic to smaller communities within that nation. SF/TP is a political philosophy in its infancy, and so it still has the opportunity to develop in a rational, consistent manner when confronting issues such as this. In order to be consistent, we clearly must approach the issue of sub-national communities in exactly the same fashion we consider states and federations.

In other words, small communities of choice must have the freedom to manage their own internal affairs to the extent that they do not harm others, but at the same time they should be encouraged to see themselves as part of the wider milieu and ready to support other communities in the network. In terms of my proposition for Europe, that would mean that the Federal government coordinates economic and military matters across the continent, while state governments develop all other policy as it applies to local communities, but then local communities have the right and responsibility to interpret and apply those policies – and develop new policies – as they see fit and in accord with the European Constitution. According to the principle of subsidiarity, in this scheme local communities would be able to manage their own affairs while embedded in a much larger network of mutually supportive communities with common macroeconomic and military policy.

  3.3 Natural Law / Resource Economies, & The Zeitgeist Movement

  The previous sections explored the relationships between Social Futurism and Techno-Progressivism, between both the SF/TP philosophies together and various forms of Socialism, and between a hypothetical Socialist-Internationalist interpretation of SF/TP and acceptable forms of Nationalism demanded by our commitment to personal rights and freedoms. Finally, I would like to turn to ideas promoted by The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) which represent a continuation of the historical current that gave rise to Socialism and Internationalism, and which now have much in common with the views of SF/TP advocates and other Futurists. I hope that by applying Social Futurist views to TZM ideas we may learn more about both in the process.

  TZM describes itself as:

“A global sustainability advocacy organization that conducts community based activism and awareness actions through a network of global and regional chapters, project teams, annual events, educational media and charity work.”

Its core idea is that planetary resources are managed inefficiently and unethically by the Capitalist system, and that a Natural Law / Resource Based Economy (NL/RBE) could help to realise Post-Scarcity without introducing authoritarian, centralised control of any sort. Of course that’s a tall order, and to be fair TZM members seldom claim to have all the answers. Instead they seek widespread recognition that the current system simply isn’t working (hence the TZM motto “Realizing a New Train of Thought”), and emphasise that their solutions would not be doctrinaire but rather driven by the scientific method applied to humanitarian ideals.

Very broadly speaking, this is of course the raison d’être of Social Futurism, and I have said elsewhere that I believe TZM to be an intrinsically Social Futurist organization. Of course as I have mentioned different theorists will emphasise different aspects of their chosen ideologies so two representatives of even very similar philosophies may express themselves very differently, but the main thing is that at its heart TZM ideology is about a combination of social justice values and the promise of science. The potential value in this observation is that it doesn’t only apply to TZM. The same could be said of many different organizations and movements, which clearly opens the way to cooperation between them toward common goals. Often the primary barrier to cooperation is a simple lack of recognition that two groups want the same thing, and the idea that many different groups may for all their differences belong to one Social Futurist category could help bring that recognition about.

  TZM activists have committed considerable time and energy to clarifying similarities and differences between their own views and those expressed by earlier movements such as Technocracy and Marxism. Inevitably, these distinctions have earned the movement partisan labelling as Populist Socialism and worse, but the movement’s consistent emphasis on broad core values has helped to retain the sympathies of many Socialists and Futurists. Given that I’ve already asserted the TZM worldview to be inherently Social Futurist, the following points should really just be taken as exploratory diversions which Social Futurists of different persuasions may find interesting. Although a self-identifying Social Futurist or Techno-Progressive may not agree with any given TZM view below or my brief analysis of it, I would ask that readers try to see past such superficial differences of opinion and recognise a common philosophy which unites a disparate community of activists.

  Natural Law / Resource Based Economy?

  Not the most elegant term in the world, I grant you. But it’s content that counts, and in this case the content is a vision (courtesy of the Venus Project and before them the Technocracy movement) of a world in which there is an accurate public map of all available resources, their efficient distribution and use is maximised through science and technology, the Open Source era idea of common access replaces the Communist notion of common ownership, artificial scarcity and money are abolished, and everything is decentralised as much as possible.

  I haven’t actually been able to determine the origin of TZM’s use of the phrase “Natural Law Economy”, but assuming the traditional meaning of “natural law” I would take this to mean an economy which takes the laws of nature for its structure, moving to meet demand wherever it exists etc. I have serious reservations about that term and its implications, which I may detail at a later date, but they do not detract from the general soundness of the idea of managing resources intelligently. There are a lot of questions we could ask about how this is supposed to work, and we don’t have time for them here, but TZM activists have expressed various opinions with different degrees and types of merit. Most importantly in my opinion, we should note that the movement emphasises a change in train of thought or narrative; i.e. that the point is to get people asking the right questions rather than providing just so answers.

  ​Tell me how this isn’t Totalitarianism again, please?

  I must admit that my primary initial reservation about TZM was that I couldn’t see how such a vision could be achieved without magic or centralised control. This turns out to be an area where TZM does not have all the answers, but it does have an appropriate response, in two parts. First and most importantly, we are told that the movement explicitly opposes the idea of centralised control of resources (as we saw under the Communists in the USSR and PRC). Secondly, we are reminded that TZM’s goal as an organization is to encourage a shift in perspective or values which sets these outcomes up as widely understood societal goals. What it doesn’t do is lay out an exhaustive set of steps for achieving those goals, which is the part where all safeguards against Totalitarianism have to be developed, along with all of the other tools required to get from here to there. If you want to help ensure that the outcome is as anti-authoritarian as TZM activists hope for, then it is more helpful to offer constructive suggestions and make it so than sling baseless claims of authoritarianism.

  In short, the most articulate TZM advocates have been consistent in saying that they oppose authoritarianism, that reducing elite control over artificial scarcity goes some way toward reducing other forms of control, and that everyone is encouraged to work toward solutions to these problems. For my part, I have simply asserted that I will only ever involve myself with groups or movements that have anti-authoritarian principles like free exit at their heart – participation in such systems must be strictly voluntary – and would strongly encourage others to take the same stance.

  If I had the space to elaborate here, I would also detail my belief that Totalitarianism would be required to stop all forms of emergent trade, and so markets in artificial scarcities would have to be tolerated in an ethical RBE society, within certain parameters. A successful RBE would be one which rendered all truly important goods, services, and resources non-scarce, and in that world it wouldn’t matter if there were fleeting markets in artificially scarce trivialities, especially if the alternative is authoritarian control. But that is a topic that will need to be fully discussed another day.

  What about technological unemployment? Do robots have rights in a NL/RBE?

  Technological unemployment is certainly a key issue in TZM circles, and feelings seem to be mixed since the human cost of unemployment is currently a serious problem, but TZM hopes to see technology used to circumvent mandatory employment in the long run so… it’s complicated. Which is more or less the opinion I’ve encountered amongst Futurists, too. I’ve been asked quite a few questions along these lines, because I move in Futurist circles where the ideas of AI and artificial sentience are taken seriously. The simple answer is that TZM has not worked the answers to such questions out any more than the Futurist community have, so the Futurist community and SF/TP advocates have the opportunity to steer TZM thinking as it develops to fully account for radical technological change.

  A final note on events and some conclusions

  Over the years I’ve been to a number of meetings involving Futurists, TZMers and like-minded others, and one recurring thought throughout these meetings was that many of these people are working their way toward a common vision, and that the common vision is of humanitarian ideals approached through the medium of radical technological solutions. I have come to characterise that vision as Social Futurism, and explained why I believe Social Futurism to currently be synonymous with Techno-Progressivism. Not only that, but I believe that Social Futurism is a simple set of values and principles which underlies the efforts and aspirations of many different groups, whether they know it or not. That’s a good thing, because it encourages cooperation between organizations and movements which might not have seen themselves as like-minded or sharing common goals before.

  This article started out by casting a critical eye over Liberal Democracy; the ideology with a friendly-sounding name that has some far from friendly effects around the world. From there it went on to introduce the idea of Social Futurism, and now finally we have looked at some of the similarities and differences between Social Futurism and a few other points of view.

  What happens next, I leave as a question for you.

Liberal Democracy, the Third Way, & Social Futurism was originally published on transhumanity.net

#Authoritarianism #Capitalism #Economics #Ideology #Liberal Democracy #philosophy #politics #Social Futurism #Socialism #technology #crosspost #transhuman #transhumanitynet #transhumanism #transhumanist #thetranshumanity

[beca]

Two weeks ago, I celebrated one whole year in that little Southwest Atlanta house I own. Since moving in, I cycled through one roommate and recently acquired a new one (Rebekah, who is the best and also took this insane picture, during which Moose inserted his overgrown toenail claws between two rib bones of hers. She swears she wasn’t angry about it, saying she grew up with cats and is used to their fits of random violence. Did I mention she’s the best). Speaking of, I also welcomed Moose into my heart and home, as well as Kevin’s (the two give each other showers when not participating in relay races). It’s been a doozy but I love it. Building a home — piece by piece, check by check, YouTube tutorial by YouTube tutorial — has been immensely rewarding, made all the more so because of the early naysayers. 

Although extremely frustrating and upsetting at the time, last summer I didn’t realize but I was naturally whittling down my inner circle. A number of close friends urged me to consider purchasing a condo instead of a house — smaller, more manageable for just one person. It’s true I’m one of few people I know who entered the ranks of homeownership as a single person, but I don’t see how that matters. I take pride in solving problems, maintaining, cleaning, personalizing. And since I do so without having to consider the 50 percent weigh-in of a partner, that means it’s totally mine. How is that a bad thing?

Regardless, I do get a lot of help from my family and a tighter-knit network of friends, sans judgement. It’s been a tough pill to swallow — letting go of some of these other friendships, through homeownership resistance and other instances lacking mutual support — but that seems to be the pattern of growing up. We have less spare time, energy, resources to support a rambling, widespread quilt of acquaintances so we home in on those rooted in healthy symbiosis. The drifting doesn’t have to be malicious (I hope not, at least), it’s just natural as growth corkscrews in different, often deviating directions.

Another new direction, too: I recently returned to full-time freelancing. I really enjoyed my time at the agency, learning the ropes of marketing and associated copywriting. However, when a part-time opportunity literally fell into my lap with NYLON, I felt like I couldn’t pass. Add on top of that a number of editors I admire from publications I grew up adoring reaching out to me, and... well, how could I not? I worried if I kept ignoring the phone, eventually it would stop ringing. Currently I have a low mortgage, good health, no children, no partner who needs financial support (lucky this dude seems to have everything handled himself), no pressing debt, etc. — now is the time, etc.

I’m finally getting healthy, as well. I wish I looked into it earlier, but after a year and a half of therapy, I visited a psychiatrist to explore medicinal options. I learned I have a major anxiety disorder, which I’m sure any ex-boyfriend could have probably told you before. A doctor prescribed me a moderate dose of Lexapro to try, in addition to other holistic measures like keeping up with therapy, exercise, sleep, and so on. Even just a little introspection has helped me realize a number of unhealthy ways I coped with the anxiety before I understood what it was, namely imbibing in alcohol past the point of control. Though I’m leaps and bounds from the multiple weekly blackouts of when I was living in Brooklyn (and waking up in strange places, next to strange men. It’s truly amazing I survived all that), I still have occasional slips and lose entire days thanks to panic attacks taking full control. I’ve thought I was getting better or cutting back — THIS TIME FOR REAL — before, but this time really DOES feel for real. Starting medication and self-analysis is helping me gain monumental control compared to where I was even a month ago. So that is good.

I feel like my life is aligning somewhat with the calendar’s seasons. It’s late summer; still hot but the raucous fun is starting to thin as nights grow cooler and ads for back-to-school supplies stuff our mailboxes. It’s a period of reflection, which can be hard but ultimately cannot be skipped. Such Q&A within your own brain and heart is paramount to building the foundation for a successful year, which always seems to start in August, according to my subconscious.

Anyway! Here’s some stuff I published recently I’m pretty proud of:

Bon Appétit: Everything About Rap Snacks is Amazing GQ: What is a Recovering Fuckboy and Do You Know One? Rolling Stone: ‘A Piece of Work’: Inside Abbi Jacobson’s New Art Podcast NPR Music: Songs We Love: BOSCO’s ‘Adrenaline’ 

Oh! And in March of this year, I started dating a man I’ve known and considered a best friend since I was 15 and we had newspaper class together. I totally love him and he helps keep me grounded while also challenging me on the regular. Among various said challenges, he’s helping me learn piano. We jam out every so often, sipping the delicious Old Fashioneds he makes — or seltzer. He’s also making me watch Game of Thrones and weirdly I don’t hate it. Who am I??

Here’s a track to leave y’all. I hope to start more regularly blogging again. To keep myself accountable, and for whoever wants to follow along. Maybe no one — and TBH, that’s fine, too.

#musings #kevin

[whiteclericmaris]

Arc V

what character caught your eye when you first watched: Yuya of course (The protagonist[s] is usually what catches my attention in any show and determines if I either continue or quit it)your first favourite character: Well at the beginning I found Yuya a bit annoying before later episodes appeared (and I rewatched them from start to what was updated to understand what was going on). It was Yuto that kept me (even with what happens to him at the end *sighs* I grew attached but not enough to be pissed at the show for what happened in that last episode. Spoiler: There was really no hint of Yuto somehow getting his own body [even in the episode of the Serena and Ruri tag dueling episode he had to use Yuya’s body and prior to that his duel with Edo.]what is your favourite character now: Yuya (so much character development and very relatable protagonist)describe why you love your favourite character: Circus-themed deck, wants to help anyone he meets, very expressive facial feature and cries, shown from the start learning the new rules of the duel world with his own summoning method. Yep, I love the character development.what is some development that you wish they had implemented on the show  (  keep it positive  ): This is not to sound mean but I found that while it had inconsistent pacing and that some things were random that throughout it all the show is very consistent. One of the main arguments in this fandom is background but if what happened in the ending was the goal then I can live without it. I think another main one that is argued is development for the supporting characters (but I found the show to be more about symbolism and character driven with their actions more so than just stop and give me certain knowledge on this character, like this show tried with all of their characters and I feel they did enough with what they gave us. You can literally be in any episode and unlike the previous Yu-Gi-Oh! shows you literally already feel like a part of the show just because the characters explain what is going on and the situation at hand each episode and they do so naturally. One thing I know people complained about was Reiji questioning Zarc but... Reiji does not know what Zarc is only Leo knows Dragon=Zarc until Zarc himself explains who he is.) a ship that never got together but shipped: Do you mean all my ships? I usually do not watch a show for ships to begin with and when I start shipping something I make sure to non-canon AU it because I do not want to make a head cannon and then get squandered by canon. No! I want to differentiate between canon and fanon so I try to be creative with ships on the fanon side of things while still maintaining canon info separate. (The only exception that can be argued is Appleshipping)a ship that did get together and wanted it to be endgame: Well... I don’t think any ship became canon in this series. Fruitshipping is the popular one and can be argued but I honestly just see them as platonic friends. I just don’t like it romantically because then it turns what I watched into a war story where the ‘hero’ goes to save his ‘partner’ and that female was used for his development and I just feel that I would rather have that story in a different medium than a show aimed to young children about card games. You can see the symbiosis from the start of the show but I don’t like it as romantically just for this reason. I would rather keep the platonic friendship also because of what happens to the other counterparts (2 out of 4 were aiming for their girls and just no, don’t make it a love story with all of them. I don’t need to suffer more angst from the fruitshipping duo that constantly cry for each other in the show until the end.)what is your favourite season: Hmmmm... I love all of Arc-V but it’s a tie between the 1st and Synchro Arc. Synchro Arc has a lot of character development for characters but the first season has the most uplifting duels (until the end of it at least). what is your favourite episode: 108 (My OTP’s tag dueling episode But the freaking change that happens by the end of the episode. Sorry but that scenery is an aesthetic for me.)talk about an episode that was significant for a favourite character: Hmmmm... I haven’t watched it in a while but it would have to be Yuya’s rematch duel with Jack. Yuya was shown to have lost to him earlier so seeing him climb back up to face him and wow by the end of that duel is there a shift in Yuya’s attitude. what is one of your favourite headcanons about one of the characters, it can be canon or fanon: Well I headcanon Reiji as an asexual just because of his behavior to the other characters (although he is the ‘Leader’ of the troops).if your favourite character could crossover into another fandom, what would that fandom be: Have I told you about Kaleido Star? I am sure Yuya would get along with Sora just fine.if any character could date someone from another fandom, who would your otp be: ???? Uhm..... I don’t usually crossover ships so this is hard. Yeah I’ll just leave it blank.

Thanks for the ask!

[technicaldr]

The World’s Most Famous Real-Life Cyborgs

Tiptoeing around humans with machine parts

People imagine cyborgs usually as mean creatures combining some human and superhuman features in a robotic body. Movie characters such as the Terminator, Darth Vader or the Borgs in Star Trek come to mind. But you do not have to go as far as Star Wars to get in contact with cyborg-like features or characteristics. According to the usual definition, a cyborg combines organic and mechanic body parts. Yet, some scientists stretch this understanding. They include people with cochlear implants, cardiac pacemakers or even contact lenses. In a way, it is valid: the human body is augmented with technology, and the two works together to improve human capabilities.

 As technological innovations in the field of medicine and healthcare multiply day by day, it will be more and more usual to augment our bodies with the help of machines. It makes us faster, stronger or more sensitive to the environment. This means that the boundaries of “human-ness” are stretched raising serious ethical questions. Here, I introduce you real-life cyborgs, who show us the current boundaries of the coexistence of man and machine in one person. And they might also mark the way how to find a balance between the two.

1) Neil Harbisson

With an antenna implanted into his head, he looks like a giant ant led from behind by a piece of bread on a stick. Coupled with his light mop haircut he looks like the main character would in a Wes Anderson sci-fi if he ever directed one. Harbisson is actually an artist born with achromatopsia or extreme colorblindness meaning he could only see in black-and-white. At first, he received his specialized electronic eye, his “eyeborg” to be able to render perceived colors as sounds on the musical scale. He is capable of experiencing colors beyond the scope of normal human perception: Amy Winehouse is red and pink, while ringtones are green.

Harbisson has been living as a cyborg for more than 10 years already. He believes that humans have a duty to use technology to transcend themselves and that it will happen in the future. It will start with a third eye on the back of the head or an implanted sensor indicating whether there is a car behind you.

2) Dr. Kevin Warwick

He has been known as “Captain Cyborg” and teaches at the University of Reading as a cybernetics professor. Warwick has experimented with different electronic implants since 1998 such as installing a microchip in his arm which lets him operate lights, heaters or computers remotely. As dedicated as he is, Warwick also gave an implant to his wife, so that when someone grasped her hand the man was able to experience the same sensation in his. It is jaw-dropping and awkwardly scary at the same time.

He is the founder of Project Cyborg using himself as the guinea pig on a mission to become the world’s most complete cyborg. Beyond his work on himself, he is involved in AI research. He faced serious criticism in 2014 over claims that the “supercomputer” called Eugene Goostman passed the “milestone” Turing-test for Artificial Intelligence.

3) Jesse Sullivan

Sullivan worked as an electrical linesman when in May 2001, he suffered a life-threatening accident: he was electrocuted so severely that both of his arms needed to be amputated. This, however, led to him to become the world’s first “Bionic Man”. The Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago offered him to replace his arms with robotic prosthetics, which opportunity he gladly took. He was fitted with a bionic limb connected through a nerve-muscle grafting.

He has control over his limb with his mind: when he thinks about lifting an arm, for example, certain muscles in his chest contract instead of muscles in his original arm, and the prosthetic replacement interprets this contraction as an instruction to move in a certain way. Moreover, he can also feel temperature as well as how much pressure his grip applies.

4) Nigel Ackland

He worked as a precious metals smelter until his accident at his workplace involving an industrial blender. This led to a severe crush injury of his right forearm. He underwent six months of operations and infections before deciding to have a below elbow amputation.

Over the years, he tried several prosthetic types, but finally, he received a bebionic3 hand. With its help, he can independently move to grip even delicate objects. He controls the arm through muscle movements in his remaining forearm. The range of movement is truly extraordinary. He can independently move each of his five fingers to grip delicate objects, or even pour a liquid into a glass.

5) Jerry Jalava

The Finnish programmer had a terrible motorcycle accident when he lost his left ring finger. It was just a week after he bought his new motorbike that he accidentally hit a deer. Right after it happened, he lit a cigarette when he realized that he misses the upper half of his finger.

Then he decided against a traditional prosthesis and rather went for something “useful”: a 2GB USB port was embedded into his prosthetic. It doesn’t upload any information directly into his brain though. He is the perfect example of how you don’t need to be a robotics mastermind to become a cyborg…

6) Cameron Clapp

Until his life-changing accident, Cameron lived the life of the “California teens”: he loved to surf, skateboard and hang with friends. He was 15 when he wandered over to some railroad tracks near their house and passed out after drinking with his brother moved by the 9/11 tragedy what happened around that time. When a train passed, he, unfortunately, lost both of his legs plus an arm.

He got fitted with a couple of prosthetic legs controlled by his brain with the help of a microprocessor. Since then, he has become an athlete and an amputee activist. His advice to struggling patients? “Surround yourself with good people… good doctors, therapists, family, and friends. Set reachable goals, work hard and maintain a good attitude.”

7) Professor Steve Mann

The Canadian tech-crazy professor designed a headset that is outfitted with a number of small computers and through it, he can record and play video and audio. He was one of the, if not the first, cyborgs in the world. Mann definitely experimented first with wearable computing in high school in the 70s. At MIT he literally bristled with equipment, wearing 80 pounds of computing equipment to class.

Mann was allegedly also the victim of the world’s “first cybernetic hate crime” in 2012: he was at a McDonald’s restaurant in Paris with his family when three different McDonald’s employees attempted to forcibly remove his “Digital Eye Glass” from his head.

8) Claudia Mitchell

Mitchell is the first woman to have a bionic arm and just as in the majority of the listed cases, her transformation into a cyborg life was also due to an accident. Although she spent four years in the Marine Corps she did not lose her arm during military service but in a motorcycle accident. She lost her left arm completely.

She told several newspapers that she used to peel bananas using both feet and one hand before she received her bionic arm. The robotic limb comes from the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago just as in the case of Jesse Sullivan and was developed for $3 million. She cried when she first peeled a banana one-handed. 

9) Stelios Arcadio

He is also known as Stelarc. He is a performance artist who believes that the human body is obsolete. To prove this, he has had an artificially-created ear surgically attached to his left arm. In another show, he hooked up electrodes to his body to allow people to control his muscles through the Web.

He has his particular views how humans should look at technology and the symbiosis of the two. In an interview, he said that “we shouldn’t have a Frankensteinian fear of incorporating technology into the body, and we shouldn’t consider our relationship to technology in a Faustian way – that we’re somehow selling our soul because we’re using these forbidden energies. My attitude is that technology is, and always has been, an appendage of the body.”

Technical Dr. Inc.'s insight:

Contact Details :

[email protected] or 877-910-0004 www.technicaldr.com