A brilliant analysis (In reference to an article about robotics in the Economist): Amidst all the technological advance there is one thing that is utterly unchanged - human psychology. The homo sapiens mind is unaltered from the state it reached more than 200,000 years ago when it evolved on the African savannah. It is still ruled by the same primitive drives that conferred an evolutionary advantage in that environment. Within the human species, there is a small proportion of individuals driven to dominate and rule their fellows. That proportion is exactly the same as it was 200,000 years ago. If their behaviours have changed, it is not because of any change to the species but rather to the environment within which they have recently - recently - been operating. The current social norms which many people take for granted are the result of - and are contingent upon - very specific economic and technological conditions. Those were conditions in which an evolutionary advantage (and that includes economic and military advantage) could be obtained by training individuals to very high levels of skill. Having invested such a vast amount in individuals, Rulers valued those individuals. Conversely, those individuals had great bargaining power relative to those who would rule them. The Modern Era ideals of individual rights and all people being born equal are just that - modern!! They arose out of those very specific technological and economic conditions. For most of human history, such ideals would have been regarded as preposterous. The self-evident difference between Rulers and Ruled was taken for granted. As Charles I remarked on the scaffold: A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. Or, as Alexander Hamilton told the Constitutional Convention: All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born; the other the mass of the people … turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the Government … Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Both of these men in their different ways were reflecting the normal view of human social arrangement, as it has existed for millennia – before the Modern Era. And we know from the historical record that homo sapiens Rulers had no hesitation in wasting the lives of their fellow human beings - by the thousands. By the millions if they had the need and the opportunity. Hitherto, Rulers have been constrained in their ability to wipe out swathes of their own subjects. Hitherto, they were always dependent on maintaining enough workers and soldiers to sustain their regimes against those who would attack it. The Modern Era represents the apex of that dependency. The dependence of Rulers on their highly trained subjects rose to unprecedented levels. Rulers were utterly dependent on subjects trained to operate the complex - but not completely automated - machinery of the modern industrial state. It was in response to that very specific - and historically anomalous - set of conditions that the quintessential Modern Era ideals of Equality and Democracy arose. But there is no universal law that says such ideals must continue when the technological and economic environment change. That is naive progressivism. We are now entering a new era – unprecedented in human history - in which automation and robotics will make the vast bulk of the human race redundant. Not just unemployed, but redundant” - no longer needed by their Rulers. And already we are seeing the effects, both economic and political. While the wealthy minority become ever richer, median wages in developed countries like the US have remained unchanged for more than a decade. These are the people who are simply no longer needed. In the political arena, the Modern Era ideals are being wound back. (With The Economist at the forefront, cheering on the return to Elitism and the Rule of Privilege. One need only read The Economist’s nauseating essay on “Democracy” to understand its visceral loathing of the Stinking Masses and its hatred of any genuinely democratic government.) Some might trace the beginnings of this reversal to May 1979, and to what historians (if there are any historians) might one day call The Great Conservative Revolution which began in Britain and rapidly spread worldwide. Couched originally in terms of promoting economic efficiency this revolution quickly transformed into a platform of undisguised elitism and privilege. Meanwhile individuals in the most advanced countries are told they must work harder and longer - all in the name of being competitive - but theyre not paid any more. The most powerful players are protected by government bail-outs - paid for by taxpayers - to ensure they never suffer any losses. All the gains go to the rich and the Mates of the Rulers. Technology meanwhile has made it ever easier for Rulers to spy on their subjects, both in the real world with CCTV and ANPR, and even more easily in the virtual world. George Orwell fretted about the potential for technology - in the form of television - to be used as a spying device. Slowly but surely his fears are coming to fruition. Had true Democracy ever been able to take root, it might have been possible for the subjects to keep the Rulers under control. But it never did. The system of purely elective government (a system which - in a triumph of Orwellian language - we are required to call representative liberal democracy!) has degenerated into a duopoly of self-serving politicians working hand-in-glove with their plutocrat Mates. True Democracy will never come to fruition now. Like Alexander Hamilton, the Rulers and their acolytes (like The Economist) tell themselves over and over again how dangerous it would be to allow it. Do you want to know what the 21st century will be like? Ill tell you. As long as the billions of redundant human beings are allowed to go on living they will pose an ever-present threat to the Rulers. As long as they are allowed to go on living there is the risk that they will rise up and overthrow their Rulers. You don’t need to be Einstein to see how this game must eventually play itself out. We know from the historical record that homo sapiens Rulers will have no hesitation in removing such a threat - with whatever brutality is required. It is what they are evolved to do. But we also know from the historical record that such slaughter does not usually take the form of Rulers acting directly against subjects. That would risk precipitating the very rebellion they fear most. Most slaughter takes the form of one regime fighting another in a just war, with the subjects used as cannon-fodder or simply dying as collateral damage. My prediction is that the homo sapiens primates who rule in Washington and the homo sapiens primates who rule in Beijing will eventually come to see the necessity of settling once-and-for-all the vital question of which tribe are the stronger monkeys. In the conflagration which follows the mass of humanity will perish while the Rulers hide in their shelters. And when it is all over they will emerge, make up with one another, and enjoy an empty planet with their needs provided by a largely robotic workforce and a handful of human slaves. Thus will the ruthless inherit the Earth.
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 03:25:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015