DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

technology is neutral

168 posts / 0 new
Last post
kalabine
Offline
Joined: 27-03-04
Apr 26 2005 12:55

hmm

i'd be careful about linking to coporate watch laz, i've heard they've been infiltrated by dangerous primmies eek

kalabine
Offline
Joined: 27-03-04
Apr 26 2005 13:15

i think we need to increase the world's population, the more people the more scientists, researchers, and technicians - the more chance of the human race expanding off earth and into space, imagine a vast galaxy spanning anarchist civilization powered by AIs, nanotech, cornocopia machines, massively increased lifespans etc etc

obviously it's not going to happen in my life time but it's what i want the human species to accomplish, surely anything else is misanthropic?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 26 2005 13:53
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:

And it looks like no one has answered my point about an inevitable drop in production/extraction in a communist society. Mr. T

Haven't kept up with this thread, but I think a drop in production and extraction could be effectively dealt with by re-use and recycling of raw materials, and most importantly all new products being built to last for much longer. If resources are shared you can have an equal amount of use for much less resource consumption, and restructuring our working lives would mean we wouldn't need a computer at home and one at work (let alone additional laptops, three phones, and constant renewal of technology due to bloatware and other capital-led developments). Part of the reason for a communist society is that people wouldn't have to do so much unnecessary work, quality of life isn't directly linked to quantity of material consumption, and the time saved on useless work could be spent on finding alternative technologies or making mining and other unpopular jobs safer and more automated.

Nick Durie
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Apr 26 2005 14:32
Quote:
i think we need to increase the world's population, the more people the more scientists, researchers, and technicians - the more chance of the human race expanding off earth and into space, imagine a vast galaxy spanning anarchist civilization powered by AIs, nanotech, cornocopia machines, massively increased lifespans etc etc

obviously it's not going to happen in my life time but it's what i want the human species to accomplish, surely anything else is misanthropic?

And anything short of the vision you lay out would simply not be communism.

We can live collectively if a spatula is about the dead strength of our technology but who fuck would want to live like that. I wanna travel to the moon in my lifetime, and I hope future generations go much, much further.

Primitivists scare the fuck out of me. Communism is about technology. The sharing of it.

AnarchoAl
Offline
Joined: 29-05-04
Apr 26 2005 16:43
kalabine wrote:
i think we need to increase the world's population, the more people the more scientists, researchers, and technicians - the more chance of the human race expanding off earth and into space, imagine a vast galaxy spanning anarchist civilization powered by AIs, nanotech, cornocopia machines, massively increased lifespans etc etc

obviously it's not going to happen in my life time but it's what i want the human species to accomplish, surely anything else is misanthropic?

Been reading Ken MacLeod books? smile

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 26 2005 16:54
Catch wrote:
I think a drop in production and extraction could be effectively dealt with by re-use and recycling of raw materials, and most importantly all new products being built to last for much longer.

Indeed, I'm not saying there would be a drop in *affulence* -- but that much of our techno society is based on forced labour, and we'd find affluence instead in living more within the bounds set by what energy we can create with our own muscles.

Reuse and longer lasting stuff would be a possibility -- but the fact that we use oil for a massive majority of our energy needs isn't going to be sorted that way. And recycling takes more energy than making new, usually.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Apr 29 2005 07:16
pingtiao wrote:
He's mostly talking about nanotech, which is unlikely to achieve that level of technological maturity until everyone posting on this forum has died.

Yes nanotech, but not nano-robots and all that. I made an organic LED today. I will soon be incorporating an organic metal in my LEDs. Course the main source for these kinds of chemicals is oil, but it's not the only one.

Anyway why do you think it would take so long to develop advanced nanotech (molecular manufacturing or whatever they call it now)? We already have molecular motors and pincers and transistors... I doubt they'll anywhere near as efficient as Drexler calculated for a long time if ever though, but I can see them working as fast as living matter or a few times better.

Lazlo - most of the stuff in that link you posted is corporate nano-hype and not really very interesting technology, although some of the companies listed are doing interesting stuff.

Anyway, Kropotkin-style, I'm pretty confident that it's possible to make technology far less wasteful/alienating.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 29 2005 12:10
888 wrote:
Lazlo - most of the stuff in that link you posted is corporate nano-hype and not really very interesting technology, although some of the companies listed are doing interesting stuff.

Anyway, Kropotkin-style, I'm pretty confident that it's possible to make technology far less wasteful/alienating.

But where does that confidence become simply faith? I've still been given no clear examples of how things could be done so much less wastefully while keeping the existing productive basis of society intact. Concentrated systems of production are a creation of capital, and can't be simply taken over and altered to be 'communist'.

Ripper
Offline
Joined: 12-05-05
May 12 2005 20:29

Tachnology and science is not neutral in any way. The italian operaist Raniero Panzieri (who "specialized" in these kind of questions) has written a excellent text on this matter. You can read it at:

http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/panzieri.html

Check it out!

kalabine
Offline
Joined: 27-03-04
May 13 2005 14:29

what the fuck is an operaist? confused is it a wanker?

because the stuff you linked to is a load of wank

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 13 2005 15:07

I can't be bothered reading that article -- can Ripper or Kalab summarise it for me?

I'd minagine that operarist is from the Italian 'operismo' tradition, which translates literally as 'workerist', I think, but has more in common with autonomous marxism and that kind of stuff...

kalabine
Offline
Joined: 27-03-04
May 13 2005 15:10

it's a tedious bag a shite that i don't understand tbh, here's the intro

Quote:
It is well known that, for Marx, capitalism revolutionizes both the groupings into which society is divided" and "the technical processes of labour". what is less well known is that Marx theorizes the unity of these two moments (social groupings and technical processes) as constituting "a specifically capitalist mode of production" (our emphasis). Taken in isolation from the technical processes of labour the social groupings (i.e. wage-labourers and capitalists) constitute what Marx calls a formal subsumption of labour under capital; but on the basis of this formal subsumption there is erected a set of "methods,means and conditions" of production which Marx terms the real subsumption of labour under capital.1 This is elaborated at length in Marx's recently published Results of the Immediate Process of Production the so-called 'lost chapter' of Capital) - but the same perspective is abundantly clear in Capital itself, as was demonstrated nearly twenty years ago in the article by Raniero Panzieri printed below
Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 13 2005 15:23

That's Marxism for you! Coupled with academic wankiness and the problem of translations...

That bit just seems to be making the point I said earlier on this page -- that the forms of production that capitalism created are part and parcel of class society and can't be taken over, but have to be broken up.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
May 13 2005 17:19
kalabine wrote:
what the fuck is an operaist? confused is it a wanker?

because the stuff you linked to is a load of wank

Operaismo - workerism. Don't know if it means here Negri-style "workers autonomy" stuff though