Consumerism is responsible for some of the most important events in Western civilization. Consumerism has produced empowerments that have radically upgraded the lives of even the poorest people on the planet. And consumerism has even advanced the grand ambition of biomassto kidnap, seduce, and dragoon as many iinanimate atoms as possible into the 3.85-billion-year-old enterprise of life.
We left off last time with a not-so-simple question; what does consumerism do for human beings? To answer that, let me show you how spirit spun into material goods lifts other spirits down the line.
The traders of Venice in 1270 AD were motivated by sheer consumerist lust. They were driven by the hunger of Europe’s rich to do what bower birds and stags do - show off luxuries rarer than those of their neighbors.
The son of a wealthy trading family, a family powered by consumer lust, would change history and our vision of nearly everything we see. He was financed and set into motion by the luxury consumer goods industry. But he left behind a seed of spirit that, like Jack’s magic bean turned to a giant stalk, would put the Western World on a heady climb.
What he planted in the Western mind would uplift the spiritual ruminations of Thoreau and his friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson, plus your spiritual aspirations and mine.
In the mid-13th Century the Mongols took nearly all of Asia and united it in the largest empire — and the largest free-trade zone - the world had ever known.
Marco Polo - the consumerism that would inspire a planet
Marco Polo set off in 1271 on a voyage meant to slake the hunger of Europe’s rich for things so rare and expensive that their wealthy friends and neighbors, their wealthy show-off competitors, couldn’t match.
Let’s call that lust the root of the discovery impulse, because that’s what it really is. It motivates human societies to stretch their scope and trade with civilizations, towns, or tribal villages thousands of miles away. In fact, it’s been doing that for roughly 120,000 years. But that’s another story.
Marco Polo’s dad and uncle had just come back from their first trip to China. They’d gone off in search of trade goods — consumer luxuries and status symbols - they could sell for outrageous prices back in Europe. They were after things only the Chinese knew how to make; silk and porcelain. Instead they’d caught the eye of the Mongol Emperor of China, Kublai Khan.
The Great Khan distrusted the Chinese people his grandfather had conquered at the cost of roughly 25 million lives. He preferred to hire foreigners, like the Polos, to handle his affairs of state. So he reportedly tapped the Polos for their knowledge of siege machinery — the catapults called mangonels. And he sent them back home to set up a new long-distance exploratory tendril, an ambassadorial connection with the Pope.
So the Polos trudged home and stopped in Jerusalem and Rome. The Pope gave the Polo brothers a handful of letters and a vial of sacred oil from the lamp that burned at the Sacred Sepulchre in Jerusalem. All these items were consigned by the pontiff to the Polo brothers for delivery to the Great Khan in Shangdu — the place that Samuel Taylor Coleridge called Xanadu when he wrote a poem triggered by Marco Polo’s legacy. That poem was one of the spiritual fruits of materialist zeal. A spiritual fruit of the Polo family’s greed. It read:
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree :
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
Talk about consumerist bowers The Khan had one of the greatest, his stately pleasure dome.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. Marco, his father, and his uncles set off on the dangerous, three-year trip from Venice back to China to deliver the Pope’s presents (minus the hundred wise men that Kublai-the-Curious had asked for). When the Polos reached Shangdu, Kublai took a liking to young Marco and gave him a series of assignments.
The emperor sent the 20-plus Italian on a series of fact-finding missions. He reportedly gave the young whippersnapper the task of ruling the city of Yangzhou for three years. He delegated Polo as an inspector of salt and a tax collector. He had Polo settle disputes, and finally, after 20 years, he assigned Polo the task of accompanying a Mongol princess across many a land to the Persian cousin with whom Kublai had arranged a marriage that would sustain the Empire’s peace and he had the chance to return home.
It wasn’t the merchandise with which Polo returned home to Italy in 1295 that really set us free - it was the story of their acquisition, and even that required some bad luck on Polo's part.
Polo had barely settled in to his old digs in Venice again, when his patriotism got the better of him. Venice was at war with a rival trading town, Genoa. Polo joined the navy. In a clash between battle galleys, Polo’s ship lost. He was taken prisoner and jailed by the Genoese.
The printing press would not be invented for another 200 years, but the publishing industry was already going into high gear. Rooms of scribes worked feverishly to mass produce the best-sellers of the day. Polo’s prison roommate was a professional of a new kind; a free-lance writer. When Polo told his story, the writer - a now-forgotten author named Rustichello - was wowed. So the two collaborated in jail and wrote down the tales of Marco Polo’s adventures in Asia and in China.
The events of the next 300 years would show that the most important thing you can leave to others, your most important capital, is often not what you’ve tried to do but the story of how you attempted it. Your most important legacy, should you choose to live heroically, just may be the story of your life.
Marco Polo's tale of consumerism would inflame the entire western world and would motivate untold people for generations to come. It would provide a new strut in the infrastructure of fantasy.
The consumerist method in Portugese exploration
Let’s do a quick segue to 200 years later and yet another country, Portugal in roughly 1420, where a new cultural status symbol, a new sort of NASA, a new human bower, was about to be built.
The Indies were rich in consumer goods, rich in spices, rich in cottons, and rich in silk. These were things that Europeans, filled with novelty-lust and status-symbol hunger, wanted badly. And by 1420 some could afford these luxuries thanks to the growth of long-distance productivity teams, thanks to the growth of commerce, thanks to the growth of trade.
The gifts of rarity and treasure did more than titillate kings, queens, and aristocrats. Those who couldn’t scrape together the cash to buy such things were gifted anyway. Don’t laugh. This is far more important than it seems. Even the poor had new substances and new furnishings to dream about. What they couldn’t possess in reality enriched something more important in the evolution of economies and cultures. It enriched the scope of a culture-engine, an economy driver, an insight-maker, and a history-changer. What people couldn’t afforded lifted the level of the infrastructure of fantasy.
Those without large sums of money acquired new riches for the princes and princesses in their fairy tales. Don’t laugh. This is far more important than it seems. Even the poor had new substances and new furnishings to dream about. What they couldn’t possess in reality enriched something more important in the evolution of economies and cultures. It enriched the scope of a culture-engine, an economy driver, an insight-maker, and a history-changer. What people couldn’t afforded lifted the level of the infrastructure of fantasy.
The post-Polo obsessions gave huge gifts to the life of one royal dreamerand through him to the life of generrations down the line, including you and me. One of the readers tweaked by Marco Polo’s stories of the riches of the east was Prince Henry of Portugal.
Prince Henry set his sights on something new. Asian goods were making their way into Europe at prices beyond belief. Why? Because the world of Islam stood between the East and Europe. Henry had killed many an Islamic citizen in his personal crusade to take and subjugate the rich North African trading city of Ceuta. No wonder Christians were not welcome in the Islamic world. If they were caught in Moslem territory, they could expect a not-so-painless death.
But only the Venetians had been able to work out a deal with the Arabs of the Levant. In essence it went like this. We Arabs will send our three-masted sailing ships our dhows - to India, China, and the spice islands of Indonesia and Malaysia. We’ll bring the riches of these lands back to Oman and ship them across the desert in camel caravans of the sort Mohammed organized before he saw the light and was prophetized: We’ll sell them to you Venetians. And you Venetians will then be able to sell them to your fellow Europeans at a price that will delight you.
Sounds very much like the deal between flowers and bees we discussed in In Praise Of Consumerism - Bees, Bacteria And The Value Of Wasted Time.
Henry, the prince of Portugal, dreamed of a way of getting around the Venetians, their Arab partners, and their damned monopoly. His dreams were so inflamed with Marco Polo fever that he invented a new form of ocean-going ship, the caravel. He also created a new way of using ships and sailors. It was called “exploration.”
Henry sent his sailors out on a 50-year-long NASA-style mission. First his expeditions mapped the Northeastern shores of Africa. Then, when Africa took a sharp turn to the left and seemed to disappear, Henry sent his ships further out on the waters of the mid-Atlantic than any European had ever gone—searching for a current of wind that would carry the ships across the gulf under the zagging African coast. Henry’s ships next probed the terrible reality below the belly of the earth, below the earth’s equator. Beyond that line scholars and superstition said you might fall off the planet’s face. Or, if you were more fortunate, you might find yourself sailing upside down. Who knew? It was even possible that you might vaporize instantaneously. The expeditions Henry launched were told to map and probe and each year go just 50 miles farther into the unknown.
Finally, after Prince Henry The Navigator, a name he earned the hard way, died, his mission paid off big-time. One of Henry’s explorers, Vasco de Gama, found that Africa had a tip. Sail around it and you could head back north, all the way to India. The sailing was a breeze, quite literally, thanks to the Arab Sinbads who had discovered how to harness a disaster, the monsoon winds. The riches of the East were now ablaze with possibility. Their price would soon plunge and their availability to the common man and woman would begin its rise.
Marco Polo’s grubby battle against foot-sores, fleas, and local disease - his adventures - had inflamed Prince Henry’s dreams. Henry had turned his dreams into realities…new ships, new material things, new human empowerments opening new possibilities. And what Henry achieved, in turn, became the source of yet new human fantasies.
Economics is a flow of emotion
The most important capital is passion. Capital (as in capitalism) starts as fantasy. So do consumer goods and material things. Whole new ways of living would soon come to be based on the words of Marco Polo’s book, based on Polo’s nearly-suicidal travels and on Prince Henry the Navigator’s Marco Polo obsession.
In Genoa in roughly 1461, a kid prone to dreaming grew up with the visions of Polo’s adventures dancing in his head. He read Polo’s book with a determination that probably drove his parents crazy. Reading, adults thought, was ruining the brains of kids—preventing them from learning how to memorize the classics. Columbus didn’t care about destroying his memory. He scribbled notes in the margins, and thought of Polo so obsessively that he came up with a wild scheme for a shortcut to Polo’s Chinese wonder-cities, an instant-express sea-lane that would make Prince Henry The Navigator’s still-incomplete new route seem silly. But dreaming it was possible only because of the ships Prince Henry had invented.
Following childhood passions is one key to a vivid life — and to a life that upgrades the fates of others. Childhood passions are inflamed by the goods, the services, and the iconic stories left by other human beings. The Genoese lad’s Polo-fandom and caravel-obsession was so strong that he did the unthinkable. He traveled Europe from one country to another for fifteen years, wangling introductions to kings and queens. Think of how impossible that would be if you or I tried it!
Though his background was lowly, Columbus had the advantage of a truly commanding presence. He was 6’5’. Finally he found someone with the guts to back his scheme — not one of Europe’s ballsy male leaders, but a queen.
Columbus’ calculations of the size of the globe were a bit off — he figured the earth was only 18,000 miles around. Queen Isabella commissioned a panel of experts to double and triple-check Columbus’ scheme. They turned thumbs down on the project. Why? Because they reckoned the earth’s circumference was 28,000 miles, not just 18.
This was a difference the width of the entire Eurasian continent. In those days a ship could only stay afloat so long. Wood-eating worms, Teredos Navalis, could chew the hull of your ship apart if you tried to go without maintenance for more than about three years. If the geographers were right, and the ocean stretched 8,000 miles or more between Barcelona and Guangzhou, Columbus’ had mapped out a suicide scheme. And, in truth, the geographers were closer to the real circumference of the earth — 25,000 miles - than our Italian dreamer.
But Christopher Columbus found land anyway. Yes, it was land that had been found before. But the previous discoverers, the Vikings, hadn’t sold it, they hadn’t promoted it, and they hadn’t publicized it. They hadn’t turned it into a consumerist commodity.
The Genoese lunatic did. When he returned to Europe, he took advantage of a new invention — the printing press. He pioneered the use of a new mass-communications tool — the pamphlet … a new consumer luxury. He flooded Europe with leaflets about his new discovery and set the imagination (and the greed) of millions of Europeans ablaze. His pamphlets made adventuring and exploration permanent parts of the Western Way of Life. They sparked a revolution in the way that we in the Western System would see nearly everything around us, from the place of man in the universe to the nature of the human soul.
No, Columbus hadn’t found his way to China … and he didn’t know it. But it didn’t matter. The world changed when Christopher Columbus promoted, sold, persuaded, and mentally upgraded not just our ancestors, but you and me. It changed when Columbus danced his ass off like an explorer bee. It changed when he added a new beam and column to the infrastructure of fantasy.
Did the commercialization of Marco Polo’s book make any difference? Is the lust for consumer goods self-destructive and predatory, or does it contribute to human uplift, to human powers, and to human history? Does the creation of new material realities like Prince Henry the Navigator’s ships contribute to our spiritual horizons? Does it expand our sense of the universe we become one with when we meditate or cerebrate, when we go into mystic bliss or when we philosophize? Do new material goods uplift the level of dreams? And does a new infrastructure of fantasy, in turn, upshift the level of humanity’s material powers?
I’ve given you some clues. Now the answer’s up to you.
Comments
- Reply to This »
- Link
Thank you Howard Bloom for rooting out these notions and exposing them to the light of reason. Today for the first time in years I stopped feeling guilty for existing. I popped my antibiotic with gratitude.
You bet it did. It consumed the hell out of the people that were unfortunate enough to live here before they were "discovered". Let's also not forget how our rampant consumerism caused the migration of all those people from Africa, who otherwise might have simply lived free in their villages, to become immigrants to pick our cotton for us. By all means ... let's be upliftedThe world changed when Christopher Columbus promoted, sold, persuaded, and mentally upgraded not just our ancestors, but you and me.
It has the great merit to have an open conclusion besides.
Yet, it is a bit reductive or at least, uncomplete.
I think I can try giving a conclusion.
1st, what is given here is true in the first place.
Although, consumerism is only part of a "explorer + creative" mind.
One have then to ask the question : what was the deep motive of these Marco Polo, Columbus or de la Vega ?
Childhood dreams ? Too easy an explanation : sorry but ... rubish ! Foraging genes (like the bees example). Again, a bit true but the motivation should be too low for a Columbus.
If you read Wikipedia, you will notice that, when presenting his plan to the king, Columbus asked something : "Columbus also requested he be made "Great Admiral of the Ocean". I mean, this was his motivation. He was not saying to himself "I am so bored and I believe an adventurous life". He was looking for FAME.
So, let's repeat : this explorer mind is also a VERY risky one. You may dream of becoming a fireman or astronaut when you are young, but then, there is the reality : you may die earlier and in pain.
These people could certainly have a descent and long life without doing all this risky stuff. So WHY ?
One could quote greed but this is not enough.
The real answer is simply ... SEX.
If rich people wanted to impress the others and could pay real so big cash for it (and be motivated to make a bigger business so as to afford this goal), this is completely a "show off" process which can be traced back to what many animals do (parade to show they were better than the others).
If some people were risking their lives in very adventurous prospects, this is the same reason underlying. Without obvioulsy recognising it, they wanted to "show off" again ("I am the first one to ... so I am better for genes perpetuation").
They did it because they had "balls" : in a way, they were "thinking with their dicks". That 's as simple (and crude, I admit) as that.
Note : I do not refute that women cannot do it but that, in average, they always be a minority.
CONCLUSION : Was that and the attached consumerism anyway a good thing ?
The answer is quite easy : in the short term, "yes and no" and in the long term, certainly "NO".
Short-term : consumerism is part of a process which also implies science discoveries.
These science discoveries allowed people to progressively but quite rapidly live far more longer than before (and accessorily comfort).
Coool ! We, in the 20th and early 21th century, are the great benefitors.
Yet, in the meantime, the wealth distribution seems to have be a victim of the process. A few people take advantage of most of the comfort and ressources ; not cool at all.
Long-term : all human activities are following short-term views. This huge scientific progress (and consumerism, because there is a link) also led us to overpopulation and ressources deplenition + mass extinction of species.
MORAL : If a superorganism exists, its "program" is flawed for the case of the human race because all ecological signs show it pushes the limits a bit too far. Actually, it the mix "Intelligence + Sex" that is flawed from the onset.
Earth will soon get rid of this cumbersome "parasit superorganism" , but this you may jsut begin to hear it on the news.
prof Bloom give us some sound points, then runs out of steam when the ethical-political terrain gets tougher.
It’s not viable to describe mechanical interractions as memory – a dent in my fender is only a re-arrangement of stuff. It is not a memory of a parking mishap, not w/out my recall. Similarly with a magnetized computer disc.
If a general theory of the role of memory in evolution is being posited, should not Rupert Sheldrake’s work be invoked? It’s certainly relevant, interesting, & promising. The powerful Darwinian lobby hates & fears him, perhaps a reason for the discretional lockjaw?
If the idea of memory is injected into the explanation of the origins of the universe, are prof Bloom et al dabbling with theology or a metaphysics of matter? Is memory pre-embedded in the pre-Big Bang ‘whatever’, or is he arguing that memory is an emergent property of ‘stuff’?
I argue that true memory needs consciousness & intelligence, since raw data of any form is not intelligence, nor is contact causality. It is arguable that the appearance of true intelligence is a function of a critical level of data transmission & exchange. In a nutshell, some time after the arrival of human language – accepted with chicken & egg clucks.
Animal signalling is simply a precursor & necessary staging post towards language & intelligence. With human language came the necessary richness & magnitude of data flows that forced intelligence growth. Consciousness is simply the personal psychic node necessary for data exchanges b/tween intelligencies.
So the primary tool in humankind’s explosive & now catastrophic expansionism is the skills of communication. These have developed from language, via the printing press, to today’s IT networks.
Language allowed our early groups (as said) to predict, plan for the future. There is a political dimension completely ignored at this point. It is not only in the environmental areas that we are chewing up our future. Our capitalist economic engine is burning up the future as a raw resource. It is no accident that two crises appear together. They are in parallel the necessary & logical outcome of our ‘natural’ but self-destructive human, dynamic, aggressive expansionism.
The answer to this crisis is not in any economic ‘ism’. It is in extending democracy world-wide. Capitalism is no more objectionable than socialism, IF (big if) it is under true human control. For this, social evolution has actually handed us the tool – our IT networks.
The living heart of democracy is not a vote every 4 years, it is rational discussion, which is exchange of data. Our mass media are under the control of the very forces determined to drive our planet to destruction, so don’t hope for too much there. The global internet has the potential to serve that purpose, if used for political ends.
That would be a revolution, possibly violent. But true revolutions happen when minds change, which is not far off what prof Bloom has said in other contexts.
The idea of colonizing Mars (wherever) is a cop-out. The extreme expense of space travel rules out that escape route for most of us. Science may come up with the cheap answer? Sure, the same science that cannot supply great proportions of humanity with clean water.
You're off in the weeds on a couple of points here. Since when is it science's obligation to provide a "cheap" answer? Why would you blame science for not providing clean water? It isn't as if cleaning water isn't possible, so the problem is political .... don't lay that at the feet of science.
While I won't dispute some of the issues regarding memory, if a dent in your fender is just a "rearrangement of stuff", then what do you call the "memory" as it's stored in your brain, if it isn't just a "rearrangement of stuff"?
I'm equally baffled why so many have climbed on the band-wagon suggesting that world-wide democracy implies homogeneous societies and government. The leap is then made to relate democracy to capitalism suggesting that it would work only under "true human control" (who else did you envision controlling it?).
As for the discussion about language, animals, intelligence, etc. I would ask that, once again, can anyone offer a coherent definition of what intelligence is? Perhaps then we can determine what is unique (if anything) about the human capability.
You ask, ‘Since when is it science's obligation to provide a "cheap" answer? Why would you blame science for not providing clean water?’
I was partly attempting to pre-empt suggestions that science might come up with cheap, mass space travel. My view is, ‘science’ is politically the poodle of the big vested interests. This is not science’s fault, simply a result of the usual suspects pursuing their minority interests in the usual way. Impoverished peasants don’t consume, don’t spend much, so their needs/wants are largely ignored by the big boys & gals, & the research facilities they own &/or control.
GA: ‘While I won't dispute some of the issues regarding memory, if a dent in your fender is just a "rearrangement of stuff", then what do you call the "memory" as it's stored in your brain, if it isn't just a "rearrangement of stuff"?’
All the research into memory as ‘stuff’ in our heads has proved largely unproductive. You’ll have to look at the Rupert Sheldrake site for a radical, new (field theory) approach – young, but promising. It seems compatible with what prof Bloom et al have been saying.
GA: ‘I'm equally baffled why so many have climbed on the band-wagon suggesting that world-wide democracy implies homogeneous societies and government. The leap is then made to relate democracy to capitalism suggesting that it would work only under "true human control" (who else did you envision controlling it?).’
My take, it is precisely because individuals, cultures & nations are not homogenous that we need a true democracy to resolve frictions. The problem of any system is then to avoid minority, top-down capture of the whole shebang. An IT network firmly in the hands of the grassroots is my suggestion. It will be a democratic governing system, since all hands will be on the levers of decision. But, as long as h/beings are human, it will never be smooth sailing!
Last, if you can detect any humans in control of current, macro human affairs, I’d be glad to learn about the stupid *******s. W/out, let’s face it. No-one is in ultimate control.
GA: ‘As for the discussion about language, animals, intelligence, etc. I would ask that, once again, can anyone offer a coherent definition of what intelligence is? Perhaps then we can determine what is unique (if anything) about the human capability.’
Sorry I cannot supply a conclusive definition. One reason is that ‘intelligence’ is a moving target. It evolves & changes with us, or more accurately, with us & our societies.
For a variety of attractive reasons, I tie intelligence to the range & speed of data exchange (language, & enhanced by various technologies). For the irrefutable proof of the difference b/tween animal & human intelligence, look around you. Our mass, urban, data-rich societies are very un-ape-like.
Granted, evolution has left strong genetic traces of ape nature in us. Yet it seems perverse to argue from this that we are naked apes. This side-steps the above question: why are we so very different in behavior?
Prof Bloom hit a key principle – ‘sociality’. As I apply that, our group organization skills have lifted us above animal evolution. Now, our societies & cultures are evolving dynamically. We are mere constituent particles. If we do not grasp this, how can we aspire to control our socio-political vehicles that are hurling us towards extinction?
Of course, if you are an incorrigable materialist, a believer in value-free science, you are rather bereft of any moral argument as to why h/beings should survive at all. Old Git Tom
I'm sorry but too much of this seems speculative and wishful thinking. True democracy could never work (certainly not on a planetary scale and not likely in most countries). Part of the problem is that it is simply too large a group to have a sufficient level of connection and common interests to be a realistic platform for formulating discussions and gaining solutions.
While the internet has certainly provided some interesting forums for information exchange, you can't get several hundred individuals to reach a common consensus on things, let alone set public policy or actually control things.
In fact, I would argue that human society is ultimately doomed because of it's failure to recognize that you cannot develop a "free society" if you don't actually know and are capable of trusting those individuals that you're expecting to make decisions. In today's world we live with the illusion that we possess such knowledge, but in truth, democracy is a dead concept.
Regarding the issue of "intelligence", it is precisely because no definition is provided that you can't claim it as a property of any animal species without qualification. You can certainly see that human beings live differently, but your example of "mass, urban, data-rich..." is misleading since the overwhelming number of humans have no understanding of such systems.
It is a simple fact that the society we humans live in is far too complex for any one individual to possess the knowledge it takes to actually run any of it. We may know bits and pieces, but it is beyond us individually to understand and manage it. Therefore, you can't claim that humans possess a unique intelligence when almost everything we have developed has been provided by a tiny minority of humans over the centuries.
We can always arrange tests and criteria so that they favor whatever conclusion we desire, but when we use terms, we must be prepared to define them and have them subject to scrutiny to ensure that we're talking about the same things. If we can't define it, then we can't claim it as any property .
That’s what all the sages said about our present democratic systems, until the USA did it. The future is always made by dreaming; or intelligent thinking?
For your other points; mass democracy was made possible by the Gutenberg printing press. This drew in huge numbers to the business of politics & decision-making. It also vastly increased the sum total of human knwoledge, & collective intelligence. Advances in communications technologies always do this.
Cheap paper & printing meant precisely that no individual need know or understand everything, even less try to remember it. They could read (Tom Paine’s ‘Common Sense’), change their ideas, agitate, & revolutionize government & history.
Intelligence level is a function of the speed & range of communications. Sumeria built the first empire because it invented clay tablets. Britain occupied a large chunk of the world thanks to printed money, steamship comms, & the telegraph (it also fell to the same instruments).
Sheldrake has evidence that suggests intelligence increases in a form of group mind – for both animal & human collectives.
You have a strong point that great advances are most often made by the singular mind. Sure, but that single mind is a part & product of culture. ‘Culture’ means precisely that not everyone thinks the same, nor has to. It is the way a collective negotiates its usually rocky relationship with individuals. The poorer the comms technology in any society, the more uniform the thinking of its members. That’s why we have mass education – enabled by cheap paper, etc, - not to homogenize thought but stimulate it.
You think, ‘ - - - too much of this seems speculative and wishful thinking.’ Far from it: you just study history with a politically-informed eye, then project forward. The hard evidence is all there. History is the story of humanity’s long struggle to govern itself democratically, i.e., to give the maximum number of people what they need & want (including consumerist junk!). I will enrage my lefty friends by saying that capitalism has its democratizing aspects.
A revolutionary form of world democracy is not an idle pipe dream. It is a harsh necessity if we are to escape mass human extinction. As I suggested, IT networks can be used for macro & micro political decision-making. We could abolish whole strata of representatives & bureaucrats.
This would only be possible with some kind of social wage, a la Henry George. Citizens with free time would then be their own legislators, police, & army. Dream? No, that was pretty much how Athens was in its golden age. Even Rome issued its citizens with free food & wine.
It would be improper for me to attempt to specify how ‘desktop democracy’ would work. People must devise & decide that for themselves. Since 2 billion-odd shouting at once cannot be democracy, the problem boils down to rigging the right software to the world networks – a severe but not insoluble technical problem – some kind of decision-tree system perhaps.
Your point that, ‘- - - your example of "mass, urban, data-rich..." is misleading since the overwhelming number of humans have no understanding of such systems.’ That’s true, but the culture of humanity carries its own understandings. As said above, there is a division of intellectual labor so no-one has to know very much. In relation to a system of real grass-roots democracy, learning how to use the system comes from the experience of participation.
GB: ‘It is a simple fact that the society we humans live in is far too complex for any one individual to possess the knowledge it takes to actually run any of it.‘
See above points. But you could get a different conclusion here – our presnt complex, representative system of government has failed utterly since it is inefficent, obselete, corrupt & incapable of reform. It is government of, by & for a minority of mentally unstable crooks.
The socio-political machine is constructed like a clock. We are the cogs, some big & shiny, most small & dull. Few of us cogs know how the machine as a whole works. As you suggest, this problem of consciousness is not a problem, it’s THE problem.
When the mass of humanity wakes up to how the social machine is designed to screw them, that will be the revolution. The street theatre bangs & shouts will be just a noisy coda. Old Git Tom.
"...said about our present democratic systems, until the USA did it."
The USA has never been a democracy. It is a representative democratic republic. This isn't some arbitrary definition, but it explicitly defined in the Constitution. A democracy is unworkable simply because of the number of people that would have to participate to decide anything.
The notion of IT networks being a source of democracy .... while it is true to a degree, it would be hopelessly optimistic to suggest that it has true governmental or regulatory power. Since to achieve this would require a level of altruism that is unwarranted by the "powers" that actually have the means to build and control such networks. It works within the present context because there is no real power exchange taking place.
However, we can see how easily this concept is "sold out" when one witnesses how China regulates access and the corporations have capitulated to ensure that undesireable information simply isn't "found" by the search engines.
The technical problems you ascribe to software are not only difficult, they would be impossible to control since they are so easily subverted. The power would simply revert to the technicians that have the means to hack such a system, and control results.
GA: ‘The USA has never been a democracy. It is a representative democratic republic. This isn't some arbitrary definition, but it explicitly defined in the Constitution.’
True, but rather empty wordplay, especially when you compare the US system to all those ghastly regimes that make no pretense to democracy. Henry George, I, & a few others, see the more democratic future where most of the intermediate representatives will be redundant.
Like intelligence, ‘democracy’ eludes determinate definitions because it is a human construct, constantly subject to human re-interpretations. That does not stop us from clearly recognizing the democratic (US system) from what is not.
GA: ‘A democracy is unworkable simply because of the number of people that would have to participate to decide anything.’
Paradoxically, one of the reasons our current representative system is foundering is that the vast, Byzantine government & bureaucracy entailed is parasitic & inefficient. Also, its complex structure is riddled with the reps of minority interests who find it relatively easy to pervert it to benefit the few, not the majority – US, EU, ex-USSR, whatever. The two are connected.
GA: ‘The notion of IT networks being a source of democracy .... while it is true to a degree, it would be hopelessly optimistic to suggest that it has true governmental or regulatory power. Since to achieve this would require a level of altruism that is unwarranted by the "powers" that actually have the means to build and control such networks. It works within the present context because there is no real power exchange taking place.’
‘Altruism’? The revolutionary new system runs on enlightened self-interest, oh & that supposedly powerful impulse, survival – all energized by superior comms. And weren’t those badly-armed colonials hopelessly optimistic when they took on the power of the British Empire?
GA: ‘The technical problems you ascribe to software are not only difficult, they would be impossible to control since they are so easily subverted. The power would simply revert to the technicians that have the means to hack such a system, and control results.’
You have a major point. That bothers me too. But no-one except loons & political scheisters promise a utopian future. Like, “Follow me, do as I tell you, & I will solve all your problems”; no! You want to live in complete safety, w/out dissent, you can have a dictatorship, or monarchy. The top banana will ‘protect’ you & tell you what to do & think. But if you want more democracy, you will have to live with more dissent & constant instability. At least you will live.
I hope I do not bore you with repetition, but we no longer have the luxury of sitting on our thumbs within the present scheme of things. Knitting our own clothes & living on berries & lentils will not save us in our survivalist bunkers. History will not flow past the US system, nor any other. It is undermining our foundations now. It will sweep us away if we don’t have the brains & guts for revolution. The art of that is to change, but preserve the best of the past.
Churchill: “I can promise you nothing but blood, toil, sweat & tears” - honesty with optimism.
From your book, Global Brain, I have used the three domains that you say your complex seeking introvert must conquer in order to become a philosopher (if that is even how you put it) and assigned them as domains of any movement of energy. After all, the job of a philosopher is really to observe, learn and report on the movement of energy around him/her. Because a movement of energy resides in 3 (or more) domains the complexity usually hides what it is that a philosopher actually does.
As you know these 3 domains are physics, logic, and ethics, or as I call them structure (the force triangle), command and control (force and velocity), and internal force (force between players of any movement).
Fantasy is a potential (potential energy) which has a component of force. Supply, on the other hand has a component of velocity, which makes both of them a component of command and control, or in other words, logic.
You have connected the component of force (command) and shown how it is an agent of change. It would be interesting to see your take on velocity (control) as well. Perhaps you have already dealt with this subject, by another name?









