It's a bit odd isn't it that such a medievalist as Siege is simultaneously a huge fan of the singularity? :hmm:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/03/isis_and_other_neomedievalists_reject_technology_modernity.html
QuoteThe Return to Medievalism
By Brad Allenby
Why is the world so troubled right now? Rejection of modernity and technology may be to blame.
The world is in a confused and dangerous state. Russia, a nuclear power, invades Ukraine and threatens the Baltic states, all the while spouting casual nuclear threats. ISIS recruits by posting videos of its brutal murders. Portions of both the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa degrade into failed and weak states. They exhibit what some have called neomedievalism, which is characterized by violence, polycentric governance, and warring ideologies. Camps within the American and European right and left reject science as an authoritative source of truth, accepting only that which accords with their belief systems. It seems chaotic—what American military author and historian Sean McFate calls "durable disorder"—but it has at least one unifying underlying theme: the rejection of the modern, technologically sophisticated, complex, multicultural, and multipolar world.
What ISIS and such groups are responding to is not simply military and sectarian opportunities but a broad cultural malaise. Accelerating technological, social, and cultural change undermines many strong beliefs and practices, which can be particularly damaging to individuals and weak institutions. Those who are unable to keep pace with, or accept the changes inherent in, such a world sometimes retreat to faith, which is an understandable response. Similarly, the ever-greater social and cultural complexity of an increasingly multicultural world may have the same effect, reinforcing the value of mythic cultural stereotypes and "golden ages" of the past as refuges. While the immediate military threat of ISIS and similar organizations can be managed through traditional military responses, the reasons ISIS is there in the first place—the civilizational conflict dimension of ISIS—cannot.
Skepticism about or even violent opposition to modernity is not new, of course. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Luddites violently fought the new technology; less active types dreamt of a far more preferable, albeit imaginary, distant golden age, as they had since Roman times. Romantics such as William Blake fretted over the human costs of technological modernity, the "dark Satanic mills" that polluted England's landscapes. Marx, Engels, and other socialist revolutionaries, often drawing from the Christian utopian tradition, decried the brutality of unrestricted factory capitalism and built their own mythic golden age in the future to come. Modernity—taken as encompassing the high-technology, market-oriented, progressive, secular state model that has dominated the international stage for the past century—is having a particularly hard time of it these days, though. Fundamentalist movements of all stripes, from religious to environmentalist to cultural to political, reject the compromises, tolerance, and belief in progress that characterize modernity. Significant minorities in the United States reject climate change science and the theory of evolution, while in Europe environmentalists stifle genetic engineering and similar technologies.
It is not that these communities reject useful technologies: ISIS, for instance, is extraordinarily good at using social media to recruit. But technological change such as we are experiencing is unpredictable, accelerating, and occurring across the entire technological frontier, and it involves not just one but virtually all critical foundational technologies—nanotechnology, biotechnology, information and communication technology, robotics, and applied cognitive science. And we know from history that any technology significant enough to be interesting will also inevitably destabilize existing communities, institutions, power relationships, social structures, worldviews, and cultural assumptions. Because these psychological, social, and cultural verities are sources of comfort and identity for many people in virtually all cultures, technological change will only encourage a continuing retreat to fundamentalism. What will the response in conservative religious cultures be if scientists do achieve radical extensions of human life? If they create telepathic, brain-to-computer-to-brain, communication? If they wire humans directly into mechanical systems—now a prosthetic, but in the future perhaps a major military system, or perhaps a Martian robot? If genetic redesign of individuals becomes routine, initially to avoid genetic diseases, but then to enhance performance?
This rise of anti-modernity fundamentalism across many societies and within many traditions does, however, raise new and compelling challenges for those responsible for the military and security of Western societies, and opportunities for adversaries of the West. Partially because of American dominance of conventional military capabilities, the current evolution of war toward new kinds of civilizational conflict will accelerate. While conventional war will not disappear—as the plethora of engagements that the U.S. and Europe have participated in recently clearly demonstrate—serious, major conflicts involving large states will increasingly be fought across many domains. These might include not just traditional military activities, but also initiatives in nonconventional spaces such as finance, media and entertainment, infrastructure, and consumer products and services. They will also involve both new players, such as environmentalist groups, and the return of old actors, such as state religions in Russia or absolutist theologies in jihadist organizations. Traditional war, with military technologies and kinetic weapons, and defined geographic battle spaces, will likely become the exception, not the rule.
Once you understand the broader canvas of modern conflict, and the continued rise of reactionary, anti-modernist movements, you'll see new and interesting patterns. ISIS and others have learned to be powerfully attractive to those who are left behind as modernity impacts traditional Middle Eastern and Asian societies. That's especially true for younger males whose traditional identities have been torn asunder, but who have been unable to adapt to, or have not been welcomed into, the modern society in which they find themselves adrift. In the short term, of course, violent terrorism must be met with policing and counterterrorism programs; in the longer run, however, the question is more complex: How, exactly, can a soft power response be crafted for such a loss of identity? Russia's suborning of anti-modernism in Europe is interesting and challenging, as well as sophisticated and powerful, and is not limited to just far-right and far-left political organizations. Indeed, NATO fears that Russia has effectively weaponized some environmentalist groups in Europe, because their opposition to fracking constitutes a powerful mechanism to ensure continued European reliance on Russian energy supplies, which in turn supports Russian influence over European responses to Russian hybrid warfare in Eastern and Central Europe.
Conversely, perhaps the most effective medium-term strategic weapon the U.S. has used in recent memory is domestic fracking. Not only does it support American economic growth, but it negatively impacts a number of adversaries including, of course, Russia (also Iran and Venezuela). More speculatively, it would be worthwhile from the perspective of America's adversaries to figure out how to support the anti-modernity media and political forces, on the far right and left, that help paralyze American politics and lead to own goals such as shutting down the American government for partisan political reasons. Indeed, all the states in today's great game of becoming one of a few superpowers in the future world understand that technological and scientific competence are critical to doing so. Thus, anything that supports the growth of anti-modernity forces in one's adversaries, especially in democratic societies, is over the long term an important strategic investment.
Here is where history raises an evil specter indeed. Few conditions are completely new under the sun, and it wasn't but a little more than a century ago, from the 1890s to the 1910s, that the West was undergoing somewhat analogous chaos, growing complexity, and cultural angst. Social mores and cultural patterns were being undermined by new technologies; countries that had long dominated the world, such as Britain, were falling in comparison with brash newcomers such as Germany. Railroads and communication technologies in a world increasingly globalized by European imperialism were mashing cultures up against each other in ways that were highly destabilizing to old verities. Military budgets were high. Religious and social conservatives loathed changes such as female suffrage and the perceived loss of moral constraint in a modern society. These factors led to one of the saddest ironies in history: When war was declared on the eve of World War I, a war that would destroy the naive optimism of the Enlightenment as well as much of European civilization, crowds celebrated wildly in the streets in every capital in Europe. A world sunk in adulation of a golden past that never was, and enthralled with the romance of anti-modernity, is quite likely to discount the benefits of the world that actually is. In a world of conflict, where nuclear powers clash by night, that dynamic substantially increases the risk of losing both.
This piece was adapted from a longer article appearing in the April Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Future Tense is a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate that explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, visit the Future Tense blog and the Future Tense home page. You can also follow us on Twitter.
Very good.
A few things though. The US has not used domestic fraking as a strategic weapon. Fraking has happened despite the Zerobama administration which has done all in their hands to stopped. And don't forget the keystone pipeline.
Which novel was it where the people with non-mainstream beliefs simply went and started space colonies so they could live separately, and there was basically a smorgasbord of different planets with different systems to choose from.
I think the author is generalizing too much.
I think climate change is Green\Red anti capitalist conspiracy, but I am in favor of going ahead technologically as fast as possible.
The idea tha opposing climate change means people are anti tech is cheap propaganda to make look climate change like real scientists.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 18, 2015, 09:07:26 PM
Which novel was it where the people with non-mainstream beliefs simply went and started space colonies so they could live separately, and there was basically a smorgasbord of different planets with different systems to choose from.
Actually, going to an space colony, due to the limits of sub light speed, means that those colonies would fall far behind Earth technologically.
Any effort to colonize outside our solar system will be a one way trip, which means a tech break with Earth, which in turn means falling behind because tech advancement is an equation of numbers. The largest the number of scientists the greater acumulation of knowledge and diversity of pathways to advance.
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:19:58 PM
Any effort to colonize outside our solar system will be a one way trip, which means a tech break with Earth, which in turn means falling behind because tech advancement is an equation of numbers. The largest the number of scientists the greater acumulation of knowledge and diversity of pathways to advance.
There will come a time when our knowledge will start to plateau. If we haven't killed ourselves first.
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:19:58 PM
Actually, going to an space colony, due to the limits of sub light speed, means that those colonies would fall far behind Earth technologically.
Sure they would. But so what? They want to live like that, so presumably they wouldn't have a problem with it.
Of course, if there were reliable FTL travel, then trade would not be cut off completely.
And timmay, I ain't a medievalist.
Malthus and Minsky convinced me that I was drawing the wrong lessons from the past.
So now i look to the future.
Though I may have taken it too far.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 18, 2015, 09:27:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:19:58 PM
Actually, going to an space colony, due to the limits of sub light speed, means that those colonies would fall far behind Earth technologically.
Sure they would. But so what? They want to live like that, so presumably they wouldn't have a problem with it.
Of course, if there were reliable FTL travel, then trade would not be cut off completely.
Too much scifi. There is no FTL in the visible horizon.
Any colonies would be through slow boats.
This means a break in comms and a future rediscovery by our descendants.
Instead of thinking European explorers setting up colonies in the Americas, think of European explores discovering Polynesia, which is a rediscovery from the human history point of view.
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:13:10 PM
I think climate change is Green\Red anti capitalist conspiracy
On what evidence do you base this belief?
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:36:12 PM
Too much scifi. There is no FTL in the visible horizon.
Any colonies would be through slow boats.
This means a break in comms and a future rediscovery by our descendants.
Instead of thinking European explorers setting up colonies in the Americas, think of European explores discovering Polynesia, which is a rediscovery from the human history point of view.
Then yes, in that case they would almost certainly regress.
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:13:10 PM
I think climate change is Green\Red anti capitalist conspiracy, but I am in favor of going ahead technologically as fast as possible.
I honestly do not care one way or the other. Even if humans are not causing global warming pollution probably isn't good so let's advance technology so we do not need to burn stuff anymore. And of course liberal capitalism does environmentalism far better than communism.
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:36:12 PM
Too much scifi. There is no FTL in the visible horizon.
Any colonies would be through slow boats.
This means a break in comms and a future rediscovery by our descendants.
Instead of thinking European explorers setting up colonies in the Americas, think of European explores discovering Polynesia, which is a rediscovery from the human history point of view.
Why a communication break? The laser is well-established technology.
The real difficulty is getting there in the first place.
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:19:58 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 18, 2015, 09:07:26 PM
Which novel was it where the people with non-mainstream beliefs simply went and started space colonies so they could live separately, and there was basically a smorgasbord of different planets with different systems to choose from.
Actually, going to an space colony, due to the limits of sub light speed, means that those colonies would fall far behind Earth technologically.
Any effort to colonize outside our solar system will be a one way trip, which means a tech break with Earth, which in turn means falling behind because tech advancement is an equation of numbers. The largest the number of scientists the greater acumulation of knowledge and diversity of pathways to advance.
That's what laser communications are for. It would only be as out of date as there are light years between them.
Hey, Neil is wise.
Anyway, if modernity wanted adherents, it shouldn't have fucking sucked so much.
It doesn't suck. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 02:05:59 AM
Anyway, if modernity wanted adherents, it shouldn't have fucking sucked so much.
The alternatives are far worse, so a bit like democracy in that respect.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 02:05:59 AM
Anyway, if modernity wanted adherents, it shouldn't have fucking sucked so much.
It brought you the peanut butter cup, you Luddite.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 19, 2015, 02:05:59 AM
Anyway, if modernity wanted adherents, it shouldn't have fucking sucked so much.
Kinda like communism, then.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2015, 10:14:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:13:10 PM
I think climate change is Green\Red anti capitalist conspiracy, but I am in favor of going ahead technologically as fast as possible.
I honestly do not care one way or the other. Even if humans are not causing global warming pollution probably isn't good so let's advance technology so we do not need to burn stuff anymore. And of course liberal capitalism does environmentalism far better than communism.
You see, in this we agree.
More efficient engines and more efficent recycling means a more effective economy.
However the Greens (The new Reds) wants to condemn the world to poverty by forcing dependance on unreliable sources of energy.
Poverty bad, consume society good, 100% recycling consume society is better.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2015, 09:37:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:13:10 PM
I think climate change is Green\Red anti capitalist conspiracy
On what evidence do you base this belief?
In that all the rabid communists che guevara loving all the sudden became enviromentalists after the fall of communism.
The Greens are trying to achieve what the Reds failed to do. The dismantling of western capitalism.
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 09:30:20 AM
In that all the rabid communists che guevara loving all the sudden became enviromentalists after the fall of communism.
So a few alienated college students joined the Green party instead of a communist party, big deal. The actual communists are mostly still communist.
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2015, 10:27:30 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:36:12 PM
Too much scifi. There is no FTL in the visible horizon.
Any colonies would be through slow boats.
This means a break in comms and a future rediscovery by our descendants.
Instead of thinking European explorers setting up colonies in the Americas, think of European explores discovering Polynesia, which is a rediscovery from the human history point of view.
Why a communication break? The laser is well-established technology.
The real difficulty is getting there in the first place.
Lets say we colonize a planet 50 light years away.
To travel there will take about 500 years at our current maximum theoretical speed (10 years per lightyear using Orion project like tech = 1 tenth of lightspeed) .
During those 500 years, we either reach the singularity and become immortal (undefined lifespan) or political and economical entities change and however launched the ship will be long gone by the time they land.
Then one way laser comm is 50 years, with another 50 years for a response.
Then, the colony is starting from zero, so no infrastructure to build whatever blue prints the colony recieve.
Last but not least, we don't know the energy requirements to lase a planet 50 lightyears away with usable coded information.
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 09:30:20 AM
In that all the rabid communists che guevara loving all the sudden became enviromentalists after the fall of communism.
The Greens are trying to achieve what the Reds failed to do. The dismantling of western capitalism.
The problem with the Greens is that even when you have a cause you think they might support they are just too insane to be good allies. They will block everything from windfarms to nuke plants to Solar manufacturing. Because, I guess burning coal and gas is better for the environment in bizarro leftist world.
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 09:30:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2015, 09:37:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 18, 2015, 09:13:10 PM
I think climate change is Green\Red anti capitalist conspiracy
On what evidence do you base this belief?
In that all the rabid communists che guevara loving all the sudden became enviromentalists after the fall of communism.
The Greens are trying to achieve what the Reds failed to do. The dismantling of western capitalism.
At the risk of taking the troll seriously, I'll link to the wiki page listing the members of the Pigou Club (supporters of a shift to carbon taxation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club
Members include many conservative and center-right economists and pundit including Greg Mankiw (founder), the late Gary Becker, Alan Greenspan and Arthur Laffer. I can assure you these gentlemen aren't plotting to dismantle capitalism.
Apparently this winter has been the hottest on record, ever.
The only place that experienced colder temperatures than average was the Eastern parts of the US.
Quote from: Jacob on March 19, 2015, 11:19:51 AM
Apparently this winter has been the hottest on record, ever.
The only place that experienced colder temperatures than average was the Eastern parts of the US.
Only according to the meteorologists. Who are obviously part of the vast red-green conspiracy. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Quote from: Gups on March 19, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 19, 2015, 11:19:51 AM
Apparently this winter has been the hottest on record, ever.
The only place that experienced colder temperatures than average was the Eastern parts of the US.
Only according to the meteorologists. Who are obviously part of the vast red-green conspiracy. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Shouldn't that be sheeple?
I feel so alone...
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 09:30:20 AM
In that all the rabid communists che guevara loving all the sudden became enviromentalists after the fall of communism.
The Greens are trying to achieve what the Reds failed to do. The dismantling of western capitalism.
What have you done to test this interesting theory?
I am still waiting for the israeli elections thread, but nobody here cares.
Whatever, Languish.
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 12:47:11 PM
I am still waiting for the israeli elections thread, but nobody here cares.
Whatever, Languish.
It was being discussed in the "Bibipalooza" thread.
Quote from: Barrister on March 19, 2015, 12:51:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 19, 2015, 12:47:11 PM
I am still waiting for the israeli elections thread, but nobody here cares.
Whatever, Languish.
It was being discussed in the "Bibipalooza" thread.
I don't understand that word, Bibipalooza.
Oh, I get it. Something about Bibi.
It comes from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollapalooza
Anyway it seems voting is just one stage of an Isreali election. Have they decided on the ruling coalition yet?
That makes sense. It's derived from the word, "Lollapalooza". It means something big or grand. During WWII it was used as shibboleth to identify enemy soldiers and agents. Since it confuses Siege, it seems to still work in that capacity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 19, 2015, 11:10:40 AM
At the risk of taking the troll seriously, I'll link to the wiki page listing the members of the Pigou Club (supporters of a shift to carbon taxation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club
I was surprised to see Ray Magliozzi on that list, as a "pundit".
Quote from: Jacob on March 19, 2015, 11:19:51 AM
Apparently this winter has been the hottest on record, ever.
The only place that experienced colder temperatures than average was the Eastern parts of the US.
Northeastern. I believe it was warmer here than usual.
I would make Ide my serf.
Charlie don't serf.
I would feed you 1000 calories a day.
That's like five cookies. PASS.
Don't make me burn your hovel, peasant.
I own a weapon. Well, by the time you got here and managed to get up the front steps, I could own a weapon.
I am a kentucky colonel. My men will be doing my work.
I live in a state with advanced Castle Doctrine jurisprudence. I could shoot them in the parking lot.
They will probably shoot themselves in the foot when they drop their weapons anyway.
Cal isn't invited
^_^
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 19, 2015, 07:16:09 PM
I would feed you 1000 calories a day.
You need 1500 to be combat effective.
Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2015, 01:27:51 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 19, 2015, 07:16:09 PM
I would feed you 1000 calories a day.
You need 1500 to be combat effective.
Ide will be in a labor battalion. Plenty more to replace him.
I hate how anti-Medieval people are <_< :(
The medieval period was OK, if you don't place a very high value on life expectancy, literacy and sanitation.
It was probably good to be the king.
Ed would likely be invoking prima nocta all over the place.
You could have all the stinky, hairy pussy and locally grown delicacies you desired. OTOH, no climate control and the streets smelled like India.
I imagine the people at the time were desensitized to the stink.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 23, 2015, 10:42:36 PM
It was probably good to be the king.
A decent middle class person in the West has a higher living standard in most respects,
Someone _ I think it was Daniel Walker Howe _ made the argument that as late as the early-mid 19th centuries one the disadvantages of being rich and powerful was that you could afford the best doctors and medical care available. Which was a big negative as the treatments tended to be both painful and more likely to kill than doing nothing.
Hmm, probably true.
It was good to be a rich Jewish merchant in service to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire?
The Ottoman Empire is not really medieval. Well ok I guess its early stages were but there was a lack of rich merchants at that point.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 10:54:36 PM
The Ottoman Empire is not really medieval. Well ok I guess its early stages were but there was a lack of rich merchants at that point.
Call it a failed attempt at tying in an idea from the belief that medieval Islamic medicinal practice was far in advance of Europe.
It was good to be some middle eastern sultan? (plus Christian guilt-free harems!)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2015, 10:41:22 PM
The medieval period was OK, if you don't place a very high value on life expectancy, literacy and sanitation.
It's not like the periods immediately prior or after were much better.
Well he has got you there Minsky.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 23, 2015, 10:42:36 PM
It was probably good to be the king.
Ed would likely be invoking prima nocta all over the place.
Just imagine my Crusader Kings II character page. BASTARDS EVERYWHERE
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2015, 11:25:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2015, 10:41:22 PM
The medieval period was OK, if you don't place a very high value on life expectancy, literacy and sanitation.
It's not like the periods immediately prior or after were much better.
"What have the Romans ever done for us?". :)
Life expectancy wasn't hugely improved in early modern western Europe but literacy was.