{"id":183015,"date":"2017-03-11T08:36:25","date_gmt":"2017-03-11T13:36:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/utopia-now-institute-for-ethics-and-emerging-technologies\/"},"modified":"2017-03-11T08:36:25","modified_gmt":"2017-03-11T13:36:25","slug":"utopia-now-institute-for-ethics-and-emerging-technologies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/new-utopia\/utopia-now-institute-for-ethics-and-emerging-technologies\/","title":{"rendered":"Utopia Now! &#8211; Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    Given all the chaos and pessimism lately and in light of the    fact that with the inauguration of Trump we will be walking    into very dangerous times, its perhaps a good moment for a    little bit of hope, though the progressive rallies over the    last few days certainly make me feel hopeful.  <\/p>\n<p>    As his inauguration speech made clear, Trumps victory signals    the end of the liberal order that has defined the world since    the end of the Second World War. An order based on the twin    pillars of American hegemony and capitalist economics, a    transformation that presents both grave dangers and    opportunities to think the world anew.  <\/p>\n<p>    David    Graber managed to articulate what this opportunity    meansin a recent issue ofThe    Bafflerthough here he was talking about similar political    upheavals in the United Kingdom post-Brexit. According to    Graber, what marks the teen years of the 21st century is that    were starting to finally imagine genuinely radical    alternatives to the world we currently live in. He writes:  <\/p>\n<p>      Its not just the predictable arrival of the economic      luminaries to hold court with the new shadow      chancelloreveryone from Joseph Stiglitz and Ann Pettifor, to      Yanis Varoufakis and Thomas Piketty. Genuinely radical ideas      are being debated and proposed. Should the left be pursuing      accelerationism, pushing the contradictions of capitalism      forward with rapid growth and development, or should it aim      toward a total shift of values and radical de-growth? Or      should we be moving toward what Novara, the media initiative      that emerged from the 2010 student movement, began cheerfully      referring to as FALCor Fully Automated Luxury      Communismencouraging technologies like 3-D printing to aim      for a world of Star Trekstyle replicators where everything      is free? Should the central bank enact quantitative easing      for the people, or a universal citizens income policy, or      should we go the way of Modern Money Theory and universal      jobs guarantees?    <\/p>\n<p>    The question remains of how to give any such new progressive    order(s) the light and air they need to survive given the fact    that reactionary forces are now in control of all the     suffocating powers of the deep state.  <\/p>\n<p>    One idea making the rounds, and one potential source of hope,    is the federal system of US politics itself, which has    previously been thepurview    of the right.Instead, of conservative defenders    of states rightsprogressives might be able to pursue    their agenda and protect their populations at the state and    local level. Indeed,a movement advocating secession by    greens and the lefthas beenslowly    growingforat least a    decade.  <\/p>\n<p>    None of which is a bad idea in so far as such initiatives also    have a national, and even global, component which succeeds in    establishing alliances across civil society to oppose and    thwart any component of the Trump administrations policies    that threaten to unravel political, social, and economic    protections. Combined with such alliances small areas could be    used as staging grounds for progressive experiments (such    as universal basic income) and examples of trulyjust    and sustainable forms of society.  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>    The danger here is that sovereignty continues to be located in    the federal government and the Trump administration may use    this power to aggressively pursue, under the concealment of    nationalism, the same kinds of neo-liberal deconstruction of    state protections the US has pushed on less developed countries    since the end of the cold war and strangle such experiments in    the crib.  <\/p>\n<p>    More on that another time. Whats important for my purposes now    is how the very loss of national control by the progressive    movement, for what may prove a very extended period, offers up    an opportunity for experimentation on the level of cities and    regions that hasnt existed since the New Deal.  <\/p>\n<p>    One place I think we might look for model of how we could    approach this period should be early 19th century    utopianism. Like most of us, though for much different reasons,    theseutopianswanted    nothing to do with the violence required by revolution. The    reason in their case being that they had just come through the    bloodletting of the French Revolution and had no stomach for a    repeat of the Terror, which ultimately ended up in the victory    of the right (Napoleon) anyway.  <\/p>\n<p>    Our own squeamishness to violence might have to do with    theprofound    change in norms that has occurred since the 19th century,    but its just as likely a consequence of the fact that to    engage in violence, by which I dont mean    punchingneo-Nazis in    the facebut going toe-to-toe with the power apparatus    of the security state, is to oppose the state where it is at    its strongest, and therefore merely ends up bolstering what    Nietzsche so brilliantly called that coldest of all cold    monsters along with elites dependent on the power of the state    who use revolutionary violence, or even the mere hint of it, as    a justification for further oppression.  <\/p>\n<p>    Violencemay    have lost its effectiveness as a means of propelling political    change because, having lost all of itsauthority,        the state rests on little but the threat of even greater levels    of violence,a form of power which has now    beenlargely    mechanized.The key towards the future is thus not    revolution but lies in establishing new sources of real    authority assuming, that is, one has given up onsaving    the Republic itself.  <\/p>\n<p>    Also like the 19th century utopians we find ourselves at the    very beginning of a technological and social transformation    which potentially could make real the dream of utopians from    time immemorial, that is, the dream of a world free of    scarcity, poverty and the necessity that most of adult life be    consumed by work.  <\/p>\n<p>    The fact that automation and resource constraints present both    utopian and dystopian possibilities which are matters of    political choice and therefore our capacity to ultimately    decide the type of society in which we want to live is the    subject of another popular bookFour    Futures: Life After CapitalismbyJacobineditor Peter    Frase.  <\/p>\n<p>    Even whenacknowledging    the degree of hype around todays artificial    intelligenceand its    threat to employmentalong with its often overly    optimistic or pessimistic timeline (depending on ones    perspective) its clear that the need for human labor to    achieve current levels of production and services is either    declining or on is the verge of a sharp decline.  <\/p>\n<p>    While looking to the future is surely among the best thing we    can do in our circumstance it is always helpful to explore the    space ofpossibilities    open to us by reflecting on the past, for we    have been in quite a similar situation before. As early as    1802, as seen in James Reynolds utopian    novelEquality,    it was recognized that the application of machine power when    combined with new ways to organize labor were going to usher in    an unprecedented period of abundance with the question being    how the proceeds of such a leap in productivity were to be    distributed.  <\/p>\n<p>    Reynolds was only among the first in what would be a golden age    of utopianism much of which tried to establish a balance    between the tradition needs and aspirations found in society    and the new age of the machine. Because of its status as a    frontier and the birthplace of the democratic age in the early    19th centurythe    US became the staging ground for a number of these utopian    experimentsmany of which had originated in Europe. No    book is perhaps better at giving us a tour of this utopian    landscape than the recentParadise    Now: the story of American Utopianismby Chris    Jennings.  <\/p>\n<p>    In part the upsurge in utopian experiments in the early 19th    century was driven by renewed millenarian expectations as seen    in groups such as the Mormons and especially the Shakers whose    austere aesthetic makes them appear almost modern. Yet    experiments in religious utopianism had been tried before. What    made the 19th century truly different was that it was the first    time utopias based on solely secular ideas were attempted and    thus anticipated the way in which the 20th century would be    defined in terms of rival secular ideologies rather than a    religious tensions and conflict.  <\/p>\n<p>    The most widely known of these early 19th century utopians was    of course the British industrialist and reformer, Robert Owen.    The son of a saddler, Owen moved to Manchester when he was    seventeen- in 1788- which was the equivalent of moving to    Silicon Valley in 1970, for Manchester was among the first    places on earth to feel the effects of the industrial    revolution:  <\/p>\n<p>      The new textile machines churned out unprecedented profits      and material abundance but they did so by eroding traditional      economies, squeezing out the artisan class, and forcing      everyone into the factories. (89)    <\/p>\n<p>    Owen respond very differently to the social effects of    industrial technologies than than his contemporaries the    Luddites who chose to smash the machines as a tool of    immiseration. Instead Owen saw in technology the beginnings of    a new type of abundance if only human beings could get the    political and social questions right.  <\/p>\n<p>    By 1799, by then a budding industrialist, Owen bought a massive    textile mill in New Lanark Scotland. It became his vehicle for    social experiments and transformation, a first step in creating    what Owen calledThe    New Moral World.  <\/p>\n<p>    At New Lanark Owen halted the employment of orphans, sold coal    and fuel to the workers at cost rather than for profit. He    established a workers savings bank along with a free medical    clinic. He planted community gardens and provided created an    insurance fund. He also paid wages even during crises when the    factory was idle.  <\/p>\n<p>    The price for all this, for the workers, was a loss of privacy    and self-direction. Owen policed worker behavior and was    especially keen on preventing drunkenness and adultery by his    employees with a degree of paternalism only utopians are    capable of. In spite of these obligations still left Owens    operation extremely profitable.  <\/p>\n<p>    This divergence from other factory owners who treated their    workers as disposabletalking    animalsemploying children, paying subsistence wages    and failing to provide any insurance, or other form of social    support was just the beginning.  <\/p>\n<p>    In 1816 Owen established at The Institute for the Formation of    Character in New Lanark which educated children of the    community as young as 2, and offered enrichment courses to    adults during the evenings. In the school Owen banned religious    instruction, rote learning, and corporal punishment and aimed    to foster what theRousseau    inspiredOwen believed were the natural virtues of the    individual- virtues which had been crushed by the form of    civilization his experiments aimed at finding an alternative    to. (91- 92)  <\/p>\n<p>    In 1825 Owen began an even more ambitious project to test his    ideas this time in New Harmony Indiana. His settlement    attracted intellectuals and reformers who hoped to realize    Owens dream of a society founded on equality and shared    prosperity. The communist reformer who publicly denounced    organized religion visited sitting and ex-presidents and spoke    before a Congress that was at least politely open-minded in the    face of his radical views. Jennings reflects that:  <\/p>\n<p>      The fact that Owens ideas were given a civil hearing suggest      that in 1825, American capitalism had not yet secured itself      as a sacrosanct national ideology. (110)    <\/p>\n<p>    In terms of openness to different socio-economic models weve    only gone backwards since the founding. Though in terms    of racial inclusion (New Harmony excluded non-whites), we are    light years ahead of the 19th century.  <\/p>\n<p>    Yet, despite Owens renown New Harmony proved extremely short    lived, the experiment having ended by 1827 largely due to its    failure to attract and retain the kinds of skilled laborers    that might have made the community viable.  <\/p>\n<p>    Fourierism is yet another early 19th century utopian movement    Jennings helps uncover. Based on the ideas of Charles Fourier,    the French thinker who was both a genius and very much a loon    who imagined a lemonade    sea. Despite, perhaps because of his weirdness, Fourier    managed to get much about the future strangely right such as    his idea that individuals should pursue employment in those    tasks they believed emotionally resonated with their character,    that human sexuality was nothing to be ashamed of, that    destructive instincts, rather than be suppressed, should be    harnessed for the good of society, and that human happiness and    the full expression of human capabilities is the very purpose    of society, all these things strike us as modern.  <\/p>\n<p>    Eventually, Fouriest ideas for individual utopian communities    which he call a phalanx would spread into prominent groups of    American utopians including the artistic and intellectual    commune of Brook Farm, which became a sort of temporary home    and mecca for Transcendentalists like Nathaniel Hawthorne who    wrote a satire on its pleasures and folly.  <\/p>\n<p>    In addition to these Jennings informs us about the Icarian    movement founder by another French philosopher tienne Cabet    which Jennings thinks did indeed have many of the    pro-totalitarian flaws liberals normally associate with the    word Utopia. Icarian communities based on Cabets    novelVoyage et aventures de lord William Carisdall en    Icariewere not only among the first stirrings of    communism, Cabet even gave the movement its name and Lewis    Mumford would find more similarities between Icarians and    Soviet communists than anything he found in Marx. (259)  <\/p>\n<p>    It is how Jennings understands the decline of the utopian    movement in America during the latter half of the 19th century    that I think has the most relevance for us today. Utopianism    declined not so much because the hope for a more just social    order declined (indeed, the Civil War even in light of its    carnage became a war for a more just order), but because the    locus of reform shifted from the local level to that of the    national state. Rising middle class prosperity (created through    both rapid growth and the labor movement) likewise diminished    the desire for utopian experiments because American society had    succeeded in achieving many of its dreams. One should include    here the fact that the kinds of sexual equality imagined by    many of the utopians was also achieved through the movement for    suffrage combined with social change.  <\/p>\n<p>    For Jennings no utopian moment in America has come close to    that of the early 19th century, and he sees thecommunalism    of the 1960sas an attempt at escape from    technological society rather than create a different, better,    and more human future.  <\/p>\n<p>    The alternative to not seeing the human world as something    constructed by our choices is to either succumb to fatalism or    to misconceive our moral project as the construction of a never    existent past. Without any possible knowledge of Trump and his    voters Jennings foresaw our year of Make America Great Again:  <\/p>\n<p>      Instead of articulating extravagant dreams about the future,      let alone experimenting with those dreams, we have made our      past into a sort of utopia: a high white wall onto which we      project our collective longings and anxieties. (382)    <\/p>\n<p>    Weve been drawing the wrong lessons from the past all along.  <\/p>\n<p>  Rick Searle, an Affiliate Scholar of the IEET,  is a writer and educator living the very non-technological Amish  country of central Pennsylvania along with his two young  daughters. He is an adjunct professor of political science and  history for Delaware Valley College and works for the PA Distance  Learning Project.<\/p>\n<p>  to post a comment.<\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>See the article here:<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/ieet.org\/index.php\/IEET2\/more\/Searle20170131\" title=\"Utopia Now! - Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies\">Utopia Now! - Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Given all the chaos and pessimism lately and in light of the fact that with the inauguration of Trump we will be walking into very dangerous times, its perhaps a good moment for a little bit of hope, though the progressive rallies over the last few days certainly make me feel hopeful. As his inauguration speech made clear, Trumps victory signals the end of the liberal order that has defined the world since the end of the Second World War. An order based on the twin pillars of American hegemony and capitalist economics, a transformation that presents both grave dangers and opportunities to think the world anew <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/new-utopia\/utopia-now-institute-for-ethics-and-emerging-technologies\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[187819],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-new-utopia"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183015"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=183015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}