novel
Apocalypsopolis, book one
zines
Civilization Will Eat Itself, Superweed 1-4, best of
"The bigger you build the bonfire, the more darkness is revealed."
- Terence McKenna
novel
Apocalypsopolis, book one
zines
Civilization Will Eat Itself, Superweed 1-4, best of
February 25. Unrelated links. A reader sends this inspiring article on India's rice revolution, a new growing method that increases yields without degrading the soil or feeding economic domination.
Two reddit posts by the same person about what it's like to be a heroin addict and to use it for the first time.
I also recently discovered reddit's SFW porn network. Here's SpacePorn and you can access all the others from drop-down menus at the top.
February 22. Related to the ongoing subject, a good reddit thread: Am I the only one who thinks Brave New World is a paradise rather than a dystopia? Thankfully, the OP does seem to be the only one... so far. A lot of the responses mention "what it means to be human," but as I mentioned the other day, it is possible to use technology to change human nature. I'd like us to change to become more able to handle freedom, power, responsibility, and risk; but we could just as easily change in the other direction, and become more and more tolerant of being infantilized.
There is another dimension to this issue that I haven't mentioned yet: the possibility that our world is part of an invisible larger world that has a plan for us. There's a lot of buzz about how we could be in a computer simulation, but I think the method must be as alien to us as computers are to cavemen. Anyway, the more interesting question is: Why? Personally I think it has something to do with learning, because when I try to learn, everything falls into place, but when I try to have too much fun I get slapped down. It's even possible that different people are here for different reasons.
If we entertain the idea that we're here for a purpose, can we reconcile this with the observation that human life is getting more insulated and predictable? Why would that be in the plan? One story is that the insulation is another challenge we have to overcome, that we have to learn to create life from inside us in a lifeless environment. A similar story came to me in a dream last night: we are being turned into a substrate, a blank slate for another level of creation. If you want to write, you don't buy paper covered with chaos of words -- you buy clean white paper with uniform lines. Human life is being turned into clean white paper with uniform lines, a square blank canvas, a formatted disk drive. What are we going to put on it?
This is getting off the subject, but I also had a dream where music in the future will expand in the dimension of variations in the same song, so that instead of listening to one version of one song, our new consciousness will enable us to hear thousands of versions at once and listen to the changes.
February 20. Last week I argued that it's better for us to have more freedom and power, which means more opportunities to harm other people and ourselves, even if it leads to more people being harmed. Obviously this has to be done in moderation, which is why I support moderate restrictions on guns and drugs and driving. Because if we increase freedom too fast, it can create so much trauma that there's a popular backlash, and a regression toward less personal power and more power monopolized by domination systems.
But there is a deeper issue: what are we working toward as a species? Suppose we end up in an all-powerful surveillance state, designed so that even if every human is a murderous psychopath, nothing bad can ever happen, and we all sit around taking euphoria drugs and consuming entertainment. Have we won, or have we failed? My utopian vision is at the other extreme: no authority, no restrictions, nothing is ever locked, the world is full of dangers, and yet it's rare for anything bad to happen, because humans have attained godlike levels of personal virtue and awareness. We may never get there, but I think that's what we should be aiming for.
More generally, I could frame the conflict between these visions as a conflict between internal progress and external progress. Is it more important to improve human nature or improve the human condition? Along another axis there is a political question: how far do you go in using central control? And which improvements work with or against central control?
I've noticed that technological progress is usually described as if improving the human condition is the only thing that matters. So if we build machines to do everything for us, that's good, even if we lose the ability to do anything for ourselves. I see tremendous potential to use technology for internal progress, but there is also the danger of improving ourselves in the wrong way.
February 16. Thanks Jane for this inspiring article on The Street Kids of San Francisco.
At the other extreme, thanks Leigh Ann for this reddit thread on the hilarious police blotter for Atherton, California, where the median house price is over four million dollars. Among reports from other cities of shootings and stabbings and robberies, in Atherton you get stuff like "A male was reported to be lying on the ground, possibly writing."
This fits with my new pessimism about the future. Rich people are not born insane -- they become insane because they're so insulated. And if the system doesn't collapse, eventually it's going to be Atherton everywhere.
Also I've just rewritten my February 12 post for clarity. Libraries will be closed Monday so I won't be online again until Tuesday.
February 14. Something I've been meaning to post for a while, the user page of Erinaceous, who as far as I know is the smartest person who regularly comments on reddit.
And something new, a project my friend Adam has been working on, The Art of Gratitude. Sometimes when I'm falling asleep at night I count things I'm grateful for... but more often I count things I would do with omnipotent power.
February 12. Two related links: Why Parents Need to Let Their Children Fail, and Smothered by Safety. I'm thinking, if we're doing this to kids, are we also on the path to doing it to everyone?
This reminds me of the current debate on gun control. There's an assumption in our culture that delaying death is an absolute good. But whatever our purpose is for being in this world, it's not to avoid leaving, since everyone leaves -- it's in what we do while we're here, which probably has something to do with holding power and responsibility, taking risks, and learning to get along with each other. I think guns are good for us because they give us the option to shoot each other and the challenge to not shoot each other. For the same reason, driving is good for us. If society is set up so that it's impossible for anyone to harm anyone else, then there is no power, no responsibility, and no need for learning.
This is my new vision of doom: politically it's much easier to increase safety than to increase danger, so we're going to see ratcheting tightness, in the name of safety, served by powerful technologies. In a hundred years only rich people and servants of the control system will be allowed to shoot or drive or otherwise put anyone else at risk. In another hundred years, you won't even be allowed to put yourself at risk, and if you think that's silly, consider seat belt laws. Eventually all power and responsibility will be held by artificial intelligence and robots, and they will exterminate us -- not with bullets, but by making life so predictable that we lose the will to live.
February 8. Three week-old links. First, a new View from Hell post, Single Income No Kids: A Supernormal Stimulus Benevolently Exploiting Ancestral Patterns. Sister Y argues that if one partner goes out and makes money, the other partner takes care of the home, and they don't have any kids, everybody wins -- except large institutions that feed on us through the money economy.
Are Placebos Really Sugar Pills? Kas Thomas accuses drug companies of using biologically active placebos, pills that do something while pretending to do nothing. Specifically, they are often designed to cause the same side effects as the drug being tested, so they can advertise that the drug doesn't cause that side effect more than a placebo. Note that "side effect" is a marketing term -- drugs just have effects.
And a reddit comment bashing high-speed rail: "it's a prestige project that costs a metric ass-ton of taxpayer money in return for a fabulous technological achievement that mostly benefits the wealthy." Personally I'm against high-speed anything. Because I am patient and know how to entertain myself, I like life to be slow and cheap. I enjoy riding the train, but even low-speed rail is usually out of my budget. If I were the impossible anarchist dictator, every freight train would be required to have a passenger car, with no attendants, so anyone could hop on anywhere and ride for free at their own risk.
February 6. Loose ends from my last post: in this subreddit thread polyparadigm comments that maybe people have trouble being themselves because they don't know themselves, and we're getting worse at knowing ourselves, because we "build identity in dialogue with one another" and more of our dialogue is with manipulative technologies instead of other people.
Also, this subreddit post argues that people are being forced to be less honest by economic desperation. Class is definitely a factor in this issue. The main reason I don't travel in poorer countries is that it makes me sick to see everyone sucking up to me just because I happen to have more money. It's almost impossible for people of different social class to be emotionally honest with each other, and American wealth inequality is greater now than ever.
I'm in Seattle for the rest of the week, so I'll have more internet time than usual.
February 4. In recent reddit threads, I've noticed something troubling: today's young people seem to think "be yourself" is bad advice. (Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.) One possibility is that they're wrong, that being yourself is still the best move, but they have unrealistic expectations about the difficulty of life. Obviously it's not true that being yourself will make people like you. It will make them uncomfortable, it will make it harder to find friends, find a partner, find a job; but eventually you will find those things on your own terms and your life will be built on a foundation of authenticity. If you want the most people to like you the fastest, you should pretend to be what they want, or what they expect; but that choice puts you on a path to faking your whole life, being outwardly successful and secretly miserable.
Maybe people just don't get this, but the really disturbing possibility is that the world is changing, that it's getting harder and harder to get away with honesty. This trend would fit the trend I wrote about a week ago, of using technology to feed back our desires and expectations. If you want someone's attention, you're no longer just competing with other humans in the raw; you're competing with digital entertainment, photoshopped images, carefully managed internet profiles, online communities self-selected for agreement. Even other face-to-face humans might be on drugs to make them more likeable.
If this is the path we're on, where does it lead? Also related, a post I made in October 2011 about real and fake emotion.
January 31. This reddit thread on Michael Dell buying back Dell Inc. has some great comments about how a company can be ruined by putting it on the stock market, and how the future of business might be privately owned companies. Is this related to the end of economic growth?
January 28. (permalink) Over the weekend I read Philip K Dick's last finished novel, The Transmigration of Timothy Archer. There's a pivotal scene where three characters go to a medium, intending to talk with the spirit of another character who died. The medium is a fraud, but there's a twist: it's not that she has no psychic powers, but that she has a different power than she claims; rather than speaking with the dead, she can read minds. So she just tells everyone whatever they are already thinking. They think they're looking out a window, when they're looking in a mirror, and this leads to their destruction.
I think this is the key to two of Dick's biggest themes: reality and madness. Reality is looking outward, unreality is looking inward, and madness is when you can't tell the difference.
This reminds me of my favorite critique of technology. In the book In the Absence of the Sacred, Jerry Mander argues that our technological progress is like inbreeding: we have been turning our attention away from the world outside humanity, and deeper into a world created by humans. Look around where you're sitting now. Can you see or hear anything that was not created by humans? How common was this for your ancestors?
I have a challenge for transhumanists. The word can mean a lot of things, but I would ask: where will future transhumans be focusing their attention? With whom will they have relationships? If they're truly transcending humanity, they will be looking outside the world created by humans. I fear that transhumanism is really ultra-humanism, where we not only turn our attention deeper inside the world we created, but change ourselves so that we can't get out.
January 26. The other day there was an epic reddit comment on the fall of Rome, compiling links to almost a hundred other comment threads on various questions.
Unrelated, another nice reddit thread, people with a history of depression, what was the most positive thing someone said to you while you were low?
And two loose ends on lard. A reader mentions that the cracklings can be improved by baking them at 350F until they're brown and crispy. And another reader sends this thread about omega 6 in lard, which implies that hard lard is better for you than soft.
January 24. New landblog/houseblog post about rendering lard.
January 22. My latest thought about collapse is that there are two ways to frame it, or a continuum between two extremes. At one extreme, the threat of collapse is purely external. All systems are assumed to be equally strong, and the question is how many bad things have to happen to a system before it breaks down. This is like a view of infectious disease that assumes all immune systems are equally strong, and seeks to minimize exposure to germs. At the other extreme the threat is purely internal. So a strong system can endure anything, and a weak system will be toppled by anything. I lean in this direction. So if you want to predict if a certain system is going to crash, you don't look at all the threats lined up against it -- you look at how it behaves when things go wrong.
Specifically, I would look at feedback, how things going wrong cause other things to go wrong. Initially there is a continuum between zero feedback, where one thing going wrong does not make anything else go wrong, and maximum feedback, a chain reaction of bigger and bigger things going wrong, so that the slighest bump will bring total collapse. Over the longer term you can ask if a system gets hardened, where for example a hurricane makes it stronger against future hurricanes, or worn down, where every hurricane makes it weaker against future hurricanes.
I've stopped predicting collapse because I'm seeing low disaster feedback, chain reactions of smaller and smaller things going wrong, culminating in almost no change in the daily life of the average person. The technological systems seem especially strong, the economic systems weakest, and political systems somewhere in the middle. So if the European economy collapses, it will reshuffle but not totally overthrow the governments, and it will barely effect the electric grid.
The next question is, what would it take for any of these systems to change and become weaker? I see two ways it could happen. One is in complex systems theory, and Steven Strogatz raised this danger last week in his edge.org piece on too much coupling. Parts of the system are influencing other parts, and this is good up to a point, but if coupling passes some critical threshhold, the basic character of the system changes, and the next small disaster could cause something like a system-wide epileptic seizure.
The other change is in human psychology. I'm thinking of Fredy Perlman's book Against His-story, Against Leviathan, where he goes through the whole history of civilization arguing that empires fell because they were emotionally hollowed-out, because their own citizens no longer believed in them.
January 19. Here's a good link about the future of biotech: Interview with George Church: Can Neanderthals Be Brought Back from the Dead? My favorite part is about how "life science will co-opt almost every other field of manufacturing."
Related: The Deepening Paradox by Karl Schroeder, in which he argues that we are failing to recognize extraterrestrial life, because any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature.
January 16. The Edge.org 2013 question has just come out, and they ask a bunch of prominent thinkers What should be worried about? I just spent a few hours skimming the whole giant page, and picked out a few favorites. At the top Geoffrey Miller writes about Chinese eugenics, and down the page Robert Kurzban writes about the destabilizing effect of the imbalanced sex ratio in China. Also on the subject of human demographics, Kevin Kelly writes about the underpopulation bomb.
In the two that worry me the most, Eric Weinstein writes about excellence and Evgeny Morozov writes about "smart" technologies, and both argue that by seeking improvement and perfection according to a narrow cultural view, we are locking out genius and change. In a related point, Murali Doraiswamy writes that the American view of mental illness is spreading globally, so that more and more mental states that Americans don't appreciate are being declared pathological and overmedicated.
Stuart Kauffman, in the only optimistic piece that I like, says some stuff I don't quite understand about going beyond the Newtonian paradigm and re-enchanting the world. And in the best argument for doom, Steven Strogatz undermines my statement that "the interconnectedness of modern complex systems makes them stronger, not weaker." That has been true so far, but he knows some math that I don't, and he says that interconnectedness (he calls it coupling) can get too dense, leading to a phase shift where a system suddenly becomes brittle and unstable.
January 14. My friend Sarah will be traveling around the country this spring with her boyfriend and dog, in a Vardo tiny house on a pickup truck, staying with people and making pies. They're calling it the OccuPIE Pie It Forward Tour, and they're looking for hosts. You can email them at pieitforwardoccupie at gmail.
January 1. A reminder that I am semi-retired from blogging. Mainly that means that I will still post links but only reveal personal opinions once a week or so. When I reveal a personal opinion, you're welcome to email me with a comment, but if you have a comment on something I link to, that's between you and whoever wrote it. The thing I'm retiring from is the feeling that I'm sitting at a table with a thousand people who can talk to each other only by talking to me. Of course you can always post comments on the subreddit.