My views on Mashable's Nov 2011 "Next 40 years of Technology" comment/essay winner.

I realize it is a bit late, but this popped up on my twitter feed the other day, so I had to read it.  I was dumbfounded, which is not really that hard since I am of mean intelligence at best.  However, the winner's(and I cannot fathom how this was chosen as winner) comment was all tech-kittens and rainbows.  I hate kittens and rainbows.  It's true, I hated my cat for the first 14 months of its life, and I live in New Mexico, where it never rains, so the possibility of a rainbow is dismally, and thankfully, low.


http://mashable.com/2011/11/15/next-40-years-in-tech-winner/


My reply to the whole Mashable thing, and his comment, is as below, just in case they decide not to allow it:

 While Kyle's vision of the future is filled with hope and good will, one cannot deny the unfortunate fact his comment is somewhat... Rose colored.  Yes, to remain on par with what will inevitably become known as the "top line" of humanity, one will need to upgrade one's self both mentally and physically, taking evolution by the hand and gently guiding it.  However, where does he get the idea that this advancement will in any way, shape, or form "enable us to overcome worldwide problems"?  We must first define worldwide problem, and  in order to even begin addressing any definition of the term worldwide problem, one must consider the perspective from which the term is viewed: common human, or the wealthy power-base.  Worldwide problems: (a-common man) hunger, poverty, inequality, violence based on color, creed or ethnicity, abuses at the hands of the powerful; (b-powerful) common man, disturbance of the balance of power, uncontrolled change.

From the perspective of the common human, technology will not help in any way to alleviate worldwide problems.  It may well serve to exacerbate a large number of current issues, ending in even worse living conditions for many.  Unless, of course, the people who control the flow of technology to and among the populace display some previously hidden reservoir of kindness.  How likely do you, the reader of this comment, think that will be?

So, when considering the solving of worldwide problems, in order for emerging technologies to overcome those problems, one is forced to consider the term from the perspective of the powerful.  Let's not mince words or continue under proven false pretenses: the majority of powerful people in the world have shown, in the past decade, the tendency to view the common human as a herd of cattle at worst, chattel property at best.  The advancing technologies will be previewed by those in power first, then more modest versions will be fed to the populace as though these were the creme' de la creme'.  The world will continue much the way it has, with a shrinking middle class, and growing poverty covered in the patina of human advancement.  Those whom wish to remain in the increasingly privileged middle-class will be forced to concede to the regulations of  whichever powerful figure they are working for, be that figure CEO, Imam, Pastor, or Politician, while maintaining proscribed enhancement levels and acquiescing to what I can only imagine will be mandatory monitoring of those who can afford enhancements.  

Solar energy, or any more efficient energy source, will be no less expensive for the common man.  Period.  It will, however, be significantly less expensive for the powerful, leading to increased profit margin per watt produced, making it easier for utilities to control what they charge for their product.  Our ability to pay will only come into consideration when considering the maximum amount they can charge while maintaining the largest number of customers in order to maintain the highest level of income.  Pretty much how they do it now, Wall St. speculators aside.  This same formula will be applied to food production, fresh-water supply, home-building materials, anything considered essential for survival.  Since monetary value is inevitably pegged to these things, and the prices for these needs rise every year, average inflation will remain near the same levels it has seen for the last hundred years or so, not counting wartime or recessions, which tend to create anomalous changes in inflation rates.  Technology will change none of that.

To deny that this is the most probable outcome for the future forty years from now is to deny the last ten, no, two hundred... Let's be realistic, the entirety of human history.  Cynicism aside, human nature will lead the powerful to do anything to remain in power, and the oppressed to suffer under that power until a boiling point is reached, and the newly minted "rebels" achieve a momentary equality that is essentially the foundation for the next ruling class that will inevitably repeat the actions of past powerful people.  From the ashes, beside the newer powers, the powerful families of the past will rise to pretend the climb to their former lofty position, and the cycle will once again repeat.  Technology or not.

Now, to say what I was too polite to say in Mashable's comments:

Where do we, as a society, get our friggin opinions of the future? 

 I can understand the Conservative Right's "The world is flat and a magical white guy with a beard created everything so the left can go suck it.  Oh, the Easter bunny... Well the Easter bunny is fake..." point of view.  What it boils down to is the years of inbreeding and hatred of the written word have led to an irrational fear of even the smallest changes in human understanding.  

Now, those who have an understanding of science, and use, or claim to use, logic and responsibility in living their daily lives, where do we get the gall to "believe" that the future will be beautiful and clean, where people are ageless and our brains are soooooo powerful?  That is almost as irresponsible as being religious.

The best that humanity at large can hope for should technology advance as fast and powerfully as people like Ray Kurzweill, Aubrey DeGrey, and even the people responsible for the gritty Deus Ex video game series, would like is an Adam Jensen who will throw a wrench into the gears of the powerful.  But, sorry, it'll never happen.

SO, I guess I am just miffed that people are so blind to their current reality that they think the future is just as blind to that reality.  Just because someone who actually knows what they are talking about says we will be able to do something does not mean that we will be allowed to do that thing.  Do you honestly think the powers that be will allow us to be as strong, beautiful, and long-lived as we wish unless there is something substantial to be gained?  Forty years aside, it will be at least a century before technologies dealing with the foundations of humanity will be allowed to circulate freely in society, be they centered on age, our intellectual power, or exo-terrestrial colonization.  But that's if the CEO's and religious leaders of the world have their way.  So, let's compromise and say that within seventy years, we will be able to advance ourselves in great ways, because wrenches tend to jam the best protected gears.  Until then, no matter how many future-tech-rainbows some leftist hippy-dreamer feeds you, and despite how many eternities in a swimming pool filled with bullets and burning coals some child-molesting, right-wing, preacher threatens you with, invest in some asstroglyde and get ready for what's coming.  The CEO of your favorite food company is going to sell you more unbelievable bullshit then that hippy can imagine and then fuck you harder than every-single super-natural being dreamed up by some old man with psychological problems who ate some middle-eastern peyote, even if every single "god" is actually standing in line with a number for the universe's most forgiving gang-bang.

Fly Smart.