[lbo-talk] Race to Nowhere... && Obama got Osama

[// ravi]

On May 5, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Somebody Somebody wrote:
> Alan Rudy: Oh, you didn't understand what I wrote about your politics, your take on technology abstracted from its production or your utopianism so you wrote some babble about the weather... My bad, I guess. 
> 
> Somebody: I know it's fun to over-intellectualize matters. However, when it comes to technology, the first and foremost question is this: does the ensemble of technological developments that comprise what we call progress today improve the lot of the greater mass of humanity on balance or not? 
> 
> The answer, after even the most perfunctory examination, is that it is does. Sometimes the real world is actually more simple than the variegated universes of our philosophical imaginations.
> 

This is an excellent turn. I too endorse the idea of not over-intellectualising matters. So, less talk then of progress as "freedom from necessity” and more simple and direct understanding of the word. Technological progress is by this standard nothing more than “more technology”, or if you prefer more sophisticated and advanced technology. So, to restate your position (if you will permit it), the main means of improving humanity’s condition is through more advanced technology. With that in hand…

On May 3, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Somebody Somebody wrote:
> 
> Somebody: No, progress, without quotes, is freedom from necessity. That God awful Western life-style means that people do not normally have to worry about dying in infancy or youth. And when they do, they have the luxury of considering it an outrageous tragedy, worthy of memorials, fundraisers, and television movies. One day, hopefully sooner rather than later if we make the necessary investments now, we'll have the unthinkable luxury of considering dying at 80 an outrageous waste of life.
> 

It seems that your quest is immortality and your belief is that the Western life-style (in stark terms: 5% of world population consuming 30% of the world’s resources, where 50% of all food produced is thrown into the trash) is what is going to bring about this immortality. Let us ignore: (a) that not everybody might share your Groundhog Day fancy (I for one am feeling pretty done by this point in my life), (b) there is some confusion on how much shorter was hunter-gatherer life especially when you filter out death due to violence (as we should for the purpose of this discussion, since technology, in the context of conflict, only increases violent death). Ignoring these, the very fact that at least some dirt poor third world residents make it to the age of 80 (“counterfactual”) should make it clear that the “God awful Western life-style” is not a *necessary* ingredient of a long life.


> I never mentioned anything about iPhones or Twitter. Actually, I'm deeply critical of the way technology has been appropriated by the minor sub-domain of mobile devices and social networking applications.

And yet, you pin all your hope in the belief that more technology will somehow liberate humans and reverse this misappropriation! Doesn’t the fact that:


> When you look for technology news you are overwhelmed by Facebook and Apple

make you pause and wonder that answers do not lie on this route?


> Having said that, it's undeniable that most of the world desperately seeks the Western (and now Eastern) way of life.

If you don’t mind it, I am going to deny it anyway.

	—ravi