Thursday, March 06, 2014

"Google, Please Solve Death!"


When I first saw this image I assumed it was a parodic skewering of corporate-militarist techno-utopianism in the spirit of the Yes Men, but at least some people seem to regard it as a legitimate "Street Action for Transhumanism." Not to put too fine a point on it, but picketing a corporate headquarters not to protest its crimes but to promise to buy more of its products in the hopes that they will eventually make you effortlessly rich, sexy, and immortal isn't exactly my idea of a "Street Action" in any emancipatory politics worthy of the name. I have long argued that transhumanoid, singularitarian, techno-immortalist, nano-cornucopian, digi-utopian futurisms always tend to support reactionary corporate-military politics, even when their advocates earnestly do not mean them to do so, by substituting passive gizmo-fetishizing consumer fandoms for political organization, by endorsing elite technocratic circumventions of democracy through proposals of social change primarily or even exclusively through profitable design interventions, by reducing to the terms of technical amplification any aspiration for progress for which political struggles among stakeholders in history in the direction of equity-in-diversity are always required in fact, and by celebrating current hierarchies through a paradoxical naturalization of them in which fantasies of status quo amplification are peddled as if they constitute "disruption" and "accelerating change" when they disrupt and change little that matters for real social justice.

1 comment:

  1. > "Google, Please Solve Death!"

    And while you're at it, Google, please solve the energy
    crisis and global warming! (Maybe you can get Amazon and
    Wikipedia to help.)

    http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/
    ----------------
    What should we do about climate change?
    Two opposing views, and they’re both wrong
    March 6th, 2014

    In the last 250 years, humanity has become completely
    dependent on fossil fuel energy. . . While uncertainty
    remains about the future extent and consequences of
    climate change, there is no uncertainty about the causal
    link between burning fossil fuel, increasing carbon dioxide
    concentrations in the atmosphere, and a warming world. . .
    What should we do about it? From two ends of the political
    spectrum, there are two views, and I think they are
    both wrong. . .

    The “environmentalists” are right about the urgency of
    the problem, but they underestimate the degree to which
    society currently depends on cheap energy, and they
    overestimate the capacity of current renewable energy
    technologies to provide cheap enough energy at scale.
    The “realists”, on the hand, are right about the degree
    of our dependence on cheap energy, and on the shortcomings
    of current renewable technologies. But they underplay
    the risks of climate change, and their neglect of the
    small but significant chance of much worse outcomes than
    the consensus forecasts takes wishful thinking to the
    point of recklessness.

    But the biggest failure of the “realists” is that they don’t
    appreciate how slowly innovation in energy technology is
    currently proceeding. This arises from two errors.
    Firstly, there’s a tendency to believe that technology
    is a single thing that is accelerating at a uniform rate,
    so that from the very visible rapid rate of innovation
    in information and communication technologies we can
    conclude that new energy technologies will be developed
    similarly quickly. But this is a mistake: innovation
    in the realm of materials, of the kind that’s needed
    for new energy technologies, is much more difficult,
    slower and takes more resources than innovation in the
    realm of information. While we have accelerating innovation
    in some domains, in others we have innovation stagnation. . .
    ====


    Hey, no problem! Materials science is moving too slowly?
    Just rename it "nanotechnology" and watch it take off!

    http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/nano-nonsense-25-years-of-charlatanry/
    ----------------
    I used to work next to the center for nanotechnology. The first
    indication I had that there was something wrong with the
    discipline of “nanotechnology” is I noticed that the people
    who worked there were the same people who used to do
    chemistry and material science. It appeared to be a more
    fashionable label for these subjects. Really “material science”
    was a sort of fancy label for the chemistry of things we
    use to build other things. OK, new name for “chemist.”
    Hopefully it ups the funding. Good for you guys. . .
    ====

    ReplyDelete