"Elias Altvall" commented elsewhere in the same
Moot I mentioned in the last post,
"I see futurologists like priests." To this observation I responded:
This analogy is
definitely clearest in the guru-wannabe layer of the organizational
archipelago of robocultic sects. But I tend to think the more apt
analogy is the crass salesmanship of the middle-managers and PR-glad
handlers, barking on cellphones and laser-pointing at PowerPoint slides
the latest line in BS.
Consumer capitalist marketing is an endless
peddling of stasis as novelty and crap as wish-fulfillment. And I think
futurological discourse is just a slightly amplified variation of that
dance of death. That most futurologists likely disdain or at any rate
fail to grasp their kinship with their more prevalent middle-brow
discursive cousins just goes to show that they aren't exactly very
sensitive or bright, even as they congratulate themselves on their
superior scientificity and visionary genius. No doubt there are plenty
of banksters with the same delusions of grandeur.
Neither is it
surprising on these terms to see that futurologists so readily fancy
themselves parts of futurist "movements" -- eugenic transhumanism,
history-shattering singularitarianism, greenwashing geo-engineering, the
various techno-immortalisms,
plastic/nuclear/nano/3Dprinter-cornucopisms, and so on -- after all,
consumer fandoms around Apple gizmos fancy themselves movement no less.
In No Logo, Naomi Klein described a company exec declaring Diesel Jeans "a
movement."
Think of those self-esteem hucksters and the
authors of management technique best-sellers, offering up their vapid but
lucrative consolations in packed Vegas auditoriums -- they are the same
sort of guru-wannabes some lucky TED-talking futurologists manage to
become, spouting slogans and neologisms and offering up their
desperately hyperbolized advertorial promises, sex and success, like
every empty ad shouting its lies on every screen.
"The Future" -- that would-be heaven
of certainty and satisfaction and youthful skin -- is the faith that
suffuses our catastrophically stupid society, its deceptive, hyperbolic norms and forms distract and derange
us on our way to death as we destroy the world and the weak for no good
reason any one of us can say, corrupt priests and dumb postulants all
the way down.
3 comments:
The more I read philosophical history the more I start to realise just how unimaginative futurology (and it's sub species) are.
What is the difference between the shamwow guy and a futurologist on a basiv level? I mean really. I want that explained to me because I maybe too dumb not to see a difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Religion
"This article is about the clothing brand. For the religious concept, see One true faith"
Seeing "True Religion" as a brand on clothing, always ties my brain in knots. Is the branding not religion at all because it's marketing? Or is the brand a bona fide religion because, well, that's all religion really is? If the latter is the case, does the hint of inauthenticity brought about by prepending the term "True" (as in "No true Scotsman") intended to suggest that religion isn't marketing, or that marketing isn't religion?
--Nato
(Yep, I'm still reading. Sorry I missed this when it was first posted.)
Nato, my friend! Good to hear from you!
Post a Comment