Saturday, October 17, 2015

The Graeber and Thiel Non-Debate on Technological Progress

Here is a link to a video of the (non-)debate that was the occasion for the following scattered sputterings on twitter late last night. Their talk is entitled "Where Did The Future Go?" and my response would be something like the question, "Why Won't The Futurists Just Go?"

at

9 comments:

  1. jimf8:14 AM

    > ...but it's hard to see either Thiel's Randroidal Great Man
    > stifled by mehums or Graeber's bureaucratization thesis as
    > serious proposals...

    It's hard even to listen to them being proposed. ;->

    > Graeber's initial framing of his disappointment in terms
    > of a failure of tech to deliver light-speed, teleporters,
    > magicmeds and so on may suggest that in his youth he
    > accepted no small amount of that old time techno-transcendental
    > religion himself when it comes to it.

    Yeah, not even Arthur C. Clarke guzzled that much Kool-Aid
    back in the 60s. I remember that _Profiles of the Future_
    spends a few pages debunking the notion of "teleportation".

    And for Vulcan's sake, people, _Star Trek_ was **entertainment**.
    No less so than Middle-earth.

    And we **are** living in "the future". At least relatively
    affluent folks living in first-world countries are.
    And yeah, that future, at least as it's experienced by
    ordinary civilians, leans heavily on **entertainment** --
    Watching a bazillion channels of streaming TV, and
    then yakking it all up on social media.

    And kids getting sex ed via internet porn! Hey -- increasingly blasé
    attitudes among the young towards homosexuality may
    owe in no small part to that!

    Bernard Braden interviews Quentin Crisp (1968)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFPqDUQKmt8
    (2:35/10:46)
    -----------------
    Braden: You also make a point of what many people are saying about
    legislation in terms of racial tolerance -- that there is
    very little point in legislation which doesn't carry people
    along with it, in terms of persuasion. Are there methods you
    can think of that would be helpful in this sense? I've
    been trying to think of the name of Peter Wildblood's first book. . .

    Crisp: _Outside the Law_

    Braden: That book, which also struck me as being a very moving
    document, and I think was partly responsible for a report
    which helped, nevertheless didn't carry people with it.
    Are there any methods that you can think of, are there people
    you know of, who are prepared to try and persuade people,
    heterosexual people, to the kind of welcome that you indicated
    earlier should have been?

    Crisp: No. You see, this is where we come to something
    I think I mention in the book, which I call Brigid Brophy's
    First Law: Enlightenment does not produce tolerance.
    Tolerance is the result of boredom. The facts have to be
    repeated over and over and over. And in the end people
    say "All right, so you're queer. Just talk about something
    else." And then the work is done. And this is of course
    the work of time. Not of people. And not of legislation.
    Legislation makes almost no difference. It is the **result**
    of public opinion. You can't really force -- especially
    in England -- a law upon a people who is totally against
    it. Because they will get round it. The more laws you have
    the more fixers and the more snoopers.

    Braden: You're saying in effect that really you have to
    bore people to death with the facts. . .

    Crisp: With the facts. Then toleration sets in.
    ====

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown1:06 PM

    I am pretty sure Ellul would fall for it since he was under the impression that technology had a soul and was unstoppable.

    And Murray Bookchin did not fall for it neither. I know you have this problem that as soon as an "left wing" anarchist mentions spontaneity and happens to debate somewhat cordially with an asshole, there must be massive similarities between right wing and left wing despite its superficiality.

    (I put the scare quotes to the left wing part because as I have said before there is no historically shred of evidence of similarities between propertarians and anarchists. Except in the stupidity in anarchist but there is plenty of stupidity on the revolutionary left (especially among marxists)).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dale Carrico3:05 PM

    I know you have this problem that as soon as an 'left wing' anarchist mentions spontaneity and happens to debate somewhat cordially with an asshole, there must be massive similarities between right wing and left wing despite its superficiality.

    The affinities were on display, I just documented and elaborated them. If you have a criticism of any particular observation above -- and since these were tweeted I'm sure there are plenty of occasions for imperfect communication of complex ideas in 120 characters or less! -- I do welcome honest disagreements and questions as always. For instance, your point about Ellul is well-taken: Tho' I still don't think he would have fallen for the particular line of techno-transcendental moonshine on display especially in Thiel's transhumanoidal singularitarianism and possibly Graeber's loose talk, too, you are quite right that Ellul had his own brand of techno theology to flog.

    It is also true, of course, that I believe left-wing and right-wing anarchisms share more assumptions and argumentative tics and consequences than their advocates should be comfortable with -- we have argued these points in great depth many times by now and I am happy to admit you understand but are not convinced by my view and cordially agree to disagree with you on the topic by now. Hope all is well in your world!

    ReplyDelete
  4. jimf6:56 PM

    Science Fiction Fandom #49 - Tom Shippey keynote speech at Boskone 47

    Description from the pocket program: "Our Special Guest looks back
    on 50 rewarding years of being a SF fan, and 40 much less rewarding
    years of being a professor of English, and asks: what created SF?
    And what made it so different, and so fascinating? It's no good asking
    the professors. SF has produced a string of visions, shared and
    developed by a host of authors, but some of these are now running
    out of conviction (like NASA). What could give SF a boost? Are
    we looking at 'Day Million' or 'The Dying Earth'?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43TQr5xG2HU
    (11:23/58:44)
    -------------------
    What triggered the appearance of science fiction?

    In thinking about this, I'm considering essentially
    my father's lifetime. Second, what visions has
    science fiction produced in my lifetime? And third,
    future -- why do I feel now as if I'm waiting for
    something? As if I'm waiting for the other shoe to
    drop, or waiting for the booster rocket to fire?
    Because I do feel a certain lack at the moment. . .

    I start off with what triggered the appearance
    of science fiction. Which incidentally, ignoring. . .
    Frankenstein and all that stuff, I date real
    science fiction, the stuff you can actually read
    with more than historical interest, back to the
    1890s. . . [to] H. G. Wells. . .

    I will now ask you a question. A question I've
    never asked anybody before. Do you remember the moment
    when you realized you were going to die, when
    you became aware of your own mortality? I feel
    we should all remember this, because it's obviously
    a vital moment, and some say it's the thing that
    distinguishes us from the animals. . . You know,
    when you realized that all that stuff about death
    applied to **you**, and there was a time when you
    were not going to be there. Well I remember when
    this happened to me. And I can remember where I
    was, which gives me a dating on it. . .
    I was in Calcutta, so that means I was 7 or under. . .
    I don't know what I said to my father, but it was clear that
    I said something about dying. But I remember what
    he said to me. He said "I wouldn't worry about
    that. By the time you're grown up, they'll probably
    have found a cure for that." Now it may be that
    he was just consoling a little boy. But I think,
    actually, he probably meant it. And if I think what
    happened to him in his life, I think he perhaps had
    kind of a reason for saying that. If you think
    of what happened in his life span, which was 1904
    to 1962, and considering the nature of the changes
    in that long 50 years, well, think of 'em. . .

    so, all those things happened, and there was a kind
    of expectation that this would continue to happen. . .
    And it seems to me that in terms of life experience,
    those 50+ years saw in more big changes, and more
    sort of accelerated changes, than what's happened
    since. If I compare, as it were, his life span, shall
    we say 1900 to '55, and mine, shall we say 1955
    to 2010, well what I've seen has been steady improvement,
    don't deny that. . . but, in a way, improvement not
    total change. . . And it seems to me that, in my father's
    life span, this is when science fiction emerged.
    It was set up and driven on by a unique experience of
    change. . . It wasn't just change, it was this feeling,
    going back to what I said about the moment you realized
    you're going to die and what my father said, it wasn't
    just change, it was **potential** change. My father
    had a belief, really, in unlimited potential. And that
    perhaps has eroded in the time since then, since
    1950. . .
    ====

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unknown10:44 PM

    I believe that you are exaggerating the so called techno-transcendental ideas of David Graeber since his original article was more about stagnation and lack of innovation in techological research and science with a clear tongue in cheek use of old science fiction symbols. I feel this is what is in use during this debate (which is meaningless and they agree way less than either is admitting). Just look on Peter Thiel face everytime Graeber tried to talk about the inherent fault of capitalism or experiments in alternative democratic solutions. I mean one is arguing that the problem of the currently system is the fact that majorities have no avenue of expression or power of creativity towards solving collective problems that beset us as a species. I believe that Graeber massiva fault is having this ridiculous non event that i agree with says nothing of value on the Subject since the two people have absolutly incompatible ideas.

    I mean David Graeber has an obession with new left bureaucracy ideas.

    I might be late but is it just me who with the talk about immortality drugs makes me think about Bug Jack Barron.

    My world is shit right now but that is personal problems and have nothing to do with this. Hope things are better for your world.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dale Carrico11:11 PM

    Fair enough, I agree there is a difference between Thiel's explicit techno-transcendentalism and the woolly techno-abundance/magickal framing Graeber deploys, perhaps as you say with tongue more in cheek. I tried to convey some sense of that asymmetry in the tweets themselves but perhaps that didn't come through. In any case, that we mobilize techno-transcendental tropes unconsciously is actually part of the larger problem I would diagnose in the ongoing dissemination of reactionary neoliberal futurology... but as I said you have a point.

    Sorry to hear you have hit a rough patch -- if it's any consolation, this too shall pass. All good thoughts to you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ennui8:33 AM

    the most revealing of Graeber's books is his: 'Direct Action: An Ethnography' which is his earnest ethnographic diary of his involvement with the anti-globalization protests of the late 90s. It's meant as a sort of advertisement for 'unanimous consent' driven anarchist self-organizing familiar now from the later 'Occupy' events. But, in each of his case studies Graeber comes off as a sort of Don Quixote figure, completely earnest in his delusions and incapable of seeing the disastrous blunders resulting from lack of information, poor follow-through, disorganization and grueling intra-personal politics.

    So, his blindness to bureaucracy as a social "technology" is not surprising. The irony is that "science" is exactly the territory where bureaucracy is the least useful, from the simple fact that, in science, knowing what to do is almost the same as doing it. Bureaucracy starts with a plan, and then breaks everything down, as in an assembly line, to a sequence of steps. but, scientific discovery is very difficult to plan, and having a sequence of steps is, in effect, the discovery; bureaucracy is then only useful if the discovery requires significant material resources to realize, or the process of self-organizing towards discovery needs laboratories and other facilities to maintain...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dale Carrico2:45 PM

    Excellent comments! (Also pleased you inadvertently reminded me of a line which never fails to make me smile: "N is for Neville who died of ennui.")

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unknown6:15 AM

    I feel a better exemplet is his democracy book which is good except for a few pages when he goes into a rant about how majotitarian decision making means militarism because gerilla forces and desperate military troops have used it. He has a tendency to sadly try to prove how things he doesn't like leads to bad things, therefore not really adhering to the experimentalism that exists in his other works. I mean in his a fragment of anarchist anthropology he makes the point that violent revolution does not work because Georg Sorel, that is it.

    On the other hand i have to disagree with your point that Graeber doesn't have bureaucracy as a social technology since that is his entire point in his book the rules of utopia.

    ReplyDelete