Xander-- A Faith With No True Believers

Islam has no true followers. This is because no man or woman is free to choose to cease being Muslim and therefore all members of the faith are in fact slaves to the faith. A religion that does not allow choice of membership is no religion at all; rather it is a tyrannical and oppressive institution...

Some argue that the Western Nations should pursue a live and let live policy regarding the countries that claim Islamic governance. However, until Muslims are allowed to choose to not be Muslim, they are slaves to a system of faith, which has proved to be fertile breeding ground for zealots bent on expanding their oppressive membership. The expansion of the Muslim faith by itself is not troubling, it is the fact that membership would be maintained under threat of death from extremists and that it would be a form of religious slavery.

So why are critics concerned with the Western Nations that allow freedom of choice and faith, and why do they endeavor to defend those nations that allow neither? Until each of the Islamic nations allow freedom of religion and abandon the misguided ambition of sublimating all other faiths, the west should show no restrain in changing the very dangerous institutions which have proved to be an ongoing threat to the free world. Oppression is the true enemy of freedom and can only be overcome through the use of military and economic power to break the institutional arrangements that allow continued oppression. Fortunately, the Western Nations are endowed with both forms of power to meet the responsibility owed to all peoples of our species.

Fitz--2084

Published in 1949, George Orwell predicted a dark future for humanity. A very scary future where humanity is under the most strick control under the watchful eye of "Big Brother." Clearly, the predicitons of Orwell did not bear fruit as the year 1984 has long since past. However, the dangers that Orwell sought to warn us about are still very much present...

Thus, 2084, a new prediction. Orwell may have been simply prophesizing this eventuality too soon. Instead we may find ourselves facing this horribly oppressive future sometime within the next two or three generations.

The problem is technological fundamentalism (coined by David W. Orr). Fundamentalism is something we hear a lot about these days. Usually in reference to religious extremists. But what does fundamentalism mean?

Fundamentalism refers to the blind devotion to a set of principles. The following of a belief system without question, a rigid adherence to a belief system.

Technological fundamentalism refers to the blind devotion to technological progress. Its principles, that each new technology that presents itself will provide greater convenience, speed, security, or affluence to our lives.

It is blind in that no one questions, no one says, "is this really good for me?" No one questions, "does this have consequences or ramifications beyond what the makers say it does?"

No one would have predicted the side effects of some of the early inventions of the 20th century. That the automobile, which provided quick transportation and convienience would in large quantities produce dangerous by-products harmful to the environment. No one would have predicted that the creation of an interstate system to accomodate the automobile would produce a great deal of highway deaths, loss of biological diversity, pollution, or the dependence on foreign nations for imported oil.

Does this generation wish they had asked some hard questions concerning the use and development of such technology? Probably not. What will the next generations inherit from our unquestioning devotion to technological progress and our being continually dazzled by is cleverness and promises of improving our lives?

What will be the effect of information age technologies? The ability to transmit and download information at light speed was promised to provide an economic boom and increase the security of information? But what are the "side effects" that we often overlook? Will human beings continue to find themselves cut off from one another? The ability to provide disinformation without adequate controls, provide a means to corrupt the human mind? Could it be used to homogenize culture, thinking?

These questions have not been asked. No one questions whether a cell phone is beneficial or not, they just assume it is and continue to use it. No thought is given to the social, economic, political, health, or environmental costs of any new technology until they are apparent. So each new generation is stuck with the ill effects of the innovations of the previous generation.

We must continue to ask these questions. Information superhighways--what then? We are now being promised the benefits of nanotechnology, genetic engineering, virtual reality, etc... How will this contribute to the ability of others to manipulate our physiology, our perceptions, or the operation of our mind.

We see the operation of the potential precursor to those things Orwell warned against. Predator drones, pharmacetical drugs, mapping of human genes, the list goes on. With out asking hard questions about our future, we may find a society that Orwell described, or something worse--where human beings are "medicated" or genetically altered to make them compliant.

These are the most dire consequences to be sure, but blind faith to technological innovation without thought to the cost or consequences risks humanities' future. We believe blindly that technology will cure all our problems, so things like the depletion of resources or global warming will eventually be mitigated by a new dazzling technological innovation. But what if they fail? Is it ignorant to continue to blindly believe that all future problems will simply be solved for us?

Why not take a new approach? Instead of a potentially grim future for 2084, whether it be environmental degredation and disaster, mind manipulation, or loss of control of many aspects of our lives right down to the celluar level, perhaps it will be better to take control of the process instead of having the process handed down to us, not knowing for sure the unintended consequences or the intentions of those who implement them.

Human beings tend to be short-sighted thinkers. We have plenty of means, but we often to not look towards the ends. Perhaps we need to look at where we want to be by 2084 and what we want to avoid and take a serious look at the processes of technological innovation and how it may contribute to a potentially disastrous future for humanity.

Stuart--Some Questions Regarding Leadership and Morality

As I have been reading these posts I have noted some general assumptions about what a leader/nation/person should be bound by, especially moral obligations. Although I fully believe that every person should be guided by a moral code and recognize his/her ethical obligations, I do think its important to ask some important questions...

Much of the discussion regarding domestic and international affairs revolves around morality and its roll in policy. But the question should be begged, should a leader be moral or should a leader be as moral as a hurricane, a force of nature with no goal or desire except its own course of nature. Certainly, many of the works on the art of war have articulated that every decision made by a general should be made to advance his own position regardless if it causes the detriment of others, because the goal is to enhance one's own position, nothing else. Does the same not apply to all politics? People talk about winners and losers in politics and world affairs, but really, nobody wins until they command rule over all and are challenged by nobody. Should a leader serve no master but his ambition? What about in one's personal life? Is all fair in love and war?

We have all been conditioned to accept the role of morality in our decision-making and loyalty in our personal relations, but can anyone truly achieve greatness and truly win with these constraints? Or do society's rules perpetuate ongoing conflict and failure by preventing anyone from truly seizing control of… everything? Even the wealthiest among us is but a popper, since we have divided and subdivided the planet into ever decreasing holdings. No one person or entity exercises enough power to truly affect his will and bring about change.

Are the rules that we are conditioned to accept put in place purely to prevent anyone from uniting all peoples and lands? To stop anyone from possessing enough power to bring about change? To keep a man tethered to others to prevent his ascension? I think before we continue to talk to much more about leadership, obligations, morals, ethics, law and the such, we need to discuss exactly what are the obligations of a leader if any? Or the obligations of anyone, if any?

Fitz--On Capitalism

Well to move away somewhat from Trent’s more reactionary posting (which despite being somewhat insulting to Xander and his position did succeed in garnering a lot of comments), I would like to relay some recent thoughts I have had regarding the capitalist system...

I am by no means a Marxist, but I do sympathize with that position, as I have a certain anti-materialistic streak in me (which is usually more evident when I am not at the mall dropping a hundred on DVDs or video games).

Anyway, unfettered capitalism can be a dangerous place. When the “invisible hand” makes its cold calculation of where the market is going, individual people sometimes get hurt. They could be put out of a job or business or suddenly find themselves at a lower standard of living. This is precisely why you never find a “pure” capitalist system anywhere in the world, they are all to a more or lesser degree, regulated in someway. Whether it is anti-trust laws to prevent monopolization or a social welfare net to help those that are inadvertently hurt by the system’s cold hard calculus.

I would argue that the system is damaging in another way. Its very nature promotes individualism. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I would argue that it is somewhat against the way human beings have lived for the majority of their existence on this planet.

Hobbes argues that man in the state of nature is in a state of war. It’s a brutal world of man vs. man for survival. I disagree with this. Man in the state of nature, was a social being, he came together in tribes. Certainly, there were wars between tribes, something would separate different groups of human beings, making them see each other as different and in the competition for resources they would clash. However, why did human beings form these groups?

Survival of course, they came together to increase ones welfare and protection against other predators and to increase one’s pool of resources. This enhanced their survival in many ways; it eased the burden of hunting and gathering and it deterred large predators, especially once we had fire and weapons. Additionally, an individual was better off, if one became sick or injured and could not contribute to the welfare of the tribe; he/she was still taken care of. It was a pooling of resources to enhance the welfare of the community and individuals.

It was a burden-sharing venture, the goal was survival. However, starting probably with the agricultural revolution and accelerating with the birth of industrialization, human beings have become much more individualistic. The ease of acquiring the material goods one needs for survival has eroded the need for a community, as an individual on his own can acquire the things one needs to survive. So the kind of tribal community is no longer needed.

Or is it? Why does a capitalistic system favor individualism? One thing seems evident to me, it favors individualism because one can sell more products that way. We come together in very small units these days. At best, through marriage that forms small families. Of course previous generations used to live with a much larger extended family and there used to exist much larger “clans;” in addition to loss of community, the family unit (in developed countries) has become much smaller. This is of course, exactly what is expected of us, and a capitalist system favors it. If we lived in modern “tribes” than 10 people could share one plasma TV or you would only have to buy one DVD per 10 people instead of per 1 or 2. Which does a capitalist system prefer? That you remain in small isolated family units.

If human beings came together in “tribes” (an idea I am borrowing from Daniel Quinn’s “Beyond Civilization,” then wouldn’t that serve almost the same function now as it did thousands of years ago?

In an individualistic capitalistic system, people still get hurt; their survival is not always guaranteed. Sure there are some safeguards in place to prevent total deprivation (again, I am mostly talking about developed countries), but many are more well off than others and it is certainly an uneven system.

Wouldn’t burden-sharing improve the standard of living for all of us and allow us to acquire more of the material goods that we want. “Tribes” would not be formed based on family bonds, of course they could be, but also with friends or people you work with. By pooling your modern resources you could enjoy a greater amount that the materials a capitalistic system has to offer. If your tribe is a “work tribe” than only one car is needed to get you to and from work instead of 4 or 5 or more. Shit, an SUV might actually be practical for a tribe—it certainly isn’t for an individual. If you develop a common living space, then pooling your resources to buy one 55 inch plasma TV is all you need instead of 1 per family if you can even afford it, which I certainly can’t by myself.

The same principle applies if someone is incapacitated or loses their job for a time; the others can take care of him/her for a time until they can contribute again. It would increase your survival in a capitalistic system and by pooling your modern resources you could reap more of the benefits of the materials produced by the system, just as coming together in tribes thousands of years ago allowed human beings to reap more of the benefits of nature’s system. Additionally, it would probably also have positive impacts on the environment. Just reducing the number of cars alone would improve the air, reduce carbon monoxide emissions, and so on.

Then again, I could just be looking for more people to take care of me instead of finding a “real” job. :)