"Liberation cannot be a wholly political task, because liberation is not complete until no one suffers from mental illness who does not want to. Until all remaining pain and suffering enriches life rather than twists and distorts purposelessly. until everyone who wants to walk or see or hear can. Until no one dies unless they are ready."
Thank you for sharing such thought-provoking notes.
Here are a few reservations I still have about the quote from your post.
Let's call A the starting point, which is the human condition as we know it: a life exposed to all sorts of limitations and suffering irrespective of our choice (mental illness, pain, physical impairments, and ultimately death).
Let's call B the transcendence of such limitations.
Now, at the core of some popular religious beliefs it looks like (I'm by no means knowledgeable on the subject) the gap from A to B can be accomplished on an ideal plane, on a plane other than the physical reality and according to laws that don't apply to the physical world whose workings we have little to no clue about.
What about transhumanism? Does it propose a way of bridging the gap between A and B (or of achieving B for those who wish to) by means of scientific progress? In that case, what lies between A and B? What does the path between A and B look like? Besides, will it be a compulsory path for everybody or an opt-in path (open to all? Means-tested or conditional on other kinds of tests? Paid?)? What will that path look like in terms of costs, sufferings, mental illness, pain, death? Will uncertainty on achieving B (or not achieving it for all) is factored into the eventual costs?
When christianity wielded secular power, it forced all sorts of unpleasant means on reluctant people in the name of saving humanity and making it deserving of achieving B in the after-life.
What about the transhumanist approach?
As they say - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I don't mean to say, let's do away with good intentions, but just let's thread carefully when we think about tinkering with complex systems we don't fully comprehend hoping to make them more suitable to the way we wish them to be.
Also, a less politicised and tribal platform of free public discussion might be a desirable starting point, I think.
"Once these problems are solved, you have an office worker that can do about the equivalent of an hours work for ten cents in a few minutes." - I think you're overestimating, at least partially, how much damage this will do to the middle and upper middle class of rich countries in the medium term. In fact, I think it's plausible that a lot of PMC and PMC adjacent people could pretty enthusiastically embrace AI over the next few years:
- People whose job is mostly sales/customer service/schmoozing and who hate or are put off by the technical-paperwork side of things (real estate agents, family dentists, contractors, email job types, middle management, quite possibly lawyers, accountants, and doctors)
- Weird nerds in tech jobs who can use AI to automate a lot of drudge work but have enough technical knowledge in key areas (including how to use AI) that management will balk at letting them go
- Creatives/marketing people who can make good judgment calls about how AI-generated advertising and publicity will look to the public
- Hell, tiredness with social media AI goop could help out traditional journalism
I'm sure at least some capitalists will use AI advancements to harm the working class, and there will be some long-term consequences of AI that will go ignored in this rush. But I think the effects, rather than "political anarchy" and "radicalization," could very well be excitement or relief. Maybe analogous to how some greentech advances have cooled climate change radicalization somewhat in recent years.
"Liberation cannot be a wholly political task, because liberation is not complete until no one suffers from mental illness who does not want to. Until all remaining pain and suffering enriches life rather than twists and distorts purposelessly. until everyone who wants to walk or see or hear can. Until no one dies unless they are ready."
Thank you for sharing such thought-provoking notes.
Here are a few reservations I still have about the quote from your post.
Let's call A the starting point, which is the human condition as we know it: a life exposed to all sorts of limitations and suffering irrespective of our choice (mental illness, pain, physical impairments, and ultimately death).
Let's call B the transcendence of such limitations.
Now, at the core of some popular religious beliefs it looks like (I'm by no means knowledgeable on the subject) the gap from A to B can be accomplished on an ideal plane, on a plane other than the physical reality and according to laws that don't apply to the physical world whose workings we have little to no clue about.
What about transhumanism? Does it propose a way of bridging the gap between A and B (or of achieving B for those who wish to) by means of scientific progress? In that case, what lies between A and B? What does the path between A and B look like? Besides, will it be a compulsory path for everybody or an opt-in path (open to all? Means-tested or conditional on other kinds of tests? Paid?)? What will that path look like in terms of costs, sufferings, mental illness, pain, death? Will uncertainty on achieving B (or not achieving it for all) is factored into the eventual costs?
When christianity wielded secular power, it forced all sorts of unpleasant means on reluctant people in the name of saving humanity and making it deserving of achieving B in the after-life.
What about the transhumanist approach?
As they say - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I don't mean to say, let's do away with good intentions, but just let's thread carefully when we think about tinkering with complex systems we don't fully comprehend hoping to make them more suitable to the way we wish them to be.
Also, a less politicised and tribal platform of free public discussion might be a desirable starting point, I think.
Upgraded to paid! I hope it helps!
"Once these problems are solved, you have an office worker that can do about the equivalent of an hours work for ten cents in a few minutes." - I think you're overestimating, at least partially, how much damage this will do to the middle and upper middle class of rich countries in the medium term. In fact, I think it's plausible that a lot of PMC and PMC adjacent people could pretty enthusiastically embrace AI over the next few years:
- People whose job is mostly sales/customer service/schmoozing and who hate or are put off by the technical-paperwork side of things (real estate agents, family dentists, contractors, email job types, middle management, quite possibly lawyers, accountants, and doctors)
- Weird nerds in tech jobs who can use AI to automate a lot of drudge work but have enough technical knowledge in key areas (including how to use AI) that management will balk at letting them go
- Creatives/marketing people who can make good judgment calls about how AI-generated advertising and publicity will look to the public
- Hell, tiredness with social media AI goop could help out traditional journalism
I'm sure at least some capitalists will use AI advancements to harm the working class, and there will be some long-term consequences of AI that will go ignored in this rush. But I think the effects, rather than "political anarchy" and "radicalization," could very well be excitement or relief. Maybe analogous to how some greentech advances have cooled climate change radicalization somewhat in recent years.