Technological Unemployment

 

Anecdote: When I was around the age of seven or eight years old I watched a sci-fi fantasy film that entirely changed my worldview, both frightening and exhilarating at once, it has been responsible for shaping my personal philosophy and outlook towards at least one possible future for Humanity – a technological future of abundance, which later ground breaking TV series such as Star Trek helped to concretise as my philosophy for the future.

That movie was “Forbidden Planet” which portrayed an already techno-savvy intergalactic Human civilisation discovering a distant planet of an even more advanced technological civilisation called the Krell who had literally innovated them-selves beyond any mortal needs or even physical form, and with all of their technological dreams apparently accomplished and realised simply disappeared? As a teen I also remember specifically contemplating what Humans would do in such a technological civilisation, with no longer any needs of work or money, what would be left for Humans to accomplish and aspire to? – more on this later.

Technology, market innovation and increasing industrial automation has been replacing manual jobs for much of the last century through the displacement of Agricultural workers into factory workers, and now, with the increasing power and sophistication of computers as highlighted by Moore’s Law is also posing a real threat and paradigm shift for the future employment of academic, clerical and “white collar” workers.

This argument is now being echoed in the discussions of academia across the globe and at first impressions sounds like rather a brash forecast, yet is this fact of fiction? Well I am afraid to say that all of the statistical evidence circulating proves that growing technological unemployment is indeed reality and fact, and that the power of computation combined with the manipulation of Big Data is well positioned to now displace even jobs that Humans believed and reasoned were beyond the capabilities of any machine algorithm.

These jobs at risk would include the legal and health sectors, widespread clerical, management and administration, journalism, (as already used for articles and reports on sports pages), logistics and transport, and moreover, any work or job where mundane or even complex duties and tasks can be effectively reduced to mechanism and process, such as monitoring and management of employees production, clerical filing, referencing and scanning/movement of documents to retrieve information and etc. In fact it is the challenge to speculate on employment sectors where technology will not be able to compete for the jobs of Humans – perhaps you may wish to contemplate this for yourself, (key word is creativity)?

IBM Watson, the computer now well known for decimating the best of competitors on US TV Show “Jeopardy” is now being “employed” towards market Big data and especially for provision of an idealised “global Healthcare oracle” and knowledge base, for the use by physicians and academia around the world – just imagine the market potential and uses for a machine such as Watson, and IBM is not resting on it’s innovative laurels either. Big Blue really does think Big!

The prospect for technology and automation to provide for all of the basic needs for Humanity such as food, water, clothing, housing and even healthcare is not science fiction but is fact and is possible even right here, right now, and today? It is not a technological/engineering or logistical problem and dilemma to overcome but is rather the systematic economic model of thought and ultimately the political obstacles constructed entirely by Humans themselves which oppose real progress?

So even though it may be easy and first impulse to be pessimistic regarding technology, increasing automation and growing mass unemployment, and such like history repeats may inspire a tendency towards, “Luddite” sensibilities and emotions, (which ultimately proved short lived and unfounded despite the best of virtues and social concerns by the Luddites), it should also be noted that Humanity is swiftly approaching, (Moore’s Law), a new technological era where work, employment and wage servitude is redundant and is no longer necessary?

Thus there is naturally a dichotomy and dissonance between these positive and negative attitudes and aspirations for/towards technology, automation, progress and for growing mass unemployment. However, the real danger is in failure to contemplate and face the facts regarding increasing technological unemployment, and the possible consequences for increasing poverty, suffering and hardship for citizens and society.

This is manifest today as a failure by politicians to forward think and contemplate the consequences of growing mass unemployment that will affect our future and society, in favour of upholding and perpetuating the status quo of Capitalism and the interests of a global economic model based on the proliferation of world-wide debt that benefits the few and which is further establishing growing inequality, suffering and poverty – As is often said, a politician cannot serve two masters, yet as to which and who’s ideals should a politician really be serving anyhow?

In the past, employment of the masses by the Capitalism economic model of wage servitude has been creative in providing new jobs in administrative white collar management and the service industry, (think call-sweat centres where numbers of calls and toilet breaks are closely monitored for those serfs lucky enough to be “monitor” as opposed to being monitored). Yet these jobs are precisely the sectors now at threat by automated call centres, and where there are no employees there is no need for a management hierarchy to manage them?

It should be clear enough that we ALL need to think about the future, about the positives of technology to provide for the needs of all of us, the entire world, and especially to contemplate a future without work, employment and jobs, whether you actually want to keep this system or not. For this contemplation we need to re-evaluate the present economic model based on the proliferation of debt for the sake of profit and growth and burdened by the shoulders of those without work and subjugated by a systematic poverty trap – and especially as this may well be YOU and me in the very near future?

Links

Could a big data-crunching machine be your boss one day?

The Future of Employment – Oxford Martin School

Will Automation Lead to Economic Collapse?

IBM big data and information management

IBM Watson Solutions

Robo-boss: there’s no escape from your manager

Second machine age: Will robots put us all out of work?

Capitalism – Some food for thought

 

 And some questions..

 Inequality, boom and bust

No matter how we may imagine solutions towards the end to damaging boom-bust “global”, (Globalisation), socioeconomic cycles, increasing inequality, austerity, poverty, imposed hardship and human suffering – there appears to be one radical solution that contemplation for change continually returns and circles back to – the “redistribution of global wealth” from the hands of the “few” to the benefit of “all”?

This is not to say that egalitarian utopia is not a delusion, because ultimately it is, there will always be humans that are wealthier, fitter, stronger and more vital than others, (competition), and there will always be some, (hopefully few), who by misfortune cannot escape poverty somewhere and someplace on this planet, (see Altruism for further contemplation and in mitigating this final remnant of human hardship/suffering).

No matter which way one contemplates a re-modelling of the Capitalism “world machine”, it would appear that any idea ultimately relies on the redistribution of Global wealth? This inequality of global wealth has been driven by what Adam Smith designated “the invisible hand“, and yet what really conspires as some “animal instinct” obsession and preoccupation with profit and gain, a predisposition for Human personal comfort and the satisfaction of attaining “something for nothing”, a notion which lies at the root of the Capitalism ideology/philosophy.

This “invisible hand” subconsciously inspires great success for entrepreneurs and innovators, and is the driving force for individuality and for the success of humanity, inspiring competition of intellect, intelligence and innovation for the benefit of society and all along the way. Yet this expression of individuality also relies upon Self interest which may be further “corrupted” by the root cause of all seven deadly sins – Self-ishness?

Ultimately it is the inherent Self-ishness of the Human condition which leads to the corruption of the entire Global socioeconomic Capitalism model we see today? Capitalism as philosophy and ideology is not inherently Selfish, as it is not an entity – yet we Humans infuse and impose our Selfish greed upon the system, devising corporations, (which then become entities), and supplying these with the means to an end beyond merely rational self interest for self perpetuation, (survival), and towards Greed for growth?

Q: Can Capitalism be re-modelled as more productive for the common good of all peoples, or should we ditch the ideology of competition, profit and gain completely, (some believe we should)?

Q: If so what would we replace this ideology with? Is it the baby that is dirty, or the bathwater?

Q: Can we remove this “hand of greed” and make it difficult for parasites and opportunists to corrupt the entire system? Can we make it difficult for corporations which seek to readily abuse their market position and powers to stifle/crush innovative/creative competition?

Q: Can we use machines and algorithm for the benefit of the system and not to perpetuate this Self-ishness and greed of profit and to take advantage of it?

Q: Could radical transformation of corporate and personal taxation, possibly including tiered rates of Consumer/Value added tax, (VAT), be helpful with the “gradual” redistribution of global wealth? Could a creative taxation philosophy be utilised to institute a cultural change towards the notions of taxation for the benefit of societies – worldwide?

 

—-

The proliferation of Global debt

The “world machine” and model of Capitalism is “enslaved” in a crisis of perpetual global debt that no nation nor individual is ever free from – why?

Teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and insolvency, whole nations and their governments are subjugated by collective fear in times of global socioeconomic crisis, focusing on the need for “growth” to out pace debt and at the lowest times of production, by imposing austerity, wage and welfare cuts and instigating redundancy/unemployment in turn affecting consumerism and lowering demand – and all to make swift yet irrational savings by increasing human hardship, suffering and placing further demand on a system that is already under duress. Is this logical?

Sure, you can solve the problem in the short term and even swiftly, by imposing strict savings regimes and through not borrowing any more to increase national debt, and then passing these austerity measures and economic restraints onto the burden and shoulders of citizens – yet this does not seem to be either a long-term strategy for success, or a real solution for ultimately rectifying the underlying problems and consequences of global boom and bust socioeconomic cycles?

It may be argued that to reset the world Capitalism machine in times of crisis, to mitigate damage due to modern “global” boom and bust cycles, and steer it back towards solvency, the freezing/relinquishment/forgiveness of national debts/interest would aim to help overcome and absorb the need for imposed global austerity? – Yet how can the world organise itself to relinquish or freeze national debt at times of crisis? This is a question not merely for socioeconomics but ultimately for Human politics?

Perhaps contemplation begins with the reflection on these questions..

Q: Who is this debt and monies owed to ultimately? Individuals?

Q: Why is the world and it’s nations satisfied to “exist” with the burgeoning/burden of ever increasing proliferation of debt by the Capitalism machine even in times of prosperity and boom? – is this not the best time to begin to relinquish and deconstruct and discourage global and national debt and aim to remodel the whole system based upon the proliferation of global debt?

 

—-

Technology can inspire prosperity for all

Limited Planetary resources, (Carbon fuels, minerals, metals, and elements), and an ever increasing world population and mouths to feed, shelter and clothe would imply that goods and services need and are required to become ever more expensive for both the individual and for nations to keep pace with global debt. This in turn motivates and inspires/supports the Capitalism ideology/philosophy of ever increasing growth, (“lack of growth” is culturally a dirty and dangerous sound bite). This underlying philosophy of “profit and gain” and of growth implies that the prices of goods and services are destined to ever increase and will never decrease – yet why?

Technology, innovation and increasing automation actually aids to make goods and services cheaper and less expensive, and can even ultimately make some goods and services completely FREE – including such Human basic needs as food, water, shelter, clothing and education.

Yet increasing technological automation of production, energy efficiency, and recycling also displaces Human jobs and increases unemployment, thus increasing the necessity and burden for social welfare and subsistence. The continued support of consumerism is crucial for the Capitalism model to be both stable and resilient, as well as excel and prosper?

 

Q: How does this technological progress impress upon/obstruct the present Capitalism model supported by the proliferation of debt, both national and individual? Does the notion of goods and services costs actually decreasing obstruct the success for the Capitalism ideology/philosophy of growth?

Some may see opportunity to perpetuate even greater debt at times of growing technological unemployment and jobs displacement, with Capitalists aiming to take full advantage of increasing state welfare monies to further support their private business, enterprise and profit.

Q: How can this flow of monies to the unemployed by government via welfare towards the Capitalist be offset so as not to bankrupt and harm the welfare state?

Q: If Technological unemployment increases the need and acceptance of a Universal Basic Income and social welfare benefit to support consumerism/Capitalism and supply and demand, (for automation and innovation), how do we reconcile a socioeconomic model that does not bankrupt itself through this inherent ideology of growth, profit and gain and associated spiralling costs?

Perhaps the answers lie in these questions..

Q: How much profit does a Capitalist require to serve his wants and needs?

Q: How much corporation tax on the profit from the provision of goods and services is a Capitalist willing to pay from the income accumulated by monies from the welfare state, (possible future Universal Basic Income)?

Q: How can governments ensure that the welfare state is not bankrupted by Capitalists, bankers and individuals obsessed and preoccupied with personal gain?

 

Links..

European Citizens’ Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income

Swiss to vote on incomes for all – working or not

Future Day: The Future of Work

Arguments for Basic Income – Scoopit

Rolling Jubilee .. A bailout of the people by the people
Rolling Jubilee is a Strike Debt project that buys debt for pennies on the dollar, but instead of collecting it, abolishes it.

Strike Debt! – Debt Resistance for the 99%

StrikeDebt on Twitter

Technological unemployment: panacea or poison?

Robots will steal your job, but that’s OK: how to survive the economic collapse and be happy

The Great Scam of Human Labor

 

 

 

 

 

Guns, Glamour and the burden of society

The recent tragic events leading to the slaughter of 20 children and 6 adult teachers at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, have shocked the world and shaken the US. Americans are now faced with an ethical dilemma concerning personal freedom, their constitutional right to bear arms, and a need to re-evaluate the need for legislation and actions to prevent further heinous crimes perpetrated upon innocents.

I have previously written some comments on my first instinctual reaction to the events which I will not repeat further here, if you are interested you may find them at the link below..

Today’s Tragic Events in Connecticut, U.S.

The Burden of Society

However, here I would like to explore the moral direction in which modern society is possibly heading and of what solutions we may all reflect upon to steer moral ethics and Universal values in the more progressive direction?

It intrigues me to strive to understand what makes Humans flip, lose their rationality of mind, and finally submit to Self destruction, and normally at this point there is also much anger and confusion in the mind that also then sets task to destroy others also, and specifically innocents and victims readily available nearby? There are many cases also in the UK, tragic cases, of fathers killing their whole families, mothers killing their children, sometimes over no more than financial and monetary problems and dilemmas afforded by bad luck or imposed by failings in society and social care.

What was going through the mind of this young man, that made him decide he would purposefully go to a school and kill innocent young children? I would hazard some guess that his mental state and situation may have been festering for some time, and there must surely also be reason for him to firstly shoot his mother? Existential angst, shame, fear, anxiety, Self hatred, anger, lack of love, despair? Any or all of these psychological factors may have played a part in these tragic circumstances?

Society and Humans are quick to dismiss these acts as evil, the individual as evil, and moreover, some theists would propose even that evil is an entity and some force unto itself – I would say poppycock. Different circumstances, lead to different mental states. For Humans, happiness leads to joy, elation and empowerment, sharing and goodness, whilst physical and mental suffering leads to pain, stress, pressure, confusion, fear, anger and etc (dukkha).

Is society at fault and to blame, for encouraging gun culture and entertainment violence, or for its unmotivated indifference to these kinds of tragic events? Are mental stresses and illness on the increase in contemporary society? Is secularism and decline in theism and religious memes leading to a more decadent, Self-ish and immoral society? It most likely is a chemistry of all of the above?

Yet what concerns the most is what mechanism makes a Human finally lose control and submit, (sanction), to this total loss of rational control of mind? Without factual knowledge, all we have to go on are our perceptions, apperception, our empathy and the use of mirror neurons in our own minds, especially without the evidence and contemplation’s of the protagonist, and knowledge as to what was going through his mind at the time?

I would prefer to rationalise that there must still be opportunity to stop to think about what we are doing at any moment, even when emotionally disturbed? Or else there must be some total disjunction and dysfunction of rationality in process, with the individual no longer susceptible to any moral compass, such like those images of an emotionless great white shark as it coldly and indifferently attacks its victims? Primal and some prime-evil motivation and violence of the amygdala perhaps, powerful enough to overcome the rational processes of mind?

Note, mine is not to be morbid, but to perceive to uncover where the Human mind, psyche and rationality is at failure here, and of what processes switch off during extreme emotional duress. Perhaps I have it reversed? Perhaps it is the final overwhelming torrid of emotion that leads to all emotions being disconnected, the individual now oblivious to all emotions, (the only thing that perhaps would make one stop and hesitate), a temporary cessation of all emotion? Is this what soldiers suffer in battle at breaking points of extreme duress? The glassy eyed killer instinct that is deeply hidden and inherent in all Humans, (and many other predatory animals?)

 

Guns..

The US argument over guns is facing a tipping point concerning the proliferation of personal weapons, especially weapons including the semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle, now at the focus of attention and at the root of blame culture. Many US retailers have now removed this weapon from their stocks and banned its sale. Yet this is hardly a viable solution, these weapons are still in circulation and ownership, albeit any positive action here is beneficial.

The US National Rifle Association (NRA) is strongly in opposition against president Obama’s intention to instigate legislation to oppose sales and ownership of these kinds of weapons. And it would be very difficult, impossible in fact, to impose the same legislation against pistols and hand guns. Guns are a part of the American heritage and culture, from the early days of the pioneers, to the establishment of the colonies and with the founding fathers that incorporated the freedom of “right to bear arms” within the US constitution, (this at a time where state independence was still a reality and militia was still a necessity?)

Is it time to review and re-evaluate this antiquated amendment to the US constitution, or moreover, perhaps append with an updated 21^st century constitutional amendment regarding use of personal weapons? Even so this does not provide any viable forward-thinking solutions regarding the violence and indifference manifest in rest of the world, (although I do personally feel that there is much to be argued over, concerning the promotion of American ideology in movies, entertainment, and games. Nowadays, even more than ever it seems there are too many guns and weapons used in violence in blockbuster movies, and this has become an addiction and norm for all of us?)

Gun sales inspire more gun sales. A gun will last a lifetime, (no pun intended), it is not an electronic device with a limited life before breakdown, its mechanical parts can be cleaned, cared for and replaced. The only way to support gun manufacture is to sell more guns, with many Americans now owning multiple weapons. What use is a gun without ammunition? And of what use is ammunition sitting on store shelves? Market supply and demand is at the root of gun and ammunition manufacture and sales. Such is the same with all weapons, even Tomahawk cruise missiles and military attack drones.

Is it any wonder that gun sales and gun culture is promoted where there is profit to be had?

 

Glamour..

Glamour is also at the root of gun sales and promotion. And lest we get too smug, we as a world society are collectively to blame for our acceptance and support of guns and personal weapons, and for our love of Hollywood blockbuster shoot ’em up movies. Even where guns are a total distraction from any plot and storyline, guns are still incorporated somehow, someplace and in some manner, (not merely knives and swords). The trilogy of movies The Matrix are a prime example, of excessive promotion of glamour associated with guns and weapons. The movie Inception also could not resist the intrusion of guns and weapons. In fact, I cannot think of any futurism movie that does not incorporate weapons and the use of guns, thereby substantiating and promoting the memes of the future of Humanity with its association with violence and guns and personal weapons? What have weapons to do with the future ideal of Humanity, it’s philosophy, peace, politics, unity, and freedoms afforded to the individual? The argument is always that you need a gun to convince another of your right to practice personal freedom – based on past violent Human history and the prevalent world political status quo?

If we are striving to find real solutions to social problems, mental stresses and associated use of guns, then this must be the first place to start, to seek to disassociate this glamour afforded to guns and weapons and to warfare? Whether in movies, computer games, or concerning real violence, we should make effort to guide the education and understanding of Humans, our history and it’s association with weapons and violence as necessary only as last resort, but not to be glorified for recreation and status seeking?

The problems that society faces today concerning gun crimes may be no more widespread than it has been in past decades, the only difference today are the targets have now become innocent children. Immediately following World war II there was demand to watch movies about the war, why? Had the world not seen enough real war and death? Was there a need to be informed and educated as to what went on during the battles? Were we glorifying the heroes, the conquest of freedom over oppression, the vanquish of worldly evil? Are Humans simply curious about death and destruction? Let’s not forget that these world war movies were produced well into the sixties, and then the Vietnam war captivated interest resurgent during the late seventies and eighties with academy awards for Apocalypse now, Platoon, Full metal jacket and etc.

The US and Soviet war machine never really stopped manufacturing after world war II had ceased, and nor too the proliferation and promotion of weapons. Fear and paranoia or purposeful extension of military power and might? Attack drones and AI weapons are now evolving beyond smart missile capabilities, yet Human memes are just as dangerous today and as already hinted, we should not point fingers. We Humans are all to blame for present predicaments and need to take responsibility for the world that we live in, and for the future we want to make a reality?

More concerning control of minds and fingers in the next article

Thank you for reading

　

More..

President Obama at Prayer Vigil for Connecticut Shooting Victims

White House says Obama will move swiftly on gun control after Newtown

Obama: ‘We can’t tolerate this anymore, these tragedies must end’

Small Machines, Big Power, Dangerous Minds

American Psychological Association – Military

A case for Moral Enhancement

A recurrent contemplation of late has been through reading various articles concerning the need and possibility for human Moral Enhancement.

There are many pro’s and con’s concerning the argument for biological and genetic enhancement, and many of these arguments are clouded by past histories of eugenics, prejudice and social cleansing. Yet we may be swiftly approaching a need to re-evaluate the present human condition and embrace a more unified understanding of human nature, the future for humanity, social needs and responsibilities, and the importance of genetic social traits and motivations such as empathy and compassion?

Many animals and especially mammals form social cohesion and groups that benefit the survival of their species. Many mammals with complex and evolved brains excel in this trait and need for social cohesion, especially the primates that humans are so closely associated with and resemble. This implies that the roots of social morality and evolved, (and evolving), social ethics can be found in genes and DNA programming, and now science and technology is beginning to unravel this truth.

We humans may be close to an era where we can carefully and deliberately manipulate our DNA to overcome mental disability, disadvantage, and delicately wean out animalistic aggression, fear and other negative instincts that lead and are born from confusion, and which generally lead to conflicts. Yet would we want to? Is it ethical to do so?

In this article “Moral Enhancement” “Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson argue that artificial moral enhancement is now essential if humanity is to avoid catastrophe.”

“A basic fact about the human condition is that it is easier for us to harm each other than to benefit each other. It is easier for us to kill than it is for us to save a life; easier to injure than to cure. Scientific developments have enhanced our capacity to benefit, but they have enhanced our ability to harm still further. As a result, our power to harm is overwhelming. We are capable of forever putting an end to all higher life on this planet. Our success in learning to manipulate the world around us has left us facing two major threats: climate change – along with the attendant problems caused by increasingly scarce natural resources – and war, using immensely powerful weapons. What is to be done to counter these threats?”

　

At first contemplation certain dystopian tales spring to mind concerning enforced biological and genetic enhancement, such as for example explored in the movie “Equilibrium” regarding totalitarian oppression and the manipulation of minds and moods through the oppressive goals and ideals of the few by way of controlling the minds and thinking of the masses, and this usually espoused for the benefit of their own good. Certainly these arguments against are valid and must always be explored, ethics and science must always be questioned and reasoned for purpose, usefulness and our underlying goals.

　Reciprocity and “Small Mindedness”

“Our sense of morality developed around the imbalance between our capacities to harm and to benefit on the small scale, in groups the size of a small village or a nomadic tribe – no bigger than a hundred and fifty or so people. To take the most basic example, we naturally feel bad when we cause harm to others within our social groups. And commonsense morality links responsibility directly to causation: the more we feel we caused an outcome, the more we feel responsible for it. So causing a harm feels worse than neglecting to create a benefit. The set of rights that we have developed from this basic rule includes rights not to be harmed, but not rights to receive benefits. And we typically extend these rights only to our small group of family and close acquaintances. When we lived in small groups, these rights were sufficient to prevent us harming one another. But in the age of the global society and of weapons with global reach, they cannot protect us well enough.”

 I also feel that reciprocity, (root – empathy and mirror neurons), plays a key role in our “feelings” for responsibility and our evolved ethics and morality? Human genetic programming which has promoted the benefit of social cohesion for the survival of species must therefore also be responsible for our sociocultural evolution and the promotion of beneficial memes such as with the understanding of reciprocity?

Despite certain tendencies towards freeloading, most humans and hunter-gatherers/small tribes and social cohesion “know” and have “wisdom”, (memetic), that it is beneficial, (translated as “just & proper”), to reciprocate both in kindness and aggression?

We are like mirrors when faced with social encounters such as friendliness and aggression. Our small mindedness cannot fathom the very large, (global society), nor the far future, it’s effects or consequences. “tragedy of the commons”.

By extending our contemplation and this understanding of reciprocity we have a “mindful” tool to evaluate human social interaction, values, ethics and promote rationality over and above knee-jerk reactions of aggression and thoughtlessness? It is a discipline not only found in atheistic and existential philosophies, but also has it’s root in religious morality and philosophy, (as extended towards tolerance, understanding, empathy, charity, and altruism). Not new at all then! And I do not claim so!

Thus we should still endeavour to take the best of this knowledge and wisdom from past great philosophies, sages and seers regarding ethics, reciprocity, and the understanding and unification of values and responsibilities? In fact the above authors do recognise the importance of exploring all avenues for moral enhancement and progressive “global” ethics regardless of its incapacity for swift and needy progress.

The “tragedy of the commons” is no less prevalent in contemporary times with our reliance upon capitalism and consumerism playing a major role in encouraging our concentration upon individualism and individual expression, as opposed to social responsibilities and unity, (of future goals and ideals)? Individualism and competition is promoted with relentless tenacity by our modern societies in the face of the need to take a more holistic view of the needs of humanity and for the planet as a whole.

Moral Bioehancement

The case for bio-enhancement in the article is well presented and you can also find links on the special page here for more from Julian Savulescu in his presentation “Genetically enhance Humanity or face extinction“, (he actually explains in his presentation his motivations for the sensational title). I highly recommend watching this presentation as it is even more thought provoking in light of some real facts about the Human condition and our nature.

Myself, I do not discard either the future possibilities or the need for human genetic bio-enhancement and/or DNA “tweaking”. So I will keep both an open mind and a “watchful” eye as to what our contemporary science unravels. Ultimately it may still be up to philosophers to juggle with ethics and morality, as science on the whole does not involve itself with such, and we certainly cannot trust the future of Humanity solely in the hands of politicians.. now can we?

　

As I find more links regarding this subject, I will post them here..

Moral Enhancement – IEET wiki

Smart drugs to ‘moral enhancement’: a chemical approach to transhumanism

Oxford Centre for Neuroethics – Oxford University – audio links

A Clockwork Chemistry

A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution

The Social Phenomenology of Human Reciprocity and Generosity

Thank you for reading..

—

Building a better future.. part 3 – Human Rights and Personal Responsibilities

I recently responded to an article at IEET.org entitled “Human Rights and a Code of Responsibility” by Alex McGilvery.

Alex is a Christian pastor and community leader in his home town of Flin Flon, Manitoba, Canada. In his article he states his opinion for the need for a universal code of Human responsibility to match and correspond and align with the internationally acknowledged “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” .

Quote..

” The idea that we are responsible is set out explicitly in the Declaration: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. (Article 1) If we just lived out this one concept then everything else would follow. We don’t. We don’t because the economy that surrounds us is predicated on some people being worth more than others. We don’t because we see the world through our assumptions and beliefs about the world, not through rational and critical thinking. Finally, we don’t because it is easier not to, at least in the short run. Thus we need some further impetus to move us to take up our responsibilities as members of the human race.”

Quite rightly Alex professes for not only the practice of the values laid out in the declaration of Human rights, but also for a code and philosophy guided towards Human personal responsibility to encourage and guide progressive ethics. This view aligns itself exactly with my own views pertaining to an embrace of personal responsibility and existentialism as is also frequently highlighted in my posts here. And so I commend Alex in his goal to pursue a universally accepted code and an awareness of social and Human responsibilities.

In his article, Alex McGilvery laid out 17 points that he feels covers the outline of his proposed “code on responsibilities”. However, as my response to his article indicates, I feel that these are rather too many and not general enough to cover all areas, and furthermore may be too specific to stand up to scrutiny under international law.

I also feel that Alex has overlooked a key area of social philosophy that has a history in promoting a democratic code of conduct and personal responsibility. A key area that is arguably nowadays neither fully understood, nor even acknowledged to exist, and is, on the whole, unwritten. Its subject is mostly omitted from school and education curriculum’s around the globe? The “Social contract” has a long history concerning the debate over social responsibilities and the goals of building social cohesion and harmony.

My Quote..

” You have listed many responsibilities, and it would be handy if you could revise these to just a few for simplification and ease of contemplation and memorising?

Yet you have also overlooked a key area that supports your entire thesis, from birth to death?

“Social contract”

“The Social Contract was a progressive work that helped inspire political reforms or revolutions in Europe, especially in France. The Social Contract argued against the idea that monarchs were divinely empowered to legislate; as Rousseau asserts, only the people, in the form of the sovereign, have that all powerful right.

The heart of the idea of the social contract may be stated simply: Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

I also followed up with my own version of a proposed code of practice.

Here is my attempt at deriving a universal declaration for Human personal responsibility..

“@ Alex..

I couldn’t append or conflate what you have offered already, so I had a quick go myself. And indeed it is difficult to minimise key points without the need for clarity and integrity.

So here’s what I feel would cover the most important concerns and areas.”

All human entities have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and freedom of speech, and in so doing, reciprocate and uphold these inalienable rights for others.

All human entities have responsibility to exercise their pursuit in quality of life and beliefs in a way that does not impinge or encroach upon the liberties and inalienable rights of others.

All human entities have responsibility to pursue a livelihood of non harm, and peaceful coexistence towards others.

All human entities have responsibility to uphold the dignity of species and of individuals, within families, society and communities, young and old, home and abroad.

All human entities have responsibility to pursue critical thinking, rationality, and application of mindful contemplation during conscious acts of awareness, as well as the reasonable exercise of emotional restraint under stress, especially where these emotions may affect the relationships with others.

All human entities have responsibility to pursue personal development and education and work, in so far as their personal goals and aspirations dictate.

All human entities have responsibility to uphold the laws of their society, and to question and pursue justice in so far as these laws become questionably redundant.

All human entities have responsibility to participate in the democratic process of societies, and use their individual powers of citizenship and electoral vote to uphold democracy for all.

—

Read the whole article and my responses here..
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/mcgilvery20111214

Recently UK Prime minister David Cameron, in response to the chaos and carnage caused by the London riots this year, also announced publicly his own views regarding decadence and a loss of social values pertaining to personal responsibility..

Quote..

” When we see children as young as 12 and 13 looting and laughing, when we see the disgusting sight of an injured young man with people pretending to help him while they are robbing him, it is clear that there are things that are badly wrong with our society.

For me, the root cause of this mindless selfishness is the same thing I have spoken about for years.

It is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society, people allowed to feel the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities and their actions do not have consequences.

Well, they do have consequences.

We need to have a clearer code of standards and values that we expect people to live by and stronger penalties if they cross the line.

Restoring a stronger sense of responsibility across our society in every town, in every street, in every estate is something I am determined to do.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8693134/UK-riots-David-Camerons-statement-in-full.html

 Cameron’s views towards “the Big Society” are also well known. Although I do find questionable his political motives in pursuing his social philosophy, especially where this seems to conflict with his economic policies? His rhetoric in encouragement of democratic process and social responsibility often seems to conflict with the real and present obstacles in modern day democracy, especially as highlighted by international progressive movements such as #Occupy and the demands for socioeconomic change and progress?

—

Building a better future.. part 2 – Multiculturalism and Secularism

Am I an idealist? Well more about pure idealism later, yet I do have ideals yes. Like most other people, I do think about the world around me, about the sufferings and the hardships in life and the hypocrisy of politics, societies and of individuals, and from these observations I do envisage a world, a society where things could be much better than they are now.

These personal observations and perspectives range from the freedoms and sufferings affecting individuals, to a much broader view of the problems concerning societies as a whole. And thus form the basis of my subjective experience and viewpoints concerning that of the needs of the many, and of the few, and of the one.

The following are some personal views concerning the complexities associated with our modern multicultural societies, and why I see secularism as the foundation for success and for building harmony in our modern societies, leading to greater freedom, security, welfare and co-existence, joy and happiness.

Everyone has their own political ideas about what is wrong with our modern societies today and of the real inequalities that pervade on our planet. From the poorest starving nations, to the politically oppressed, to the greedy consumerism that corrupts and divides us. These are all complex sociocultural problems and issues for modern societies. Multiculturalism and cultural diversity is a glorious expression of the freedom and individuality of humans, yet we must note also that these expressions are also cause for the motivations that divide us all. These expressions of freedom and independence are the root cause of cultural separation and discord, conflicts, disagreements and even of wars.

We could say in point of fact, that modern secular societies have been party and cause for their own sociocultural burden, as they continually strive to cater for these individual freedoms of expression, and to cater for the needs of all of their peoples, communities and of their complex diversity. In the same way as society creates it’s own socio-economic problems, pitfalls and burden, so too it perpetuates it’s own sociocultural problems with regards to community, unity and separation of class and culture?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not against the freedoms of the individual or of individualism, nor am I against the expression of cultural diversity. My point is to highlight the complex nature of our modern multicultural world, and of the complex interwoven cultural differences that now transmigrate across all borders and all nations.

In the past these cultural differences have been the cause of many conflicts and wars between diverse nations. Today in our relatively more peaceful and multinational world, this multiculturalism and cultural identity has no longer strictly defined borders, which has proven of great positive benefit to overcome the ignorance and misunderstandings and the causes of the conflicts between us.

Yet through all of this diversity our societies have become more complex and the burdens under which they operate are becoming greater. Modern western societies built and founded upon secularism and the separation of cultural religions from governmental politics often show the greatest success and tolerance towards multicultural groups, yet these are also the nations under the most strain. They are under the most strain to support the freedoms of expression for these multicultural groups and yet also to protect their own heritage of secular philosophy, culture and political ideals.

Modern Europe and the US, as well as modern industrial Asian nations are all under the pressures for the needs to support and protect the freedoms of their inherent ethnic multicultural groups and communities. Unfortunately, it is often these multicultural groups themselves that place the greatest burdens upon these secular societies, with their strong demands and emphasis on protecting their own cultural identities regardless of their place of residence and settlement.

Origins of Secularism

Laicism – France

“In French, laïcité (pronounced [la.isiˈte]) is a concept of a secular society, denoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs. During the twentieth century, it evolved to mean equal treatment of all religions, although a more restrictive interpretation of the term has developed since 2004. Dictionaries ordinarily translate laïcité as secularity or secularism (the latter being the political system), although it is sometimes rendered in English as “laicity” or “laicism”. In its strict and official acceptance, it is the principle of separation of church (or religion) and state.

Proponents assert laïcité is based on respect for freedom of thought and freedom of religion. Thus the absence of a state religion, and the subsequent separation of the state and Church, is considered a prerequisite for such freedom of thought. Proponents maintain that laïcité is thus distinct from anti-clericalism, which actively opposes the influence of religion and the clergy.

The principle of laïcité in France is implemented through a number of policies. The French government is legally prohibited from recognizing any religion.. Laïcité was first established in public education with the 1880s Jules Ferry laws, voted after the fall of the reactionary Public morality government following the 16 May 1877 crisis.

French political leaders, though not prohibited from making religious remarks, generally refrain from demonstrating openly that their policies are directly inspired by religious considerations.

Laïcité is currently accepted by all of France’s mainstream religions. Exceptions include the monarchists, who wish to reinstate Catholicism as a state religion with a stronger political role, as well as with some Islamist leaders who believe their religious law to be superior to civil law.

Although the term was current throughout the nineteenth century, France did not fully separate church and state until the passage of its 1905 law on the separation of the Churches and the State, prohibiting the state from recognizing or funding any religion. All religious buildings in France (mostly Catholic churches, Protestant temples and Jewish synagogues) became the property of the City councils, who now have the duty to maintain the buildings but can’t subsidize the religious organizations using them.

In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution contains a similar concept, although the term “laicity” is not used either in the Constitution or elsewhere, and is in fact used as a term to contrast European secularism with American secularism. That amendment includes clauses prohibiting both governmental interference with the “free exercise” of religion, and governmental “establishment” of religion. These clauses have been held by the courts to apply to both the federal and state governments. Together, the “free exercise clause” and “establishment clause” are considered to accomplish a “separation of church and state.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicism

Separation of church and state in the United States

“The phrase “separation of church and state” (sometimes “wall of separation between church and state”), attributed to Thomas Jefferson and others, and since quoted by the Supreme Court of the United States, expresses an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….”, while Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase “separation of church and state” in this context is generally traced to an 1 January 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

—

Secularism in England

“George Jacob Holyoake’s 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism thus: “Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three:

1. The improvement of this life by material means.
2. That science is the available Providence of man.
3. That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.”

“There are those who state that religion is not necessary for moral behaviour at all. The Dalai Lama has said that compassion and affection are human values independent of religion: “We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Jacob_Holyoake

Towards connectedness..

Ideally there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why multiculturalism across nations should not prove successful. That cultural identity can in fact transmigrate across national borders, and that multicultural groups can live in harmony and in peaceful cooperation. We know this to be true now. Yet for this to be successful it would appear that there must exist a foundation of secularism that establishes political indifference towards the cultural and religious differences of the society and people. And that moreover, this secular society must incorporate strong social democratic ideals concerning the protection of the freedoms of the individual over and above that of any cultural identity or religious heritage or multicultural group that they may belong to.

In other words, a society built upon strong secularism and democracy at its heart is key to the success in supporting multiculturalism and harmony. Now if you already reside in a modern western nation you may be thinking that this is indeed the case, and so it is. Yet for so many of us we can easily overlook this simple truth. In fact, the foundations of secularism within nations like the US and that of Europe is so established and accepted as commonplace that it appears almost as transparent. Most people in these nations take for granted these liberal freedoms of life, liberty, property and freedom of speech, and so expect the same from other nations and of cultural identities.

Yet there are still many nations that do not agree with this point of view. There are many nations around the world still built upon theocracies and autocracies that serve ultimately to protect themselves over and above the rights of the individual within those societies. These cultures for the most part exist in fear of change and are chained to their historical heritage or religious indoctrination. No doubt these nations will eventually become enlightened to the benefits of secularism regardless of their diverse political ideals, and realise that they need not fear multiculturalism nor diversity. Yet until this happens, the world will still be divided at least as much as it is today, and ignorance and misunderstandings will still be the root cause of conflicts.

In summary – Secularism builds the foundation for religious and cultural acceptance, but should not protect the rights of any group above the rights and protection of the individual. Multicultural groups may coexist in harmony within a society founded upon secularism and where the protection of the rights of the individual are paramount and in priority and in precedence to that of any minority group.

Whereas in contrast I view theocracies and autocracies as not fully open to the diversity promoted by multiculturalism nor to the full acceptance of diverse cultures and communities. For this reason I see secularism as an essential universal political and social philosophy that can guide the world away from division and discord, and towards harmony and unity.

Further references..

Secular ethics

The British Humanist Association

Making the Case for Secularism

Secularism – what does it mean exactly?

—