کورزويل، هري پاتر، و حزب آينده نگر
http://www.ghandchi.com/479-KurzweilFuturism.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/479-KurzweilFuturism.htm
کورزويل، هري پاتر، و حزب آينده نگر
سام قندچي
سال هاست در شگفتم که چرا جنبش آينده نگري نتوانسته است در هيچ جاي جهان حزب آينده نگر ايجاد کند، بويژه در آمريکا با وجود آنکه فعالين اين جنبش در اين کشور بيش از 40 سال است بمثابه فيوچريست کار متشکل انجام داده اند.
بتازگي در جلسه اي با تعدادي از همقطاران عضو انجمن جهان آينده (World Future Society) بودم که درباره برنامه ريزي براي کنفرانس سال 2008 بحث ميکرديم. يکي از جوانترين افراد جمع من بودم و سن من 55 سال است! چرا انجمن جهان آينده (WFS) نميتواند افراد جوان تري را پس از 40 سال فعاليت بخود جلب کند، و چرا پس از اين همه سال اين انجمن هنوز با مشکلات مالي نظير يک جمع تازه تأسيس روبرو است؟
ادوارد کورنيش، بنيان گذار انجمن جهان آينده، پاسخ مفصلي به اين سؤال دارد ولي نکته اصلي وي اين است که برنامه آينده نگري نظير نجات دادن ميليونها کودک از يک فاجعه نظير جنگ است، و کسي نميتواند براي کودکاني که در جنگي که بخاطر کوشش هاي آينده نگر ها روي نداده بيخانمان و آواره نشده اند، اعانه جمع آوري کند. به عبارت ديگر موفقيت آينده نگري، در چارچوب کنوني آن، در عين حال ريشه چالش هاي آن است. مضافاً آنکه، آقاي کورنيش ملاحظات جالب ديگري هم وقتي درباره امکانات انجمن، يا در واقع عدم وجود امکانات آن صحبت ميکند، ارائه ميدهد و ميگويد اتحاد شوروي با آن قدر قدرتي اش امروز ديگر نيست در صورتيکه انجمن جهان آينده پس از 40 سال هنوز زنده است.
فکر ميکنم براي مدلي که انجمن جهان آينده طي سالها براي خود برگزيده است، ادوارد کورنيش در مقالات و کتب مختلف خود بهترين پاسخ ها را براي اين سؤالات تا آنجا که به انجمن جهان آينده مربوط ميشود، ارائه کرده است، و اين ها موضوعاتي نيستند که هدف بحث اين مقاله باشند. آنچه ميخواهم در باره جلسه خاطر نشان کنم اين است که قطعاً بحث هاي ما نشان داد انجمن ما، همانگونه که همواره انجمن جهان آينده اذعان کرده است، مطمئناً محل تبادل افکار مختلف درباره آينده است. به عبارت ديگر، در مقايسه با آنچه يک حزب آينده نگر خواهد بود، انجمن جهان آينده اجتماعي از افرادي نيست که با هدف ساختن آينده معيني دور هم جمع شده باشند، و نميخواسته هم که چنان جمعي باشد.
معهذا طي 40 سال گذشته، هيچ چيزي آنهائي را که در گير ساختن انجمن جهان آينده بمثابه يک محل تبادل ايده هاي مختلف آينده نگري بود، از ساختن يک حزب آينده نگر به موازات انجمن، ممانعت نميکرد. البته منظور من فقط کساني در ميان شرکت کنندگان اين انجمن است که به سازماني از افرادي با هدف ساختن يک آينده مشخص علاقه داشته اند، و تعداد آنها هم خيلي کم نبوده است!
در واقع، جالب است خاطر نشان کنم که انجمن جهان آينده در تاريخ خود، گرچه کسي را نداشته است که مشخصاً خواستار ايجاد يک حزب آينده نگر شده باشد، وليکن برخي رهبراني را داشته است که معتقد بوده اند آينده مثبتي را بايستي پذيرفت و به دور اهداف آن سازماندهي کرد، اما شگفت آور است که ديدگاه آنها هيچگاه در يک سازمان واقعي ماديت نيافته است.
اين حقيقت شگفت آوري است چرا که توسعه موازي در طي تاريخ به کرات اتفاق افتاده است وقتيکه در دوران آغازين انديشه هاي فلسفي نو نه تنها سازمانهاي آموزشي در کنار احزاب سياسي شکل گرفته اند، بلکه دو فعاليت حتي متقابلاً در ابتداي رشد بسياري از مکاتيب فکري، به يکديگر ياري رسانده اند!
***
بيش از 20 سال است که عضو انجمن جهان آينده هستم. در واقع 22 سال پيش در سال 1985 اولين رساله عمده خود درباره آينده نگري را تحت عنوان «ابزار هوشمند: شالوده تمدن نوين» منتشر کردم و همچنين اولين کتابفروشي آينده نگر را با نام کتابفروشي نُوا Nova در ساني ويل در کاليفرنياي آمريکا باز کردم. البته کتابفروشي خود انجمن جهان آينده قبل از نُوا، وجود داشت، وليکن آن کتابفروشي يک کاتالوگ پستي است.
در آن سالها به اشاعه آينده نگري و انجمن جهان آينده در خود کتابفروشي، در سري سخنراني هاي ماهانه، و در نشريه آن پرداختم. انجمن جهان آينده نميتوانست کمکي بمن بکند غير از آنکه نشريات خودشان را تا موقع فروش رفتن، در اختيارم ميگذاشتند. در واقع، آنها درباره محدوديت هاي خودشان از روز اول گفته بودند.
وقتي که کتابفروشي نوا را باز کردم، جٍف کورنيش، پسر ادوارد کورنيش که مسؤليت توزيع مجله آينده نگر را در انجمن جهان آينده به عهده داشت، گفت که اين پروژه ميتواند خيلي از نظر مالي سخت باشد و حتي بار سنگيني از نظر شخصي بر من تحميل کند. نظرش را تأييد کردم اما اشاره کردم اين کاري بود که شخصاً علاقمند به انجامش بودم و اين پروژه را تا چهار سال بعد يعني سال 1989 ادامه دادم. هدفم روشن کردن انديشه هاي خود درباره آينده و آينده نگري و يافتن کساني بود که علاقه مشابهي داشتند. وقتي اين اهداف حاصل شد، کتابفروشي را بستم، چرا که به عنوان يک کسب و کار، به سختي حتي زندگي من را ميتوانست تأمين کند.
تجربه کتابفروشي نوا نه تنها مرا با انجمن جهان آينده بمثابه محل تبادل ايده هاي فيوچريستي آشنا کرد، و نه تنها در آنجا با سايه روشن هاي مختلف انديشه آينده نگر آشنا شدم، بلکه حتي درباره جنبش «عصر جديد» بسيار از نزديک آگاهي يافتم چرا که در آن سالها در کاليفرنيا آن جنبش بسيار پر قدرت بود. اين است که توانستم نقد آنروز مايکل مارين از جنبش عصر جديد را که بعداً توضيح ميدهم خيلي خوب درک کنم و تشبيه آن جنبش به جعبه شن بازي توسط او را خيلي مناسب و پر معني يافتم.
با اين حال هنوز نميفهيدم که چرا حزب آينده نگر در آمريکا شکل نگرفته است، هرچند در پي کوشش هاي اين سالها و دو دهه بعد، تواسنتم در سال 2004 درک خودم را از جنبش آينده نگري با تأکيد بر روي ايران در کتابي تحت عنوان ايران آينده نگر منتشر کنم.
دوسال پيش، در سال 2005، نوشتاري به رشته تحرير در آوردم با عنوان «آينده نگري، جعبه شن بازي، و توانمندي سياسي» که در آن مقاله 1983 مايکل مارين تحت عنوان «ترانسفورماسيون بمثابه مرض جعبه شن بازي» را بحث کردم. اساس بحثم اين بود که خود آينده نگرها در همان جعبه شني که وي جنبش عصر جديد را وقتي 25 سال پيش در بررسي اش نقد ميکرد، محبوس مانده اند. متأسفانه مايکل مارين هيچ پاسخي به موضوعاتي که در مقاله ذکر شده طرح کردم، ارائه نداد.
با اين حال بايستي اذعان کنم که نقد مارين از جنبش عصر جديد را خيلي مناسب و معتبر يافتم. بويژه صحت اين اثر او را من خيلي بهتر درک ميکردم چرا که خودم نيز در گذشته نقدهاي مشابهي را نه تنها از جنبش عصر جديد، بلکه همچنين درباره جنبش مشابه صوفيگري در ايران که خود را آينده نگر ميخواند ولي اساساً مشابه جنبش عصر جديد در غرب است، منتشر کرده ام.
پس از اين کاردرباره علت اينکه چرا آينده نگر ها در جعبه شني مانده اند، به تعمق بيشتر پرداختم. بنظرم ميرسيد که هرچند از برخي جهات آينده نگرهاي قرن بيستم در مقابل چشمان خود شکل گيري جامعه فراصنعتي را مشاهده ميکرده اند، اما هنوز هيچيک ويزيون يا ديدگاهي را که *مدل* کاراي موفقي باشد تا از طريق آن براي بشريت ممکن شود، يا بتواند، يا بشود در اين جامعه در حال شکل گيري در کنترل زندگي خود باشد و نه قرباني آن، ارائه نکرده بودند.
منظور من اين است که کتابها و فيلمهايي نظير «پيشتازان فضا» و بسياري شاهکارهاي پرپندار هر روز در اواسط قرن بيستم نوشته ميشدند وليکن نه آنها که اشاعه دهنده آنها بودند و نه مخالفينشان، به آن آثار بعنوان مدلي از جهان که در آن بشر در کنترل زندگي خود در جامعه هائي که در حال شکل گيري بودند، نمينگريست. به عبارت ديگر حتي خوشبينانه ترين مدلها معضلات بشريتي که قرباني موفقيت خود ميشد را ترسيم ميکردند تا که حتي در عالم پندار تصويري از انسانهائي که در کنترل زندگي خود باشند، ترسيم کنند. بنابراين آن کارهاي پر پندار پيشرفتهاي تکنيکي باور نکردني زيادي را براي قرن بيست و يکم نويد ميداد اما هيچکدامشان قول زندگي خوشي را بر روي زمين به کسي نميدادند، تا چه رسد براي نقاط ديگر عالم.
***
در دوسال گذشته، ري کورزويل چند کار تحقيقي تازه منتشر کرده است که به موضوعاتي پرداخته است که در واقع ريشه ها و مباني آينده نگري هستند، وقتي که تئوري نقطه انفصالي Singularity خود را در پرتو پيشرفته ترين علوم و تکنولوژي هاي زمان ما با سودجستن از دانش دائرتالمعارف گونه خود از بسياري عرصه هاي علوم، بحث کرده است. و اخيراً نيز نقد جالبي به قلم «جوزف کوتس» از کتاب «نقطه انفصالي نزديک است» نوشته ري کورزويل خواندم.
پيش از اينکه وارد جزئيات کارهاي کورزويل و آنچه درباره نقدي که کوتس در اينباره نوشته است، بايستي متذکر شوم که اشاره کورزويل در کتابش به هري پاتر از طرف مرورکنندگان اثر وي مورد توجه قرار نگرفته است در صورتيکه بنظر من اين موضوع را وقتي بحث هاي علمي کورزويل بررسي ميشود، خيلي مهم است که در نظر داشته باشيم. چرا؟
هري پاتر کتاب و فيلمي بسيار موفق در ميان جوانان در زمان ماست. برعکس داستان هاي تخيلي قرن بيستم، اين کار فانتزي، که داستان تخيلي نيست، چيزي درباره تازه ترين تکنولوژي ها در بر ندارد، ولي کودکاني را نشان ميدهد که در کنترل زندگي خود هستند آنهم از طريق نيروهاي ماوراء الطبيعه که در خودشان کشف ميکنند، که به قدرت تغيير شکل يابي shape-shifting دروني هري پاتر و ديگران در اين فيلم هم محدود نيست.
فکر ميکنم هري پاتر آنگونه پنداري را برحسته ميکند که جوانان مشتاق آن هستند، که برعکس کارهاي تخيلي قرن بيستم بسيار کمتر تحليلي است، و بندرت در بند آن است که امتداد روندهاي علمي و تکنولوژيک واقعي را تصوير کند، بعوض يک آلترناتيو تخيلي است که مطلوب جوانان است، جدا از آنکه استقراء روندهاي موجود چنين نتايجي را بر مبناي علمي بدست دهند يا نه، و البته شايد اين فانتزيها در يک *گسستگي* از روندهاي جاري، قابل حصول باشند.
چگونه کورزويل و هري پاتر مرتبط هستند؟
اجازه دهيد اول متذکر شوم برخي ديگر از متفکرين نو در پرتو توسعه هاي اخير، کل درک ما از جهان را مورد نگرش مجدد قرار داده اند و اين فقط محدود به فيزيکداناني نظير استفان هاوکينگ نيست. مثلاً «ست لويد Seth Lloyd » پيش کسوت کامپيوتر کوانتومي در کتاب برنامه نويسي جهان مدل محاسباتي تازه اي را براي درک جهان ارائه کرده است. اينگونه ديدگاه هاي جديد شايد کمک کند بتوانيم به آنچه کورزويل بمثابه نقطه انفصالي به آن اشاره دارد، از پرسپکتيو عرصه هاي مختلف علوم ديگر، بنگريم.
کوزويل به يک *گسستگي* عظيم در تمدن بشري در حوالي زماني خود ما نگاه ميکند، و نه آنکه استقراء روندهاي موجود را که محدود به برخي تغييرات تکنولوژيک نظير اختراع هواپيما يا تغيير اقتصادي نظير انقلاب صنعتي مورد نظرش باشد. يعني بعوض امتداديابي روندهاي موجود يک گسستگي بنياني مشابه بيگ بنگ big bang يا ابزارسازي انسانهاي اوليه مورد نظرش اوست، و آنهم در نزديکي خيلي زياد به دوراني که ما داريم زندگي ميکنيم، حتي در 20 سال آينده، رويدادي که کورزويل آنرا *يکتائي* يا نقطه انفصالي ميخواند.
به عبارت ديگر، انسانها يا سوپر-انسانها ديگر نيازي نخواهد بود قرباني زنجيرهايي که تاکنون بشريت را از آزادي کامل دور نگهداشته اند، باشند، و اين امر براي اول بار به بشريت اجازه ميدهد ارباب سرنوشت خود باشد و نه که برده پيش وضعيت هاي خود. کورزويل دوست ندارد از اصطلاحاتي نظير ترانس-انسان يا سوپر-انسان استفاده کند و فکر ميکند بشر در اعصار مختلف معاني مختلفي را با خود حمل ميکرده است و کماکان خود همين انسان در دنياي مابعد يکتائي انفصالي ادامه دارد، گرچه با توانهاي تازه در فراسوي محدوديت هاي بيولوژيک خود و در وضعيتي تازه که به مدد تکنولوژي هائي که بوسيله پردايشگران کامپيوتري جديدي که توان پردايش اطلاعات در آنها از قدرت مغز انسان بالاتر خواهد بود، حاصل خواهد شد.
در واقع در ميان صاحب نظران قرون هجدهم و نوزدهم، من ميتوانم کارل مارکس را بخاطر آورم، که در گروندريسه، هدف نهائي جامعه کمونيستي را، پس از به تصور آوردن مرحله انتقالي سوسياليسم که در آنجا مردم به اندازه کارشان دريافت ميکردند، جامعه اي را با *فراواني* در آينده دور ، به تصوير ميکشيد، که در آنجا فرد باندازه نيازش دريافت ميکرد وليکن به دنيا از طريق انجام آنچه از انجام دادنش خوشش ميايد بهره ميرساند، يک روز ماهيگيري ميکرد، روز ديگر فعاليتي ديگر.
به عبارت ديگر، براي مارکس، فراواني ايده آل کمونيسم در آينده دوري بود در صورتيکه جامعه گذار که سوسياليسم ناميده ميشد، با وظيفه اصلي اش که تقسيم منابع نادر بود، واقعيت فوري تلقي ميشد.
در ديدگاه مارکس از آينده دور، هنوز انسان در محدوديت هاي بيولوژيک و زندگي زميني، به تصور کشيده ميشد، در صورتيکه براي متفکرين علم گراي قرن 21 نظير کورزويل، و نيز براي آنها که عاشق مخلوقات فانتزي هري پاتر هستند، حتي چنين بندهائي نيز گسسته شده است، و ديگر اين محدوديتها نيز آزادي بشر را در چامعه مابعد نقطه انفصالي محدود نميکنند.
بنابراين تا آنجا که نيازهاي اوليه بشر مطرح است، همه نيازهاي ما نظير هوا برآورده ميشوند، که در کره زمين به وفور يافت ميشود، و هيچ جائي از کسي براي اکسيژن پولي نميگيرند، اقلاً نه هنوز. ولي بيشتر آنکه براي کورزويل، بيش از فراواني نيازهاي اوليه مطرح است و او حتي از پايان يافتن *مرگ* آنگونه که ما آنرا ميشناسيم ميگويد، که محدوديتي بنياني است که در آن انسانها محدوديت نوان خود در اينکه در کنترل باشند را ميبينند، حتي ثروتمند ترين و قدرتمندترين انسانها. مرگ يک مانع براي همه انسانها است تا که بتوانند قدرت اينکه در کنترل باشند را بعوض آنکه قرباني پيش وضعيت خود گردند، احساس کنند.
بنظرم اين احساس قدرت در مقابل همه ناملايمات در جهان پيش روي، آنچيزي است که کورزويل را حتي از خوشبين ترين آينده نگر هاي قرن بيستم جدا ميکند. اين است که چرا فکر ميکنم ديدگاه وي از آينده خيلي مهم است مطالعه شود، بويژه براي آنهائي که علاقمند به ايجاد حزب آينده نگر هستند.
***
در گذشته در مقاله «يکتائي انفصالي و ما» درباره کتاب چشمگير کورزويل بحث کرده ام. در اينجا ميخواهم نگاهي به تحليل کورزويل در پرتو نقد «جوزف کوتس» بياندازم و در همين حال به سؤال اصلي اين مقاله درباره آنچه نقصان و توان جنبش آينده نگري بوده است، پاسخ دهم، که چرا هنوز اين جنبش بصورت انجمن هاي تبادل نظرات يا انديشکده وجود دارد و هنوز حزب آينده نگر در جائي شکل نگرفته است.
تجربه من با ايران و ايرانيان است. اساساً بنيادگرائي اسلامي در ايران پيروز شد چرا که مردم از دورنماهاي هر دو راه حل جامعه صنعتي، يعني سرمايه داري و سوسياليسم، نا اميد بودند و اسلامگرايان راهي فراسوي آن دو راهي که ديگر جذابيتي نداشتند ارائه کردند، البته با عقب رفتن به جامعه ماقبل صنعتي، وليکن در عين حال با رد کردن راه حل هاي جامعه صنعتي. اين در يک کلام، داستان انقلاب 1357 در ايران و تحولات بعدي در نقاط ديگر خاورميانه است که در آنجا سوسياليست هاو ليبرالها، با راه حل هاي عصر صنعتي، قدرت را به اسلامگرايان باختند.
حالا ما آينده نگر ها راه هاي عصر صنعتي را بسيار خوب به نقد کشيده ايم و نقد ما در تجربه سقوط اتحاد شوروي و بلوک شرق بسيار موفق بود. ارزيابي ما درباره اينکه جهان به فراسوي مدل صنعتي ميرود، درست از آب درآمد، و وقتي که به «دره هاي سيليکان» در دنيا مينگريم، مدل تصاعدي تکامل کورزويل توصيف عالي از اين تحولات ارائه ميدهد.
براي من نقد هاي جوزف کوتس وقتيکه وي کار کورزويل را يک مذهب سکولار ميخواند، اهميتي ندارند، چرا وي که عادت به برخي استقراء هاي روندهاي تحليلي بمثابه آينده نگري دارد و تئوري يکتائي انفصالي چنين نيست و نميتواند که باشد گرا که از گسستگي ترسيم شده و نه ادامه روندهاي موجود. معهذا يک چيز که کوتس به آن اشاره ميکند، يعني نياز به پاسخ الترناتيو به موضوع اقتصادي تأمين معاش براي همه مردم وقتي که دنيا بسوي يکتائي انفصالي ميرود، بنظر من يک نقد معتبر است. به عبارت ديگر فقط از فراواني در جامعه مابعد گسستگي گفتن، به معضل تأمين معاش براي مردم در مرحله گذار پاسخ نميدهد، حتي با وجود آنکه براي کورزويل جامعه مابعد يکتائي انفصالي جامعه اي از نظر زماني، *نزديک* است، و نه آنکه مانند سوسياليستها آينده اي دور باشد.
منظور من اين است که جوزف کوتس حق دارد وقتي که ميگويد مدل اقتصادي چيزي نيست که فقط براي يک عده افراد موفق دره سيليکان قابل تبيين باشد. بلکه ما داريم از 6 ميليارد مردم روي کره زمين صحبت ميکنيم که از وضعيت *امروز* به دنياي جامعه مابعد يکتائي انفصالي خواهند رفت و بايستي تأمين معاش کنند.
مارکس و مارکسيستها حق داشتند که سعي ميکردند مدلي از جامعه دوران انتقالي ارائه کنند. البته اين هم درست است که چون آنها فکر ميکردند ايده آل کمونيسم آنها آينده اي بسيار *دور* است، صرف وقت زيادي براي مدلي جهت جامعه گذار را لازم ميديدند وليکن ما هم نميتوانيم موضوع دوران گذار را ناديده بگيريم.
سوسياليستها را بخاطر ارائه کردن مدلي براي جامعه انتقالي تحسين ميکنم، گرچه همچنين ميگويم که سوسياليستها مقصرند که آينده نگرانه نيانديشيدند که راه حل اقتصاد دولتي آنها بمثابه مدل جامعه گذار سوسياليستي باعث ديکتاتوري آنهائي ميشد که کنترل دولت را بدست ميگرفتند، که بمثابه نماينده مالکيت دولتي عمل کرده و بالاخره بعنوان مالکين ملل رفتار ميکردند.
در واقع بسياري از رهبران کارگري سوسياليست باصداقت در ايران هنوز همين نحوه تفکر را دنبال ميکنند و به اين صورت با برخي از فراکسيونهاي خود جمهوري اسلامي بر عليه خصوصي سازي در ايران متحدند و هنوز فکر ميکنند اين راه حل شکست خورده، راه دستيابي به جامعه اي عادلانه است.
اقتصاد دولتي مبناي همه طرح هاي سوسياليستها از همان اول مانيفست حزب کمونيست و بعد از آن بود. و متفکرين سرمايه داري نظير آدام اسميت نيز مدل دست نامرئي خود را داشتند، که چه بهتر و چه بدتر، قرار بود تعادل نهائي را تأمين کند. به اندازه کافي از عصر صنعتي و راه حل هايش بحث کرديم، همه درباره آنها ميدانيم. ما چه پيشنهاد ميکنيم؟
***
راه حل آينده نگر ها چيست؟ به عبارت ديگر خوشبختي اقتصادي مردم هنوز بر مزد آنها از کار، يا بر درآمد آنها از مالکيت نظير سود سهام، يا از کمک دولتي نظير امکانات رفاهي و حقوق بيکاري مبتني بر برخي نيازهاي قانوناً به رسميت شناخته شده، استوار است.
و ما ميدانيم نه تنها کار، بيشتر و بيشتر به کار-دانشي مبدل ميشود، تا آنکه ساعت هاي ساده صرف کردن نيروي کار مکانيکي باشد؛ بلکه مالکيت هم، بيشتر و بيشتر به مالکيت دانشي مبدل شده است که در نوشتار ثروت و عدالت در ايران فردا بحث کردم و صراحتاً بگويم که قوانين کنوني ماليات تازه دارد اين نوع از مالکيت را هدف ميگيرد، و بالاخره هم حقوق رفاه دولتي که گرچه به زحمت توانسته است دواي مشکلات مردم را حتي در پيشرفته ترين جوامع فراهم کند و بيشتر بر بوروکراسي دولتي افزوده است وليکن عدم وجود بهداشت عمومي در کشورهائي مثل آمريکا هم راه حلهاي ناکارآمد سوسياليستي را با ادامه مشقات محنت بار براي عامه مردم، جايگزين کرده است.
آينده نگر ها تا کنون دو مدل اقتصادي براي دوران گذار به جامعه مابعد نقطه انفصالي ارائه کرده اند. مدل اول مدل صندوق ملي-سهامي البس است که موفقيت هاي محدودي هم در برخي کاربردهايش در بعضي کشورها داشته است. ديگري هم برخي مدلهاي درآمد آلترناتيو است که قبلاً من بحث کرده ام و به سختي بتوان هيچ کشور پيشرفته اي را يافت که چنين راه حل هائي را در زمان حاضر اتخاذ کرده باشد.
مدل اول مسأله را از طريق پرداختن به موضوع *مالکيت* در دوران چامعه در حال گذار در نظر ميگيرد و ديگري اين را از طريق پرداختن به موضوع *درآمد* در جامعه انتقالي پاسخ ميدهد. بنظرم هر دوي اين راه حل ها به زحمت حتي پوسته مسأله اي را که ما در پيش روي خود داريم براي ارائه آلترناتيو منصفانه، لمس ميکند. من معتقدم که توصيف عالي اي از مسأله، و نه از راه حل، در رساله زير خود ارائه کرده ام:
http://www.ghandchi.com/265-EconJustice.htm
به عبارت ديگر، راه حل هائي که من در رساله بالا ذکر کرده ام، نه تنها کافي نيستند، من خود اولين کسي هستم که اذعان کنم فرسنگها از يک راه حل جامع براي جامعه در حال گذار، فاصله دارند.
واقعاً فکر ميکنم مگر آنکه آينده نگرها بتوانند يک راه حل محکم براي دوران گذار در زمانيکه ما بسوي جامعه مابعد نقطه انفصالي در حرکت هستيم ارائه کنند، دورنماهاي ممکن براي هر حزب آينده نگري جهت به چالش کشيدن احزاب قديمي عصر صنعتي بسيار محدود خواهد بود.
در واقع در کشورهائي نظير ايران که در آنجا احزاب سياسي عصر صنعتي بسختي وجود دارند، براي رفتن مستقيم براي يک حزب قرن بيست و يکمي که با اسلامگرايان، قانوناً يا بطور مخفي، رقابت کند، نياز و علاقه زيادي وجود دارد. وليکن مسأله اين است که مگر آنکه ما پاسخ اجتماعي-سياسي خوبي براي معضلات اقتصادي مرحله گذار داشته باشيم، آينده نگر هاي نخواهند توانست آنقدر که بتوان به آن اميدوار باشيم، مؤثر باشند.
من فکر ميکنم جوزف کوتس حق دارد وقتي که موضوعات اقتصادي را براي مرحله جامعه گذار در نقد خود از تتبعات کورزويل، مطرح ميکند.
معهذا من با اکثر برآشفتگي هائي که کورتس در ارتباط با شاهکار کورزويل مطرح ميکند، مخالفم. در واقع بايستي خاطر نشان کنم که نوع برخوردي که اکثر آينده نگر ها در طي 40 سال گذشته اختيار کرده اند را که بيشتر به تشويشهاي روزنامه نگاران نشسته در برج عاج شباهت داشت تا خالقين دنياي نو، مسؤل عدم رشدي که به حق آينده نگري مدرن ميتوانست داشته باشد، ميدانم، رشدي که ميبايست دستکم يک order of magnitude بيش از آنچه در 40 سال گذشته ديده ايم، ميبود.
بايستي اضافه کنم که حتي اگر ما نتوانيم يک مدل همه جاگيري براي جامعه گذار منصفانه بيابيم، يک چيز که تحليل کورزويل بما ميگويد اين است که بهتر است تا پيش کسوت جامعه مابعد نقطه انفصالي باشيم، چرا که جدا از آنکه چگونه در دوران گذار زندگي کنيم، جهت گيري ما اين نفع را دارد که وقتي از نقطه انصالي عبور کنيم در دنياي فراواني نو زندگي کنيم تا اينکه در دنياي کهنه کميابي در جا بزنيم، وقتي ميدانيم نقطه انفصالي نزديک است و نه دور.
نگرش بر اينکه چگونه هوا بر روي زمين استفاده ميشود و مقايسه آن با چگونگي استفاده از هوا توسط فضانوردان در سفر به ماه يا در ايستگاه بين المللي فضائي تصوير خوبي از تفاوت دنياي فراواني و دنياي کميابي نشان ميدهد. معتقدم همين دليل کافي است که براي شکل دادن يک حزب آينده نگر بکوشيم، گرچه کار بر روي مدلهاي کارآ براي توزيع منصفانه ثروت در جامعه گذار بايستي کماکان براي هر حزب آينده نگري چه قبل و چه بعد از تأسيس، در صدر تقدم هاي حزب باقي بماند.
به اميد ايجاد حزب آينده نگر
سام قندچي، ناشر و سردبير
ايرانسکوپ
http://www.iranscope.com/
8 تير 1386
June 27, 2007
بعدالتحرير 10 تير 1386
پاسخ به سؤال يک خواننده عزيزي ینام آرمين که چرا من از اصطلاح آينده نگر و نه آينده گرا استفاده ميکنم؟من شخصاً در زیان انگليسي هم اگر اصطلاح futurism براي آينده نگري مصطلح نشده بود ترجيح ميدادم از اصطلاح futuring که معنائي نظير future-looking دارد، استفاده کنم. در واقع در زبان انگليسي اصطلاح futurism براي يک مکتب نقاشي بيشتر بکار ميرفته است تا براي آينده نگر هائي نظير ژول ورن، ولي بعد از کتابThe Futurists تافلر که در سال 1972 منتشر شد، نوعي توافق ضمني استفاده از اين اصطلاح را اکثر آينده نگرها پذيرفته اند. جالب است که پيش از آن وقتي انجمن جهان آينده نام The Futurist را در سال 1967 براي مجله خود انتخاب کرد، بحث هاي آنموقع بيشتر دور اين موضوع بود که نام بيان سناريوهاي مختلف از آينده باشد و نه يک آينده. جالب است خود ادوارد کورنيش که مسؤل انتخاب نام The Futurist است بيشتر اوقات از اصطلاح futuring استفاده ميکند که نوعي استفاده از لغت future بصورت فعل است که در انگليسي تا آنجا که من ميدانم اين بغت بمثابه فعل وجود خارجي ندارد ولي بيان چيزي است که او ميخواهد برساند.من اذعان دارم که اصطلاح آينده نگر برداشت فني اي نميدهد ولي خوشبختانه در زبان فارسي اين لغت برداشتي که من با آن موافقم را بيان ميکند. برداشت من از آينده نگري اين نيست که يک آينده هست و من به آن گرويده يا گرائيده ام. از نظر من آينده هاي گوناگون Alternative Futures واقعيت است و فقط وقتي آينده به حال يا گذشته تبديل شده است که ميتوان از آن بعنوان *يک* سخن گفت.بازهم تکرار کنم که حق با اين خواننده عزيز است که اصطلاح آينده نگر نه تنها از مفاهيم روزمره تفکيک نميشود بلکه بين آينده نگري تحليلي که بيشتر مؤسسات تحقيقاتي انجام ميدهند و آينده نگري نظري که متفکرين آينده نگر ترسيم کرده و ميکنند و آينده نگري مشارکتي که فعالين آينده نگر دنبال ميکنند تفکيکي نشان نميدهد. شايد اين موضوع نيز هم خوبي و هم بدي اين اصطلاح باشد. من در نوشته آينده نگري چيست؟ سعي کرده ام معني آينده نگري را توضيح دهم که اساساً يعني واکنش به رويدادها پيش از آنکه واقع شوند و اين هر سه عرصه آينده نگري را در بر ميگيرد و نکته مهم آنکه نه تعلق به يک آينده از پيش فرض شده بلکه قبول سناريوهاي مختلف است و در نتيجه نکته *نگرش* به آينده مهم است، نه اينکه از پيش آنرا موجود فرض کنيم و به آن به گرويم، و براي اين هدف هم واژه آينده نگر بر آينده گرا بنظر من ارجح است.
مطالب مرتبط
http://www.ghandchi.com/348-HezbeAyandehnegar.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/500-FuturistIran.htm
متن مقاله بزبان انگليسي
http://www.ghandchi.com/479-KurzweilFuturismEng.htm
Kurzweil, Harry Potter & Futurist Party
Sam Ghandchi
http://www.ghandchi.com/479-KurzweilFuturism-plus.htm
For years, I have been wondering why the Futurist movement has not been able to form a Futurist Party anywhere in the world, especially in the U.S. where the activists of this movement have been doing organized work as futurists for over 40 years.
Recently I was in a meeting with a number of fellow members of the World Future Society (WFS) where we were discussing the planning for the 2008 convention of WFS. I was one of the youngest in the crowd and I am 55! Why can’t WFS attract more young people, and why after 40 years, it still has the financial woes of a startup association?
Edward Cornish, founder of WFS, has a long answer for these questions but his main point is that a futurist agenda is like saving millions of children from a catastrophe like war, and one cannot do fund-raising for children who have not become homeless or devastated by a war that was never fought, thanks to the action of futurists. In other words, the success of futurism, in its current framework, is also the root of its challenges. Moreover, Mr. Cornish makes another interesting observation when talking of association’s resources or lack of, saying that Soviet Union with all its might is gone but WFS is still around after 40 years.
I think for the model that WFS has chosen over the years, Edward Cornish in his various articles and books, has provided the best answers for these questions as far as WFS is concerned, and these are not the issues that I intend to discuss in this article. What I would like to note about our meeting is that our discussions definitely showed me that our association, as always acknowledged by WFS, is surely a clearinghouse for various ideas about the future. In other words, in contrast to what a futurist party would be, WFS is not and was not intended to be an association of people with the goal of creating any specific future.
Nonetheless, during these 40 years, nothing would have stopped those involved with building a clearinghouse of various futurist ideas, namely the World Future Society, from forming a futurist party in parallel to the WFS. Of course, I mean only those among the participants who also believed in an association of people with the goal of creating a specific future, which were not that few!
In fact, it is interesting to note that WFS in its history, although did not have anybody calling specifically for a futurist party, but it has had some leaders who believed in taking a positive future and organizing around those objectives, but surprisingly their perspective never materialized in any real organization.
It is somehow odd because parallel developments have happened frequently in history, when educational organizations developed alongside political parties at the inception of new philosophical thoughts, and the two activities even helped each other reciprocally in the early days of many schools of thought.
***
I have been a member of World Future Society for over 20 years. Actually 22 years ago (in 1985), I published my major paper about futurism entitled Intelligent Tools and also opened the first futuristic bookstore by the name of Nova Bookstore, in Sunnyvale of California. Of course the World Future Society’s own bookstore existed before Nova, but that was a mail order catalog.
I promoted futurism and WFS at my bookstore, in my related lecture series, and in my newsletter Mundus Novus in those years. WFS could not help me in any way except for providing me with their own publications on consignment. In fact, they told me about their limitations from day one.
When I opened Nova Bookstore, Jeff Cornish, son of Edward Cornish who handled distribution of The Futurist magazine and other WFS publications at the time, told me that my project can be very difficult financially and even be a tough burden on me personally. I concurred but noted it was something I was personally interested to do and I continued the project for four years until 1989. My goal was to clear my own thoughts about the future and futurism and to find people of the same interest. Once that was achieved, I closed the store, because as a business, it barely made a living for me.
Nova Bookstore’s experience made me very much acquainted not just with the WFS, as a clearing-house of futurist ideas, and not only with different shades of futuristic thinking, but I even became well-informed about the New Age Movement which was very strong in those days in California. This is why I could very well understand the critique of New Age movement written by Michael Marien and found his Sandbox analogy very fitting about that movement.
I still did not see why a futurist party has not been formed in the U.S., although thanks to all these endeavors, by 2004, I published my own understanding of futurist movement with a focus on Iran, in my book The Futurist Iran, Futurism versus Terrorism.
Two years ago, in 2005, I wrote an article entitled "Futurism, Sandbox, and Political Potency" where I discussed Michael Marien's 1983 article "The Transformation as Sandbox Syndrome." I basically noted that futurists themselves had been trapped in the same sandbox that he had criticized, when he reviewed New Age movement 25 years ago. Unfortunately Michael Marien did not provide any replies to the issues I raised in my aforementioned article.
Nonetheless, I should note that I found Marien's critique of the New Age movement very apt and authoritative. I especially appreciate this work of his because in the past I had also written similar critiques not only of the New Age movement but also of a similar Sufi movement in Iran, which calls itself futurist, but basically resembles the New Age movement in the West.
After this work I continued delving more into the reason futurists stayed in a sandbox. It seemed like although in one way or another futurists of 20th Century saw a new post-industrial society forming in front of our eyes, yet none offered a vision of any successful working *model* where human beings might, could, or would live being in charge in the upcoming new society, rather than being a victim of it!
I mean there were Space Trek and a lot of similar magnificent imaginative works that popped up every day in mid 20th Century but neither those who promoted them nor those opposing, thought of such works as a future world models of an upcoming society where humans would be in charge of their life. In other words, even the most optimistic models were showing more the plight of human beings as victims of their own success, than to be more in charge of their lives. Thus although those imaginative works promised unbelievable technological advancements for 21st Century, yet none would promise happy life on Earth, let alone elsewhere in the universe.
***
In the last two years, Ray Kurzweil has published some new scholarly works which deal with issues that are in reality the roots and foundations of futurism, when discussing his Singularity theory in light of the leading edge science and technology, drawing on his multidisciplinary encyclopedic knowledge of many fields of science. And recently I read an interesting critique by Joseph Coates about Ray Kurzweil's book Singularity is Near.
Before getting into the details of what I found in his works and what I want to note about Coates’ critique, I should note that the mention of Harry Potter by Kurzweil in his book, has not been noticed much by the astute reviewers, whereas in my view, it is very important to keep that in mind, as one reviews Kurzweil’s scientific discussions. Why?
Harry Potter is a successful book and movie among the young generation in our times. Contrary to the science fiction works of the 20th Century, this work of fantasy, not being a science fiction, hardly has anything about the latest technologies, but shows children who are in charge of their life by having supernatural powers they discover in themselves, not even limited to shape-shifting inner capabilities of Harry Potter and others in the movie.
I think Harry Potter exemplifies the kind of imagination that is desired among the youth, which contrary to the imaginative works of the 20th Century is a lot less analytic, and hardly cares about what the extrapolation of current scientific and technological reality can offer, rather it is an imaginative alternative reflecting what the youth desires, regardless of what the extrapolation of existing trends may offer, and maybe achievable by a rupture of current trends.
How are Kurzweil and Harry Potter related?
Let me first note that some other new thinkers in light of the recent advancements have been rethinking our whole understanding of the world and this is not just limited to physicists like Stephen Hawking. For example, the prominent quantum computer pioneer Seth Lloyd in his Programming the Universe, offers a new computational model for understanding the universe. Such new approaches may help to see what Kurzweil is referring to as Singularity, can be affirmed from the perspective of different fields.
Kurzweil is looking at a great rupture of human civilization in the proximity of our time period, and not just extrapolating the existing trends limited to some change of simple technological advancement like invention of airplane or an economic change like the industrial revolution, rather a very fundamental rupture similar to big bang or tool-making of the Homo Sapien Sapiens, and all that in a close proximity of our life time, only within 20 years, i.e. an event referred to by Kurzweil as *singularity*.
In other words, humans or superhumans will have no need to be at the mercy of the shackles that hitherto have kept humanity away from total freedom, which for the first time will set humanity to be the master of its own destiny rather than the slaves of its preconditions. Kurzweil does not like to use the terms like transhuman or superhuman and thinks human has meant differently in different epochs and it is still the human in the post-Singularity world, although with new capabilities beyond its biological limitations and in new conditions available thanks to technologies resulting from computer processors passing the processing power of human brain.
Actually among the authors of 18th and 19th Century, I can remember Karl Marx, who in Grundrisse, describes his final goal of communist society, following what he envisioned as a transition period of socialism where people would be paid according to their work, he depicted a society with *abundance* in distant future, where the individual would receive according to needs but gives to the world by doing what s/he enjoys, one day fishing, another day doing something else.
In other words, for Marx, communist abundance was the distant future whereas the transitional society called socialism, with its main task of dividing the scarce resources, was the immediate reality.
In Marx’s imagination of the distant future, still the human was limited by his/her biological and Earthbound limitations, whereas for the new 21st Century scientific thinkers like Kurzweil, and for those in love with the fantasy creations like Harry Potter, even such predicaments will be surpassed, and will no longer limit the human freedom in the post-Singularity society.
Thus it is not just abundance of basic needs, e.g. all our needs to be satisfied like air, which is abundant on Earth, and nowhere one is charged for Oxygen, at least not yet, rather for Kurzweil, there is more than abundance of basic needs and he talks even of the end of *death* as we know it, which is a fundamental limitation where humans see the limits of their ability to be in control, even for the most wealthy and powerful, a basic obstacle for humans to feel the power of being in charge, rather than being at the mercy of their preconditions.
I think this feeling of power in the face of all calamities in the forthcoming world, is what separates Kurzweil from even the most optimistic futurists of the 20th Century. This is why I think his vision of the future is very important to study, especially for those interested to form a futurist party.
***
I have previously discussed Kurzweil's impressive book, in my article entitled “Singularity and Us”. Here I would like to look at Kurzweil's analysis in light of Joseph Coates' critique of it, while trying to answer the main question of this article as to what the peril and valor of the futurist movement has been, that it is still around in the form of associations acting as a clearing house or a think tank, although we still do not have a futurist party formed anywhere.
My experience is with Iran and Iranians. Basically Islamic fundamentalism won because people were disappointed with the prospects of both solutions of the industrial world, namely capitalism and socialism, and Islamists showed a way beyond those unattractive solutions, well by going back to the pre-industrial world, but still rejecting the solutions of industrial world that were no longer attractive. This is in a nutshell, the story of 1979 in Iran and later elsewhere in the Middle East where socialists and liberals, with their solutions of the industrial age, lost the power to the Islamists.
Now we futurists have criticized industrial paths very well and our critique worked well in the experience of the fall of Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. We were right that the world is going beyond the industrial model, when looking at the Silicon Valleys of the world and Kurzweil’s exponential model of evolution is an excellent description of the upheaval.
I do not care for Joseph Coates' criticisms when he calls Kurzweil’s work as a secular religion, because he is used to some analytical trend extrapolations as futurism and singularity theory surely is not and cannot be one like that. Nevertheless, one thing that Coates mentions, namely the need for an alternative answer to the economic issue of making a living for all the people as we move towards Singularity, is a valid critique. In other words, just talking about abundance in the post-Singularity society, will not answer the dilemma of income for the people in the transitional phase, even though for Kurzweil the post-Singularity society is *near*.
I mean Joseph Coates is right when he says an economic model is not something for just some of the success stories of the Silicon Valley. Rather we are talking about 6 billion people on Earth, who will be moving from the state of *today* to the world of post-Singularity society.
Marx and Marxists were right that they tried to come up with a model for the transitional society. Of course, it is true that they thought their Communist Ideal was a very *distant* future, and that was more of the reason for them to spend so much time to define the model for a transitional society. But we also cannot ignore the issue of transitional society .
I applaud the socialists for proposing a model for transitional society, although I also would say that socialists are to blame that they did not think futuristically that their solution of state economy as the model for the transitional socialist society would bring dictatorship of those in charge of the state, who would end up to act as proxy of the state property and behave as owners of the nations.
In fact, still very sincere socialist labor leaders of industrial age mentality in Iran, are in effect aligned with some factions of Islamic Republic who oppose privatization in Iran, and they still think this failed approach is the solution for a fair society.
State economy was the basis of all socialist proposals from the start of Communist Manifesto and beyond. And capitalists thinkers like Adam Smith also had their own model of invisible hand, for better or worse, to take care of everything. Well, enough about Industrial Age and its solutions, we all know about them. What are we proposing?
***
What is the solution of futurists? In other words, people’s economic well being is still based on their wages from work, or is based on their income from property ownership such as stock dividend, or from government assistance such as welfare and unemployment benefits based on recognizing some needs.
And we know not only work is becoming more and more knowledge-work than simply hours of exerting mechanical labor power, but property is also becoming more and more Intellectual Property which I have discussed when discussing wealth in the future and frankly the current tax laws hardly touch this new form of property, and finally the government welfare hardly has been successful to alleviate the woes of the people even in the most advanced societies but lack of universal healthcare in countries like the United States is replacing troublesome socialist solution with pure misery.
Futurists, so far, have offered two economic models for transition to the post-Singularity society. The first model is James Albus's National Mutual Fund, which has shown some success in its limited applications in some countries. The other is some model of alternative income as I have discussed before and hardly any advanced country is considering such a solution at this time.
The first solution is tackling the problem by dealing with *ownership* during the transitional society and the other is doing it by dealing with the issue of *income*. I think both these solutions are hardly scratching the surface of the problem we face for offering a fair alternative for the transitional society. I believe, I have offered an excellent description of the problem, not the solution, is my following paper:
http://www.ghandchi.com/238-SocialJustice.htm
In other words, the solutions I have noted above, not only are not enough, I should be the first one to admit, are a long way from a comprehensive solution for the transitional society.
I really think that unless futurists can offer a robust solution for the transition phase, as we move towards the post-Singularity society, the prospects for any Futurist Party to challenge old parties of the Industrial Age will be very limited.
Actually in countries like Iran where political parties of the Industrial Age hardly exist, there is the need and desire for going straight for a 21St Century political party, to compete with Islamists, legally or clandestinely. But the problem is that unless we have a good socio-political answer to these economic issues of the transition phase, futurists are not going to be as effective as one can hope for.
I think Joseph Coates is right when he raises economic issues of the transitional phase of society in his critique of Kurzweil’s explication.
Nonetheless I disagree with most other consternations raised about Kurzweil’s monumental work. In fact I should note the kind of approach most futurists have chosen in the last 40 years, which resembles more the anxieties of ivory tower journalists rather than creators of a new world, is responsible for the lack of deserving growth of modern futurism, which should have been at least an order of magnitude more than what we have seen in the last 40 years.
I should add that even if we do not find an all-encompassing model for a fair transition society, one thing that Kurzweil’s analysis tells us is that we are better off to pioneer the post-Singularity society, because regardless of how we live during the transition phase, we will have the advantage of living in a new world of abundance once we pass the point of Singularity rather than being stuck in the old world of scarcity, a singularity which is near and not far.
Looking at how air is used on Earth and comparing it with how air is used by astronauts in moon travel or at the International Space Station (ISS), provides a good picture of the difference of a world of abundance and that of scarcity. I believe this is enough reason to strive to form a futurist party, although the work on working models for the fair distribution of wealth in the transitional society, whether before or after the founding, should remain at the top of our priorities in any futurist party.
Hoping for formation of a futurist party,
Sam Ghandchi, Publisher/EditorIRANSCOPEhttp://www.iranscope.com/June 27, 2007
Related Works:
http://www.ghandchi.com/348-HezbeAyandehnegarEng.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/500-FuturistIranEng.htm
Text in Persian
http://www.ghandchi.com/479-KurzweilFuturism.htm
Sam Ghandchi
http://www.ghandchi.com/479-KurzweilFuturism-plus.htm
For years, I have been wondering why the Futurist movement has not been able to form a Futurist Party anywhere in the world, especially in the U.S. where the activists of this movement have been doing organized work as futurists for over 40 years.
Recently I was in a meeting with a number of fellow members of the World Future Society (WFS) where we were discussing the planning for the 2008 convention of WFS. I was one of the youngest in the crowd and I am 55! Why can’t WFS attract more young people, and why after 40 years, it still has the financial woes of a startup association?
Edward Cornish, founder of WFS, has a long answer for these questions but his main point is that a futurist agenda is like saving millions of children from a catastrophe like war, and one cannot do fund-raising for children who have not become homeless or devastated by a war that was never fought, thanks to the action of futurists. In other words, the success of futurism, in its current framework, is also the root of its challenges. Moreover, Mr. Cornish makes another interesting observation when talking of association’s resources or lack of, saying that Soviet Union with all its might is gone but WFS is still around after 40 years.
I think for the model that WFS has chosen over the years, Edward Cornish in his various articles and books, has provided the best answers for these questions as far as WFS is concerned, and these are not the issues that I intend to discuss in this article. What I would like to note about our meeting is that our discussions definitely showed me that our association, as always acknowledged by WFS, is surely a clearinghouse for various ideas about the future. In other words, in contrast to what a futurist party would be, WFS is not and was not intended to be an association of people with the goal of creating any specific future.
Nonetheless, during these 40 years, nothing would have stopped those involved with building a clearinghouse of various futurist ideas, namely the World Future Society, from forming a futurist party in parallel to the WFS. Of course, I mean only those among the participants who also believed in an association of people with the goal of creating a specific future, which were not that few!
In fact, it is interesting to note that WFS in its history, although did not have anybody calling specifically for a futurist party, but it has had some leaders who believed in taking a positive future and organizing around those objectives, but surprisingly their perspective never materialized in any real organization.
It is somehow odd because parallel developments have happened frequently in history, when educational organizations developed alongside political parties at the inception of new philosophical thoughts, and the two activities even helped each other reciprocally in the early days of many schools of thought.
***
I have been a member of World Future Society for over 20 years. Actually 22 years ago (in 1985), I published my major paper about futurism entitled Intelligent Tools and also opened the first futuristic bookstore by the name of Nova Bookstore, in Sunnyvale of California. Of course the World Future Society’s own bookstore existed before Nova, but that was a mail order catalog.
I promoted futurism and WFS at my bookstore, in my related lecture series, and in my newsletter Mundus Novus in those years. WFS could not help me in any way except for providing me with their own publications on consignment. In fact, they told me about their limitations from day one.
When I opened Nova Bookstore, Jeff Cornish, son of Edward Cornish who handled distribution of The Futurist magazine and other WFS publications at the time, told me that my project can be very difficult financially and even be a tough burden on me personally. I concurred but noted it was something I was personally interested to do and I continued the project for four years until 1989. My goal was to clear my own thoughts about the future and futurism and to find people of the same interest. Once that was achieved, I closed the store, because as a business, it barely made a living for me.
Nova Bookstore’s experience made me very much acquainted not just with the WFS, as a clearing-house of futurist ideas, and not only with different shades of futuristic thinking, but I even became well-informed about the New Age Movement which was very strong in those days in California. This is why I could very well understand the critique of New Age movement written by Michael Marien and found his Sandbox analogy very fitting about that movement.
I still did not see why a futurist party has not been formed in the U.S., although thanks to all these endeavors, by 2004, I published my own understanding of futurist movement with a focus on Iran, in my book The Futurist Iran, Futurism versus Terrorism.
Two years ago, in 2005, I wrote an article entitled "Futurism, Sandbox, and Political Potency" where I discussed Michael Marien's 1983 article "The Transformation as Sandbox Syndrome." I basically noted that futurists themselves had been trapped in the same sandbox that he had criticized, when he reviewed New Age movement 25 years ago. Unfortunately Michael Marien did not provide any replies to the issues I raised in my aforementioned article.
Nonetheless, I should note that I found Marien's critique of the New Age movement very apt and authoritative. I especially appreciate this work of his because in the past I had also written similar critiques not only of the New Age movement but also of a similar Sufi movement in Iran, which calls itself futurist, but basically resembles the New Age movement in the West.
After this work I continued delving more into the reason futurists stayed in a sandbox. It seemed like although in one way or another futurists of 20th Century saw a new post-industrial society forming in front of our eyes, yet none offered a vision of any successful working *model* where human beings might, could, or would live being in charge in the upcoming new society, rather than being a victim of it!
I mean there were Space Trek and a lot of similar magnificent imaginative works that popped up every day in mid 20th Century but neither those who promoted them nor those opposing, thought of such works as a future world models of an upcoming society where humans would be in charge of their life. In other words, even the most optimistic models were showing more the plight of human beings as victims of their own success, than to be more in charge of their lives. Thus although those imaginative works promised unbelievable technological advancements for 21st Century, yet none would promise happy life on Earth, let alone elsewhere in the universe.
***
In the last two years, Ray Kurzweil has published some new scholarly works which deal with issues that are in reality the roots and foundations of futurism, when discussing his Singularity theory in light of the leading edge science and technology, drawing on his multidisciplinary encyclopedic knowledge of many fields of science. And recently I read an interesting critique by Joseph Coates about Ray Kurzweil's book Singularity is Near.
Before getting into the details of what I found in his works and what I want to note about Coates’ critique, I should note that the mention of Harry Potter by Kurzweil in his book, has not been noticed much by the astute reviewers, whereas in my view, it is very important to keep that in mind, as one reviews Kurzweil’s scientific discussions. Why?
Harry Potter is a successful book and movie among the young generation in our times. Contrary to the science fiction works of the 20th Century, this work of fantasy, not being a science fiction, hardly has anything about the latest technologies, but shows children who are in charge of their life by having supernatural powers they discover in themselves, not even limited to shape-shifting inner capabilities of Harry Potter and others in the movie.
I think Harry Potter exemplifies the kind of imagination that is desired among the youth, which contrary to the imaginative works of the 20th Century is a lot less analytic, and hardly cares about what the extrapolation of current scientific and technological reality can offer, rather it is an imaginative alternative reflecting what the youth desires, regardless of what the extrapolation of existing trends may offer, and maybe achievable by a rupture of current trends.
How are Kurzweil and Harry Potter related?
Let me first note that some other new thinkers in light of the recent advancements have been rethinking our whole understanding of the world and this is not just limited to physicists like Stephen Hawking. For example, the prominent quantum computer pioneer Seth Lloyd in his Programming the Universe, offers a new computational model for understanding the universe. Such new approaches may help to see what Kurzweil is referring to as Singularity, can be affirmed from the perspective of different fields.
Kurzweil is looking at a great rupture of human civilization in the proximity of our time period, and not just extrapolating the existing trends limited to some change of simple technological advancement like invention of airplane or an economic change like the industrial revolution, rather a very fundamental rupture similar to big bang or tool-making of the Homo Sapien Sapiens, and all that in a close proximity of our life time, only within 20 years, i.e. an event referred to by Kurzweil as *singularity*.
In other words, humans or superhumans will have no need to be at the mercy of the shackles that hitherto have kept humanity away from total freedom, which for the first time will set humanity to be the master of its own destiny rather than the slaves of its preconditions. Kurzweil does not like to use the terms like transhuman or superhuman and thinks human has meant differently in different epochs and it is still the human in the post-Singularity world, although with new capabilities beyond its biological limitations and in new conditions available thanks to technologies resulting from computer processors passing the processing power of human brain.
Actually among the authors of 18th and 19th Century, I can remember Karl Marx, who in Grundrisse, describes his final goal of communist society, following what he envisioned as a transition period of socialism where people would be paid according to their work, he depicted a society with *abundance* in distant future, where the individual would receive according to needs but gives to the world by doing what s/he enjoys, one day fishing, another day doing something else.
In other words, for Marx, communist abundance was the distant future whereas the transitional society called socialism, with its main task of dividing the scarce resources, was the immediate reality.
In Marx’s imagination of the distant future, still the human was limited by his/her biological and Earthbound limitations, whereas for the new 21st Century scientific thinkers like Kurzweil, and for those in love with the fantasy creations like Harry Potter, even such predicaments will be surpassed, and will no longer limit the human freedom in the post-Singularity society.
Thus it is not just abundance of basic needs, e.g. all our needs to be satisfied like air, which is abundant on Earth, and nowhere one is charged for Oxygen, at least not yet, rather for Kurzweil, there is more than abundance of basic needs and he talks even of the end of *death* as we know it, which is a fundamental limitation where humans see the limits of their ability to be in control, even for the most wealthy and powerful, a basic obstacle for humans to feel the power of being in charge, rather than being at the mercy of their preconditions.
I think this feeling of power in the face of all calamities in the forthcoming world, is what separates Kurzweil from even the most optimistic futurists of the 20th Century. This is why I think his vision of the future is very important to study, especially for those interested to form a futurist party.
***
I have previously discussed Kurzweil's impressive book, in my article entitled “Singularity and Us”. Here I would like to look at Kurzweil's analysis in light of Joseph Coates' critique of it, while trying to answer the main question of this article as to what the peril and valor of the futurist movement has been, that it is still around in the form of associations acting as a clearing house or a think tank, although we still do not have a futurist party formed anywhere.
My experience is with Iran and Iranians. Basically Islamic fundamentalism won because people were disappointed with the prospects of both solutions of the industrial world, namely capitalism and socialism, and Islamists showed a way beyond those unattractive solutions, well by going back to the pre-industrial world, but still rejecting the solutions of industrial world that were no longer attractive. This is in a nutshell, the story of 1979 in Iran and later elsewhere in the Middle East where socialists and liberals, with their solutions of the industrial age, lost the power to the Islamists.
Now we futurists have criticized industrial paths very well and our critique worked well in the experience of the fall of Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. We were right that the world is going beyond the industrial model, when looking at the Silicon Valleys of the world and Kurzweil’s exponential model of evolution is an excellent description of the upheaval.
I do not care for Joseph Coates' criticisms when he calls Kurzweil’s work as a secular religion, because he is used to some analytical trend extrapolations as futurism and singularity theory surely is not and cannot be one like that. Nevertheless, one thing that Coates mentions, namely the need for an alternative answer to the economic issue of making a living for all the people as we move towards Singularity, is a valid critique. In other words, just talking about abundance in the post-Singularity society, will not answer the dilemma of income for the people in the transitional phase, even though for Kurzweil the post-Singularity society is *near*.
I mean Joseph Coates is right when he says an economic model is not something for just some of the success stories of the Silicon Valley. Rather we are talking about 6 billion people on Earth, who will be moving from the state of *today* to the world of post-Singularity society.
Marx and Marxists were right that they tried to come up with a model for the transitional society. Of course, it is true that they thought their Communist Ideal was a very *distant* future, and that was more of the reason for them to spend so much time to define the model for a transitional society. But we also cannot ignore the issue of transitional society .
I applaud the socialists for proposing a model for transitional society, although I also would say that socialists are to blame that they did not think futuristically that their solution of state economy as the model for the transitional socialist society would bring dictatorship of those in charge of the state, who would end up to act as proxy of the state property and behave as owners of the nations.
In fact, still very sincere socialist labor leaders of industrial age mentality in Iran, are in effect aligned with some factions of Islamic Republic who oppose privatization in Iran, and they still think this failed approach is the solution for a fair society.
State economy was the basis of all socialist proposals from the start of Communist Manifesto and beyond. And capitalists thinkers like Adam Smith also had their own model of invisible hand, for better or worse, to take care of everything. Well, enough about Industrial Age and its solutions, we all know about them. What are we proposing?
***
What is the solution of futurists? In other words, people’s economic well being is still based on their wages from work, or is based on their income from property ownership such as stock dividend, or from government assistance such as welfare and unemployment benefits based on recognizing some needs.
And we know not only work is becoming more and more knowledge-work than simply hours of exerting mechanical labor power, but property is also becoming more and more Intellectual Property which I have discussed when discussing wealth in the future and frankly the current tax laws hardly touch this new form of property, and finally the government welfare hardly has been successful to alleviate the woes of the people even in the most advanced societies but lack of universal healthcare in countries like the United States is replacing troublesome socialist solution with pure misery.
Futurists, so far, have offered two economic models for transition to the post-Singularity society. The first model is James Albus's National Mutual Fund, which has shown some success in its limited applications in some countries. The other is some model of alternative income as I have discussed before and hardly any advanced country is considering such a solution at this time.
The first solution is tackling the problem by dealing with *ownership* during the transitional society and the other is doing it by dealing with the issue of *income*. I think both these solutions are hardly scratching the surface of the problem we face for offering a fair alternative for the transitional society. I believe, I have offered an excellent description of the problem, not the solution, is my following paper:
http://www.ghandchi.com/238-SocialJustice.htm
In other words, the solutions I have noted above, not only are not enough, I should be the first one to admit, are a long way from a comprehensive solution for the transitional society.
I really think that unless futurists can offer a robust solution for the transition phase, as we move towards the post-Singularity society, the prospects for any Futurist Party to challenge old parties of the Industrial Age will be very limited.
Actually in countries like Iran where political parties of the Industrial Age hardly exist, there is the need and desire for going straight for a 21St Century political party, to compete with Islamists, legally or clandestinely. But the problem is that unless we have a good socio-political answer to these economic issues of the transition phase, futurists are not going to be as effective as one can hope for.
I think Joseph Coates is right when he raises economic issues of the transitional phase of society in his critique of Kurzweil’s explication.
Nonetheless I disagree with most other consternations raised about Kurzweil’s monumental work. In fact I should note the kind of approach most futurists have chosen in the last 40 years, which resembles more the anxieties of ivory tower journalists rather than creators of a new world, is responsible for the lack of deserving growth of modern futurism, which should have been at least an order of magnitude more than what we have seen in the last 40 years.
I should add that even if we do not find an all-encompassing model for a fair transition society, one thing that Kurzweil’s analysis tells us is that we are better off to pioneer the post-Singularity society, because regardless of how we live during the transition phase, we will have the advantage of living in a new world of abundance once we pass the point of Singularity rather than being stuck in the old world of scarcity, a singularity which is near and not far.
Looking at how air is used on Earth and comparing it with how air is used by astronauts in moon travel or at the International Space Station (ISS), provides a good picture of the difference of a world of abundance and that of scarcity. I believe this is enough reason to strive to form a futurist party, although the work on working models for the fair distribution of wealth in the transitional society, whether before or after the founding, should remain at the top of our priorities in any futurist party.
Hoping for formation of a futurist party,
Sam Ghandchi, Publisher/EditorIRANSCOPEhttp://www.iranscope.com/June 27, 2007
Related Works:
http://www.ghandchi.com/348-HezbeAyandehnegarEng.htm
http://www.ghandchi.com/500-FuturistIranEng.htm
Text in Persian
http://www.ghandchi.com/479-KurzweilFuturism.htm
پستها
