Biopolitics Meme!
After reading ChangeSurfer Radio's biopolitics comparison chart, I'm looking at their definition of a 'technoprogressive' and noting a few discrepancies between my thoughts and their notes. In that vein, I give to you
What group, if any, exemplifies your stance on biopolitics/politics: I'm not really sure, most groups seem to me too far above me (singinst), or not exactly on the mark. Hell I'm not sure that there's even other *people* who share my views completely, although I don't think I remember ever disagreeing with l2oto on these kinds of matters.
Who qualifies for the same legal, political or economic rights as you?(who gets to be a citizen) I do not have an answer for this question. I fear vegetarianism is valid but cannot go without eating meat. I feel that any stance I take on this question would make me a hypocrite or a monster or both. People who take part in, say, a nationstate, ought to be able to vote within it. And yet, some people just don't want these freedoms, and I don't have an answer for that(china, christianity, islam). I don't think it's merely the case that they are completely backwards, although the consequence of their choice for someone else to make their choices for them certainly haunts them(china; human rights violations, corruption and ecological mismanagement, christianity: the mob, class war, sex abuse, islam: anti-intellectual, anti-science behaviour by governments).
Who ought to design the future? I would say human beings, but I think at the point where this question becomes tractable, 'human beings' will no longer really describe anything meaningful.
Individual liberty vs. yuk factor yuk factor is mostly bugs in the human wetware and future survival of the species depends on our fixing them, or at least bypassing them. This means becoming used to what other people find interesting, at the very least, as a valid form of human expression, so long as consent is involved in all cases where consent ought to matter. In other words, individual liberty may clash with individual liberty, but not a feeling of uneasiness at what others are doing.
Can government govern technology: In my experience, the way our current government is set up, in terms of it's treatment of technology, is such that they are typically behind the times, they are woefully ignorant, even if they have the information before them they do not somehow see what is going on -- for the time being. But this is not to say that we have perfected government. If anything, government is nearing the point where it is the next big thing to change--having universal access to laws and process via the web is a good step, but more feedback mechanisms are needed, and a more educated and involved populace, certainly, perhaps with a government who is willing to be kept more within limits where we can fine-tune it's behaviour enough to actually do this. However right now, this time, this government, no, they can't be trusted. But I do not at all assume that it cannot be done.
Who should have access to personal biological enhancement technology? Who will? No doubt the rich, and those who get subsidies for prior conditions. Perhaps the general public will have access. In any case I think it should be up to the individual, and that the individual should have access to any pertinent information involved. But this sounds like it could lead to inequalities. On the other hand some paternailsm may be desirable, something to ensure that *everybody* doesn't get taken by a bad trend. But this would only come to play in very extreme situations, and it would probably be better to just have the gov't/market be an information broker, allowing mass suicide, even, if necessary.
Procreative Liberty I Don't care. Doesn't concern me in the slightest.
Ecological protection It is *necessary* that any surviving species of our level of development must either advance to the point of ecological stewardship, or must destroy itself. And unlike the likes of derrick jensen, I do not think we ought to destroy ourselves, because this just dooms the earth to another species, a few hundred million years down the line, who will do the exact same things we've done. If not, a hundred million years later the same thing, or if not, well eventually the earth will be sterile due to natural causes and it won't matter. We must treat the earth like "spaceship earth", and understand and manipulate it, and eventually move to other planets. And if you think keeping the earth's environment healthy is hard, wait until we try to do the same thing on mars.
Structural employment: Wealth need not be shared equitably, but there ought to be a very basic level of survival that people who opt out of the working class should get. We do not currently attain this, as I see it. This is something that needs to be addressed today, as a matter of a fair amount of importance. Also, I think there's going to be an increasing tendency for 'employment' to be a little bit more ambiguous, or omnipresent. "work" won't be something that occurs 9-5, it'll be a 24/7 activity but will only occur at certain times.
On the other hand, my loyalty lies with the working class. I am really uncomfortable in the upper class areas of regina, and equally uncomfortable in the more lumpenproletriat areas. So maybe there's a different situation that I would be content with, along much different lines than a succssful welfare state. What that would be I think I'll leave to the imagination.
Globalization, if it's a definable term, is merely the shrinking of the world into the 'global village'--- 'governance' implies a governor, and a governed. Radical democracy and new feedback mechanisms could change the way we think about this. Marketing has some of the right tools, but the wrong intent and ethics.
What group, if any, exemplifies your stance on biopolitics/politics: I'm not really sure, most groups seem to me too far above me (singinst), or not exactly on the mark. Hell I'm not sure that there's even other *people* who share my views completely, although I don't think I remember ever disagreeing with l2oto on these kinds of matters.
Who qualifies for the same legal, political or economic rights as you?(who gets to be a citizen) I do not have an answer for this question. I fear vegetarianism is valid but cannot go without eating meat. I feel that any stance I take on this question would make me a hypocrite or a monster or both. People who take part in, say, a nationstate, ought to be able to vote within it. And yet, some people just don't want these freedoms, and I don't have an answer for that(china, christianity, islam). I don't think it's merely the case that they are completely backwards, although the consequence of their choice for someone else to make their choices for them certainly haunts them(china; human rights violations, corruption and ecological mismanagement, christianity: the mob, class war, sex abuse, islam: anti-intellectual, anti-science behaviour by governments).
Who ought to design the future? I would say human beings, but I think at the point where this question becomes tractable, 'human beings' will no longer really describe anything meaningful.
Individual liberty vs. yuk factor yuk factor is mostly bugs in the human wetware and future survival of the species depends on our fixing them, or at least bypassing them. This means becoming used to what other people find interesting, at the very least, as a valid form of human expression, so long as consent is involved in all cases where consent ought to matter. In other words, individual liberty may clash with individual liberty, but not a feeling of uneasiness at what others are doing.
Can government govern technology: In my experience, the way our current government is set up, in terms of it's treatment of technology, is such that they are typically behind the times, they are woefully ignorant, even if they have the information before them they do not somehow see what is going on -- for the time being. But this is not to say that we have perfected government. If anything, government is nearing the point where it is the next big thing to change--having universal access to laws and process via the web is a good step, but more feedback mechanisms are needed, and a more educated and involved populace, certainly, perhaps with a government who is willing to be kept more within limits where we can fine-tune it's behaviour enough to actually do this. However right now, this time, this government, no, they can't be trusted. But I do not at all assume that it cannot be done.
Who should have access to personal biological enhancement technology? Who will? No doubt the rich, and those who get subsidies for prior conditions. Perhaps the general public will have access. In any case I think it should be up to the individual, and that the individual should have access to any pertinent information involved. But this sounds like it could lead to inequalities. On the other hand some paternailsm may be desirable, something to ensure that *everybody* doesn't get taken by a bad trend. But this would only come to play in very extreme situations, and it would probably be better to just have the gov't/market be an information broker, allowing mass suicide, even, if necessary.
Procreative Liberty I Don't care. Doesn't concern me in the slightest.
Ecological protection It is *necessary* that any surviving species of our level of development must either advance to the point of ecological stewardship, or must destroy itself. And unlike the likes of derrick jensen, I do not think we ought to destroy ourselves, because this just dooms the earth to another species, a few hundred million years down the line, who will do the exact same things we've done. If not, a hundred million years later the same thing, or if not, well eventually the earth will be sterile due to natural causes and it won't matter. We must treat the earth like "spaceship earth", and understand and manipulate it, and eventually move to other planets. And if you think keeping the earth's environment healthy is hard, wait until we try to do the same thing on mars.
Structural employment: Wealth need not be shared equitably, but there ought to be a very basic level of survival that people who opt out of the working class should get. We do not currently attain this, as I see it. This is something that needs to be addressed today, as a matter of a fair amount of importance. Also, I think there's going to be an increasing tendency for 'employment' to be a little bit more ambiguous, or omnipresent. "work" won't be something that occurs 9-5, it'll be a 24/7 activity but will only occur at certain times.
On the other hand, my loyalty lies with the working class. I am really uncomfortable in the upper class areas of regina, and equally uncomfortable in the more lumpenproletriat areas. So maybe there's a different situation that I would be content with, along much different lines than a succssful welfare state. What that would be I think I'll leave to the imagination.
Globalization, if it's a definable term, is merely the shrinking of the world into the 'global village'--- 'governance' implies a governor, and a governed. Radical democracy and new feedback mechanisms could change the way we think about this. Marketing has some of the right tools, but the wrong intent and ethics.