If most technology came through capitalism, does that make modern society capitalist

[Adi Shankara]

Just wondering. user Bricolage made me think of this.

But like, most modern technology was designed with profit in mind, with few exceptions of course (like Jonas Salk). so if all of this technology was devised for such reasons, wouldn't that make modern society that we have today and human "progress" inherently capitalist and bourgeois?

I'm not claiming anything, just posing a question. anyone can help?

[Psy]

Just wondering. user Bricolage made me think of this.

But like, most modern technology was designed with profit in mind, with few exceptions of course (like Jonas Salk). so if all of this technology was devised for such reasons, wouldn't that make modern society that we have today and human "progress" inherently capitalist and bourgeois?

I'm not claiming anything, just posing a question. anyone can help?

Competing nation states plays a larger role in technology for example computers and the Internet was most paid by massive US military research money. Most modern technology originates as tools of imperialist forces that imperialist powers developed not for profit but out of competition with other imperialist powers.

[Obs]

A thing can't be 'bourgeois' or 'capitalist'. A thing is a thing to be used however possible - it doesn't have any ideological implication. To suggest that it does borders on lifestylism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just wondering. user Bricolage made me think of this.

But like, most modern technology was designed with profit in mind, with few exceptions of course (like Jonas Salk). so if all of this technology was devised for such reasons, wouldn't that make modern society that we have today and human "progress" inherently capitalist and bourgeois?

I'm not claiming anything, just posing a question. anyone can help?

I certainly think that capitalism has a heavy influence on how technology is developed and the directions in which research takes. One consequence of this is the bloated military-industrial complex and the concomitant multi-billion dollar international arms trade.

If the resources, manpower and technical skill that has been invested in the pursuit of imperialist warfare had been instead invested in a global space program, we would be well on our way to colonising the solar system by now.

[Luisrah]

I certainly think that capitalism has a heavy influence on how technology is developed and the directions in which research takes. One consequence of this is the bloated military-industrial complex and the concomitant multi-billion dollar international arms trade.

If the resources, manpower and technical skill that has been invested in the pursuit of imperialist warfare had been instead invested in a global space program, we would be well on our way to colonising the solar system by now.

Not to mention all the millions of people that don't have access to free education that if they had, could contribute a lot too. Besides, geniuses show up everywhere, but not if they can't even get something to eat, drink, or read.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not to mention all the millions of people that don't have access to free education that if they had, could contribute a lot too. Besides, geniuses show up everywhere, but not if they can't even get something to eat, drink, or read.

I imagine that shortfall could be met by re-organisation of the rest of the global economy.

[scarletghoul]

Capitalism did yes rapidly develop the means of production and technology. However now it holds it back. For example, with the internet we have developed the technology to share the most wonderful works of art (film music etcc) for free and with minimal labour. But instead of embracing this great advance in technology, capitalism opposes it with all its might (going as far as to enforce anti-sharing laws, and calling sharing 'stealing') because it endangers capital's grip on the music industry.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

If the resources, manpower and technical skill that has been invested in the pursuit of imperialist warfare had been instead invested in a global space program, we would be well on our way to colonising the solar system by now.

And why would that be a good thing?

[Adi Shankara]

And why would that be a good thing?

I guess it would give us more living space and such, but I always thought that it would be better to first give everyone optimal living conditions on earth, making warfare and hunger obsolete, and then such things as exploring space could come later, after every last human being is given equal opportunity to reach their full potential in life.

[Psy]

Capitalism did yes rapidly develop the means of production and technology. However now it holds it back. For example, with the internet we have developed the technology to share the most wonderful works of art (film music etcc) for free and with minimal labour. But instead of embracing this great advance in technology, capitalism opposes it with all its might (going as far as to enforce anti-sharing laws, and calling sharing 'stealing') because it endangers capital's grip on the music industry.

Also the Digital Audio Tape failed in the consumer market because the RIAA demanded the US government forced manufactures to crippler consumer DAT recorders so they wouldn't make copies of copies (professional DAT decks never had this). So really technology existed in the late 1980's for tape swapping of music to be able to spread much farther then audio tapes.

And it seem the RIAA has the same mindset it had back in the late 1980's with the introduction of DATs.

[CommunityBeliever]

does that make modern society capitalistThe fact that 25% of all people live in absolute poverty makes modern society capitalist. Before capitalism it was like 95%, and after capitalism it will be nearly 0%.


most modern technology was designed with profit in mindNot really, almost all of the people who developed modern technology did so because they thought they were doing something good, not because of profits.

And there has been an immense amount of technology developed by governments, rather then by private enterprise, just look at the amount of technology developed by our Soviet and Chinese comrades, and look at the U.S government.

During the Cold War the U.S decided to spend billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to fund all kinds of science to compete with the SU, and from that period much of the technology we have today, like the Internet, came into existence. So that was from governments, not from capitalism.

The scientists and the workers responsible for these achievements don't have money in mind, they will take a state salary and still do the work at the end of the day.


human "progress" inherently capitalist and bourgeoisNobody owns human progress, science, and technology.

Perhaps you want a description of why socialism will drastically improve scientific development?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And why would that be a good thing?

Because then we would have access to plentiful resources from places other than Earth. For example, Mercury would provide a good source of metals without damaging any biospheres.

[NGNM85]

Technology is no more fundamentally 'capitalist' than it is Episcopalian.

[Tatarin]

I think it is part-philosophical too: because we don't know how society would have looked like if we'd had shared ownership over all resources (and development) already, or since 1700, etc. But a pretty good guess is that society would have first and foremost made "it easier" - it's easier to simply flush the toilet than to go for litres of water to do so.

However, like Obsmagon said, resources and what's made of them can't "be" anything ideological. A gun may seem dangerous and maybe even somekind of a class-creator, but the same gun could also protect a family from a deranged imperialist soldier. A gun is simply a gun, you won't see one betraying an ideology.

That said, technology will always be developed by someone, in any stage of human society. Once again, it is easier to have your food at the farm than spending weeks in the woods hunting for something that you may never get (and top that with starvation if you're hunting for someone).

[Adi Shankara]

The fact that 25% of all people live in absolute poverty makes modern society capitalist. Before capitalism it was like 95%, and after capitalism it will be nearly 0%.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but are you REALLY defending capitalism? 90% of all people lived in poverty before capitalism...today, 1% still hold 75% of the world's wealth. not much has changed. VERY little has changed. poverty is getting worse, considering that the very poor are just getting poorer.

really? defending capitalism?

[AK]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but are you REALLY defending capitalism? 90% of all people lived in poverty before capitalism...today, 1% still hold 75% of the world's wealth. not much has changed. VERY little has changed. poverty is getting worse, considering that the very poor are just getting poorer.

really? defending capitalism?
I'm not sure about the 25% figure (I thought it was still over 50%), but it would be wrong to say that capitalism was not an improvement from feudalism (institutionalised slavery and whatnot).

[ZeroNowhere]

Capitalists gain increasing profits through technological development primarily through increasing productivity. This is the point of Marx's falling rate of profit. However, the means of production are, independent of capitalist socialist relations, merely that, tools. If anything, the increasing productivity turns into a barrier to the capitalist mode of production, inasmuch as it causes a fall in the rate of profit, whereas the purpose of capitalist production is precisely the valorization of value, and this must be overcome through the destruction of capital values (as, for example, the Great Depression and WWII), which means crises. Of course, it can also be temporarily overcome through papering it over by debt, as has been done since the 1970s, but this does not provide a basis for an in any way lasting recovery, rather only for bubbles which burst.

May capitalism also lead to technology which has harmful side-effects, simply because it is, say, cheaper? Sure, and similarly it will neglect more useful technology because it is too costly. However, once people are in control of the economy again, we can look at these problems in more detail and find solutions, as well as organize research into solutions and so on. Ultimately, however, I think that a major task would be widening access to technology, as part of a program to eradicate poverty (which would not, in material terms, go away as soon as socialism is established, although it would in monetary terms). I do think that the end of the cost barrier will make things a lot easier, and allow easier research and testing of ideas such as vertical farming and alternative sources of energy (nuclear, large-scale renewables, etc). We'd also possibly have to work at transforming some current technology which has excessive negative effect, but this would generally have to be somewhat gradual if it is important to retain or improve production levels in the industry in question. However, I don't think that this would mean anything nearing a complete transformation of infrastructure.

[Obs]

really? defending capitalism?
Over feudalism? Yes. Marxists do that.

[Aesop]

Over feudalism? Yes. Marxists do that.

Not sure if defending capitalism over feudalism is the right move for a marxist otherwise we may fall into the trap of being economic determinist. Using your logical i guess we should defend slavery over collective hunter-gather tribes, seeing as it increased the productive forces. Similarly we should support imperialism and settler colonies over the 'native' people seeing as they were increasing the productive forces.
We should acknowledge the improvement in the capacity of productive forces which was needed in order to proceed to socialism maybe defending is the wrong word to use.

[bailey_187]

Aqua ducts and underground heating invented by the Romans are not inherently "slave-mode-of-production", so why would any technology created in the capitalist mode of production be so?

The technology created in capitalism may be to created to create profit, but so was Roman underground heating and aqua ducts created to provide for the slave owners.

[bailey_187]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but are you REALLY defending capitalism? 90% of all people lived in poverty before capitalism...today, 1% still hold 75% of the world's wealth. not much has changed. VERY little has changed. poverty is getting worse, considering that the very poor are just getting poorer.

really? defending capitalism?

How can a self proclaimed marxist say "very little" has changed between feudalism and capialism? :confused:

[Widerstand]

Not sure if defending capitalism over feudalism is the right move for a marxist otherwise we may fall into the trap of being economic determinist. Using your logical i guess we should defend slavery over collective hunter-gather tribes, seeing as it increased the productive forces. Similarly we should support imperialism and settler colonies over the 'native' people seeing as they were increasing the productive forces.
We should acknowledge the improvement in the capacity of productive forces which was needed in order to proceed to socialism maybe defending is the wrong word to use.

We should not defend capitalism, no. But we should not be blind in our opposition either - we should acknowledge that the transition from feudalism to capitalism was a fundamental, and necessary, change, and that capitalism is a necessary precedent for abundance-driven communism.

Wasn't it Marx, who said that capitalism is necessary to develop the abundance of technology and knowledge needed for abundance-driven communism (opposed to primitive scarcity-driven communism), as all previous economic forms were limited in grow, due to the nature of non-capital surplus value, extracted from the oppressed classes, only allowing a limited consumption, whereas capital can grow virtually indefinitely, allowing for nigh-limitless growth and expansion?

Also, wasn't it Marx, who called scientific and technological progress a contradiction inherent in the capitalist system, as this progress (as illustrated above) creates the framework needed for liberation of humanity, while being encouraged solely for the sake of capital expansion and profit maximization, effectively turning productive forces (science and technology) into destructive forces (weapons, war machinery, etc.)?

[bailey_187]

Using your logical i guess we should defend slavery over collective hunter-gather tribes, seeing as it increased the productive forces.

We shouldnt "defend" it, we cant, because it doesnt exist anymore. But we can recognise that it was atthe time a logical step. Forgot the morality.


Similarly we should support imperialism and settler colonies over the 'native' people seeing as they were increasing the productive forces.

But Imperialism didnt for the most part. India's industry was dismantled by the British. In the 16th century India could compete with Britain in textiles. This industry was destroyed by the British to eliminate competition. The same in many parts of Africa. Hunter gatherer groups wernt put to work in industry usually, they were exterminated.


We should acknowledge the improvement in the capacity of productive forces which was needed in order to proceed to socialism maybe defending is the wrong word to use.


If you say capitalism is better than feudalism, that is a defense.

We need to stop the good vs evil and moralistic view.

[Aesop]

We should not defend capitalism, no. But we should not be blind in our opposition either - we should acknowledge that the transition from feudalism to capitalism was a fundamental, and necessary, change, and that capitalism is a necessary precedent for abundance-driven communism.

Wasn't it Marx, who said that capitalism is necessary to develop the abundance of technology and knowledge needed for abundance-driven communism (opposed to primitive scarcity-driven communism), as all previous economic forms were limited in grow, due to the nature of non-capital surplus value, extracted from the oppressed classes, only allowing a limited consumption, whereas capital can grow virtually indefinitely, allowing for nigh-limitless growth and expansion?

Also, wasn't it Marx, who called scientific and technological progress a contradiction inherent in the capitalist system, as this progress (as illustrated above) creates the framework needed for liberation of humanity, while being encouraged solely for the sake of capital expansion and profit maximization, effectively turning productive forces (science and technology) into destructive forces (weapons, war machinery, etc.)?

What?
If you read my post which was a response to another poster, i was trying to state that were should dismiss capaitalism we should acknowledge it's importance of increasing the productive forces. However, i don't believe that we should 'defend' capitalism per se just because it increased the productive forces over other modes of production. I guess what i am trying to say now is that defend may not be the right word.

[Obs]

What?
If you read my post which was a response to another poster, i was trying to state that were should dismiss capaitalism we should acknowledge it's importance of increasing the productive forces. However, i don't believe that we should 'defend' capitalism per se just because it increased the productive forces over other modes of production. I guess what i am trying to say now is that defend may not be the right word.
We should "defend" capitalism over previous forms of society because it managed to drastically decrease poverty, and also because it's kind of a prerequisite for socialism. If you read Marx, you'll find that he just won't shut up about how much good capitalism has done - immediately after and before exposing its inhumanity.

[Aesop]

We shouldnt "defend" it, we cant, because it doesnt exist anymore. But we can recognise that it was atthe time a logical step. Forgot the morality.

Your fighting against a strawman, i am not trying to advocate a return to hunter-gather tribes. However i am raising the question that just because one mode of production increases a productive force above another, is this it's self justification for it?



But Imperialism didnt for the most part. India's industry was dismantled by the British. In the 16th century India could compete with Britain in textiles. This industry was destroyed by the British to eliminate competition. The same in many parts of Africa. Hunter gatherer groups wernt put to work in industry usually, they were exterminated.

I agree with you in regards to your points on india and africa. However in regards to settler colonies like Australia, South Africa and the USA or even israel should we defend these states due to the fact that they increased the productive capacity. Does this fact negate genocide, brutalisation, mutilation?
I know that prior to these events taken place the productive capacity of the world maybe was not enough. But as marxists whom seek for the liberation of humanity and aid personal self development can be say that we defend these regimes.





If you say capitalism is better than feudalism, that is a defense.

We need to stop the good vs evil and moralistic view.

Good vs evil. Ha

[Aesop]

We should "defend" capitalism over previous forms of society because it managed to drastically decrease poverty, and also because it's kind of a prerequisite for socialism. If you read Marx, you'll find that he just won't shut up about how much good capitalism has done - immediately after and before exposing its inhumanity.

i agree with you i guess my problem is that we should defend the progress in productive forces that capitalism has made possible over others such as feudalism and slavery, however not 'defend' capitalism it self.
Am i making sense?

[bailey_187]

Your fighting against a strawman, i am not trying to advocate a return to hunter-gather tribes. However i am raising the question that just because one mode of production increases a productive force above another, is this it's self justification for it?

You cant "justify" modes of production. We shouldnt "justify" socialism (i.e. oh it wouldbe so much more fair and nice - thats utopian sociaism), we just encourage the working class to act in its class interests. Slave modes of production were created by that class acting in its self interest.





I agree with you in regards to your points on india and africa. However in regards to settler colonies like Australia, South Africa and the USA or even israel should we defend these states due to the fact that they increased the productive capacity. Does this fact negate genocide, brutalisation, mutilation?

In all of these instances the 'native' population was/is systematically excluded from benefits of raises in productive forces. Its likley a Palestinian state would be at a much higher level of economic development than what the Palestinian territories enjoy today.

[bailey_187]

i agree with you i guess my problem is that we should defend the progress in productive forces that capitalism has made possible over others such as feudalism and slavery, however not 'defend' capitalism it self.
Am i making sense?


well yeah, so defend capitalism where it deserves to be defended. Concerning present day issues, there is not alot to defend.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Because then we would have access to plentiful resources from places other than Earth. For example, Mercury would provide a good source of metals without damaging any biospheres.

I respectfully disagree.

Firstly, one must ignore the damage to the Earth's biosphere needed to manufacture spacecrafts and extract the energy required to explore outer space and other planets.

Secondly, of all the high-paying skilled labor jobs, that of the astronaut is one of the most physically hazardous. (Edit: and psychologically stressful) This is because the vacuum of outer space is naturally inhospitable to human life.

Thirdly it is not yet entirely known by physicists the total effect of gravitational bodies on the Earth's 'biosphere', we know enough to know that the 'biosphere' is not an autonomous circuit but is dependent upon celestial bodies such as the Moon, Sun, and Jupiter. (The Sun should be obvious, the Moon because she stabilizes the Earth's atmosphere, and Jupiter because his gravitational force pulls most asteroids and comets away from the Earth)

I think a sign of a strong and wise culture in posession material surplus (such as the hypothetical future socialist society we hope to create in the ruins of capitalism) is to not waste said surplus of material resources on every capricious and decadent whimsey. As the 'nerd humor' webcomic XKCD put it, "If you read [John Kennedy's] speech at Rice, his argument for going to the Moon work equally well as arguments for blowing up the moon, sending cloned dinosaurs into space, or constructing a towering penis-shaped obelisk on Mars."

Here is an article critical of space travel by Marxists Federici and Caffentzis that is in my opinion very eloquent: http://deoxy.org/mormons.htm

I am not against all space travel, I believe in only the minimal amount of space travel needed to record and capture images of space for scientific purposes. I don't think space travel should be ever be used as a motor of resource extraction or as a weapons system, as this will just prolong forms of exploitation pioneered under capitalism.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Also, if you read French, (or Google-eese) here is an excellent article by French Maoists critiquing the space industry:

http://www.contre-informations.fr/docus3/onamarchesurlalune2007.html

And as loathe as I am to admit it I also agree with the critique of space travel presented by C.S. Lewis in Out of the Silent Planet and his correspondence with Arthur C. Clarke

[Widerstand]

What?
If you read my post which was a response to another poster, i was trying to state that were should dismiss capaitalism we should acknowledge it's importance of increasing the productive forces. However, i don't believe that we should 'defend' capitalism per se just because it increased the productive forces over other modes of production. I guess what i am trying to say now is that defend may not be the right word.

It was more of a general response to the thread, and I was building up on your post, mostly.


Your fighting against a strawman, i am not trying to advocate a return to hunter-gather tribes. However i am raising the question that just because one mode of production increases a productive force above another, is this it's self justification for it?

It's a justification for it's necessity. We can point out the necessity of capitalism, thereby "defending" it's existence, while still rejecting capitalism as a permanent system (for obvious reasons) and emphasizing on the need to move past it. This is what sets us apart from primitivists, who reject the whole existence of capitalism and prior systems as unjustified and unnecessary, and want society to regress to a pre-neolithic stage of scarcity-driven communism.


I agree with you in regards to your points on india and africa. However in regards to settler colonies like Australia, South Africa and the USA or even israel should we defend these states due to the fact that they increased the productive capacity. Does this fact negate genocide, brutalisation, mutilation?
I know that prior to these events taken place the productive capacity of the world maybe was not enough. But as marxists whom seek for the liberation of humanity and aid personal self development can be say that we defend these regimes.[/quote]

I don't think anyone wants to defend genocide, regimes, worker exploitation, racism or anything the like. Capitalism has bad sides - a lot of them. And that's exactly why capitalism needs to be abolished for a fairer system (communism).


i agree with you i guess my problem is that we should defend the progress in productive forces that capitalism has made possible over others such as feudalism and slavery, however not 'defend' capitalism it self.
Am i making sense?

Somewhat. As I said, we should defend capitalism's necessity as a precedent for communism, but we should not defend capitalism as a (permanent) system.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I respectfully disagree.

Firstly, one must ignore the damage to the Earth's biosphere needed to manufacture spacecrafts and extract the energy required to explore outer space and other planets.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, in order to colonise the solar system we only really need to extract enough resources from the Earth in order to industrialise its orbit. Once that is accomplished, it can sustain itself through resources extracted from Near-Earth Objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object) and then further afield.


Secondly, of all the high-paying skilled labor jobs, that of the astronaut is one of the most physically hazardous. (Edit: and psychologically stressful) This is because the vacuum of outer space is naturally inhospitable to human life.

Just because something is hard to do, does not mean it isn't a good idea to do it. Not only that but there is significant scope for improvement in space-related technology and engineering. Current missions are primarily scientific in nature, and the designs of spacecraft and auxiliary technologies reflects that; space is currently seen as something we distantly observe for the most part, rather than a potential home.


Thirdly it is not yet entirely known by physicists the total effect of gravitational bodies on the Earth's 'biosphere', we know enough to know that the 'biosphere' is not an autonomous circuit but is dependent upon celestial bodies such as the Moon, Sun, and Jupiter. (The Sun should be obvious, the Moon because she stabilizes the Earth's atmosphere, and Jupiter because his gravitational force pulls most asteroids and comets away from the Earth)

The effects of free-fall on human bodies have been extensively documented, and the most immediate solution is relatively easy - rotating sections for stations and craft.

I've heard it said that the Moon has a stabilising effect on Earth's spin and axial inclination, but how does the Moon stabilise Earth's atmosphere?

As for Jupiter, it's just as likely that cometary near-misses of the planet made impacts more likely. Not that I think it would be significant either way, since the Sun contains about 99% of the solar system's total mass.

Why do you ascribe gender to planetary bodies? How does one tell?


I think a sign of a strong and wise culture in posession material surplus (such as the hypothetical future socialist society we hope to create in the ruins of capitalism) is to not waste said surplus of material resources on every capricious and decadent whimsey.

That's not how I would describe the realisation of humanity's potential for spawning further life and intelligence throughout the universe. If the deafening silence we've heard from the cosmos is any indication, this could be our one chance to transform the universe from an indifferent enigma to something meaningful.


As the 'nerd humor' webcomic XKCD put it, "If you read [John Kennedy's] speech at Rice, his argument for going to the Moon work equally well as arguments for blowing up the moon, sending cloned dinosaurs into space, or constructing a towering penis-shaped obelisk on Mars."

Except none of those are conducive to a long-term future which contains humans, their descendants and/or their mind-children.


Here is an article critical of space travel by Marxists Federici and Caffentzis that is in my opinion very eloquent: http://deoxy.org/mormons.htm

I'm sorry, but that was mostly incomprehensible. I'm not a Mormon, for a start.


I am not against all space travel, I believe in only the minimal amount of space travel needed to record and capture images of space for scientific purposes. I don't think space travel should be ever be used as a motor of resource extraction or as a weapons system, as this will just prolong forms of exploitation pioneered under capitalism.

What on Earth are you talking about? There's nobody out there (so far as we know) to exploit, and if we can get resources from other bodies we don't have to extract them from the Earth, with the environmental problems that accompany it.


Also, if you read French, (or Google-eese) here is an excellent article by French Maoists critiquing the space industry:

http://www.contre-informations.fr/docus3/onamarchesurlalune2007.html

I think we're currently taking the wrong approach to space anyway.


And as loathe as I am to admit it I also agree with the critique of space travel presented by C.S. Lewis in Out of the Silent Planet and his correspondence with Arthur C. Clarke

I'm not familiar with it.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, in order to colonise the solar system we only really need to extract enough resources from the Earth in order to industrialise its orbit.

Which in my opinion is "only enough" to leave the Earth in a state of devastation and waste.


Once that is accomplished, it can sustain itself through resources extracted from Near-Earth Objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object) and then further afield.Which will create more space debris, making space travel more hazardous for those who participate in it directly. (Those of whom, I predict, as space technologies become cheaper and better, will probably start to be less paid and come from poorer backgrounds. Albeit in our current economic reality at least, not a hypothetical techno-communist utopia.)


Just because something is hard to do, does not mean it isn't a good idea to do it.Yes, however, just because something is harder to do, does not mean it is a good idea to do it. What if the sacramental duty of "spreading the species into the universe" is not enough ideological incentive, and people aren't willing to go into space without coercion?


Current missions are primarily scientific in natureNot true, current space missions may expand on scientific research, but the current instruments of research are under the control of the bourgeoisie who favor using space for resource-extraction and weapons of mass destruction. They need to be siezed by the proletariat, and drastically scaled back to basic telescopic infrastructure (or abandoned entirely if materially necessary) to ensure the future of human freedom.


space is currently seen as something we distantly observe for the most part, rather than a potential home.But still for the purposes of resource extraction and weapons development. Also as this improvement in space technology you speak of continues, outer space will begin to look more and more desirable by the ruling class as prison space for enemies of the state.


The effects of free-fall on human bodies have been extensively documented, and the most immediate solution is relatively easy - rotating sections for stations and craft.That is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the physiological and psychological stresses and adversities of space travel.


I've heard it said that the Moon has a stabilising effect on Earth's spin and axial inclination, but how does the Moon stabilize Earth's atmosphere? Atmosphere is effected by axial inclination


As for Jupiter, it's just as likely that cometary near-misses of the planet made impacts more likely.Comets and asteroids impact with Jupiter and Saturn more because they are larger gravitational bodies, it is likely that life is most likely to develop in inner planets surrounded by larger gas giants.


since the Sun contains about 99% of the solar system's total mass.And Jupiter and Saturn make up 99 percent of the remaining 1 percent, which is significant.

Either way I don't agree in destroying natural beauty because it doesn't fit into a very limiting definition of "life".


Why do you ascribe gender to planetary bodies?Poetic flare.


That's not how I would describe the realisation of humanity's potential for spawning further life and intelligence throughout the universe. If the deafening silence we've heard from the cosmos is any indication, this could be our one chance to transform the universe from an indifferent enigma to something meaningful. [...] a long-term future which contains humans, their descendants and/or their mind-children.Why is "spawning further life" a requisite for a meaningful existence?
Why are we not allowed to be content with "spawning further life" on Earth? (especially since Earth has an over-abundance of human life)
Why should humanity accept a decrease of quality of life in the immediate present for the vague psychological satisfaction that our biological descendants might still exist billions of years after we're dead? (If I'm dead I don't think I'll care either way)
Why shouldn't we embrace the fact all things in life must eventually end, including the human race?
How is lack of radio signals in our immediate galactic vicinity an indication that our possibly infinite universe is not overabundant with life? (Or is modern industrial life the only valuable state of life?)
Why is the universe not already "something meaningful" in your mind? (Especially considering it creates the conditions for your existence)
What is wrong with enigmas? Or the indifference of the universe?

With all due respect, your justifications for space travel are ideological rather than pragmatic.


I'm sorry, but that was mostly incomprehensible.How long did you spend actually trying to "comprehend" it though?


I'm not a Mormon, for a start.The argument is that space travel will require even newer degrees of work discipline, with the authors drawing comparisons to puritan colonies.


What on Earth are you talking about? There's nobody out there (so far as we know) to exploitThe scientific consensus is that life in the universe is fairly common. (Dozens of Earth-like objects have been recently discovered in other solar systems, relics of microscopic life hav been discovered on Mars, even the moon has h20 and may have had more in the distant past, scientists love to speculate about advanced life under the surface of Europa, and so on) It is no secret that if more primitive forms of life were discovered on other planets, they will likely be brutally colonized. (Scientists like Hawking have even joked about it)

However that is purely hypothetical, what I was specifically referring to was the exploitation of the people of Earth by the ecological toll of space travel, the 'workplace' risks involved in space labor, the potential for space prisons, the development of weapons much more powerful and precise than the atomic bomb, etc.


and if we can get resources from other bodies we don't have to extract them from the Earth, with the environmental problems that accompany it.I think it will just expand the current ecological contradictions to a larger scale.


I think we're currently taking the wrong approach to space anyway.The article argues that the urge to colonize space itself is a continuation of the capitalist colonization of the world.


I'm not familiar with it.Basically the argument is that it's vain and idiotic for the ruling class to further enslave humanity in the present so they can live with the satisfaction of having possibly ensured the survival of humanity's descendants billions of years into the future. Since life forms are constantly evolving, these hypothetical future-beings will in no way resemble humanity, instead we should be content with the fact that the universe likely contains myriad beings of no resemblance to humanity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Which in my opinion is "only enough" to leave the Earth in a state of devastation and waste.

Au contraire. Once we leave this rock it will have enough time between then and when the Sun swells up to recover. The Earth and its accompanying ecosystems have survived far worse than us.


Which will create more space debris, making space travel more hazardous for those who participate in it directly. (Those of whom, I predict, as space technologies become cheaper and better, will probably start to be less paid and come from poorer backgrounds. Albeit in our current economic reality at least, not a hypothetical techno-communist utopia.)

Space debris is an engineering problem that can be worked around. We can start by ensuring that processes and activities release as little debris as possible. In the case of asteroid mining this can be achieved by covering the area mined (or the whole asteroid if it's small enough) in an inflatable dome or sphere pressurised with an inert gas.

In any event, space activity will likely result in the dispersal of some debris, but even then, since most of the debris is likely to be metallic, it will subject to electromagnetic fields, which can either be deployed by vessels and stations as a shield, or by dedicated debris collection/de-orbiting satellites.


Yes, however, just because something is harder to do, does not mean it is a good idea to do it. What if the sacramental duty of "spreading the species into the universe" is not enough ideological incentive, and people aren't willing to go into space without coercion?

I sincerely hope that is not the case. Such ventures are much more successful in the long term, and more socially harmonious, if they have the consent of all involved.


Not true, current space missions may expand on scientific research, but the current instruments of research are under the control of the bourgeoisie who favor using space for resource-extraction and weapons of mass destruction.

They may claim that, but in reality capitalism has so far proven to be too short-sighted as a socio-economic system to actually make the leap. Shareholders get grouchy if they don't get a return on their investment soon enough for their liking.


They need to be siezed by the proletariat, and drastically scaled back to basic telescopic infrastructure (or abandoned entirely if materially necessary) to ensure the future of human freedom.

Limiting ourselves to a single planet in this amazing universe is the very opposite of ensuring our freedom.


But still for the purposes of resource extraction and weapons development. Also as this improvement in space technology you speak of continues, outer space will begin to look more and more desirable by the ruling class as prison space for enemies of the state.

Why would they bother? The traditional methods would still work, and would still be cheaper.


That is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the physiological and psychological stresses and adversities of space travel.

Neverthless, provision of gravity and radiation shielding is far from impossible, and astronauts report a certain degree of physical and mental adjustment to the conditions if their mission is long enough.


Comets and asteroids impact with Jupiter and Saturn more because they are larger gravitational bodies, it is likely that life is most likely to develop in inner planets surrounded by larger gas giants.

OK, but what has this to with already established technological life venturiing beyond its home planet?


Why is "spawning further life" a requisite for a meaningful existence?

Because life, or more precisely intelligence, is a pre-requisite for the existence of meaning itself.


Why are we not allowed to be content with "spawning further life" on Earth? (especially since Earth has an over-abundance of human life)

There's not nearly enough room on this one planet to explore all the options; there's a whole universe of them out there, however.


Why should humanity accept a decrease of quality of life in the immediate present for the vague psychological satisfaction that our biological descendants might still exist billions of years after we're dead? (If I'm dead I don't think I'll care either way)

I don't accept that a decrease in quality of life is necessary. If anything extraterrestrial colonisation has the potential to make us all materially and culturally prosperous on a level that even the most avaricious capitalist can only dream about.


Why shouldn't we embrace the fact all things in life must eventually end, including the human race?

Because life didn't get to where it is now by being a quitter. Were it not for life's propensity to do it's damnedest to stick around, we wouldn't be here having this conversation.


How is lack of radio signals in our immediate galactic vicinity an indication that our possibly infinite universe is not overabundant with life? (Or is modern industrial life the only valuable state of life?)

I accept the possibility non-intelligent life, but I am more cautious about conjecturing on its prevalence. Certainly the building blocks of life are common throughout the universe, but as of yet we do not have a fully coherent theory of abiogenesis, so I would not feel comfortable making a definite statement.

Having said that, if any life were found it would give us something that some would argue is more valuable than anything material, and that is knowledge. The opportunity to study extraterrestrial biospheres is something nobody who claims to have an interest in the universe should pass up.


Why is the universe not already "something meaningful" in your mind? (Especially considering it creates the conditions for your existence)

It may create the conditions for my existence, but that does not make my life inherently meaningful. Meaning is something that humans create and apply to the universe.


What is wrong with enigmas? Or the indifference of the universe?

Enigmas could hide something unpleasant, and if there is, we should know about it in order to deal with it better. As for indifference, a universe that has been reshaped to be more accommodating to life and intelligence would be a much better place to live for all concerned.


With all due respect, your justifications for space travel are ideological rather than pragmatic.

Guilty as charged. But pragmatism informs my ideology - I'm in favour of whatever works to achieve my goals.


How long did you spend actually trying to "comprehend" it though?

The argument is that space travel will require even newer degrees of work discipline, with the authors drawing comparisons to puritan colonies.

Being a pioneer is never easy, but I doubt that we will have a shortage of people willing to go for it; certainly I would leap at the chance, even if it meant travelling in something not much more advanced than today's technology.

But that's the thing; the more popular space travel becomes, the easier it will be for the average person (IE not a pilot or technician), since there will be more people working on solutions to make that kind of activity easier.

Further along in time, human germline engineering may give rise to people who are not only socially and culturally adapted to space, but physically adapted to some degree as well. Such clades will be able to build ships that drag along less of the baggage that Earthmen need, such as rotating sections.


The scientific consensus is that life in the universe is fairly common. (Dozens of Earth-like objects have been recently discovered in other solar systems, relics of microscopic life hav been discovered on Mars, even the moon has h20 and may have had more in the distant past, scientists love to speculate about advanced life under the surface of Europa, and so on)

None of that is direct evidence for life. The scientific consensus as I understand it is "we don't know, but it's a possibility good enough to be worth looking out for"


It is no secret that if more primitive forms of life were discovered on other planets, they will likely be brutally colonized. (Scientists like Hawking have even joked about it)

I would say that depends on the society of the discoverers in question; I see no reason why a space-faring post-scarcity communist civilisation would run rough-shod over the wishes of any native life-forms.


However that is purely hypothetical, what I was specifically referring to was the exploitation of the people of Earth by the ecological toll of space travel, the 'workplace' risks involved in space labor, the potential for space prisons, the development of weapons much more powerful and precise than the atomic bomb, etc.

That assumes that capitalism has what it takes to get into space; I'm doubtful.


I think it will just expand the current ecological contradictions to a larger scale.

How so? The rest of the solar system contains vastly more resources than Earth, without any ecosystems to damage in the process of extracting them. Furthermore, if we have the capability to get into space we can still recycle stuff if needs be. Also, efficiency becomes a big factor in space travel and there's no reason we cannot transfer weight/energy saving measures to terrestrial applications.


The article argues that the urge to colonize space itself is a continuation of the capitalist colonization of the world.

Not borne out by history. Landing a man on the Moon for a couple of days is hardly colonisation. Looked at in their historical context, the moon landings are more of a PR stunt than anything else.

Any future society should be far more ambitious.


Basically the argument is that it's vain and idiotic for the ruling class to further enslave humanity in the present so they can live with the satisfaction of having possibly ensured the survival of humanity's descendants billions of years into the future.

As if that was the only choice other than dooming ourselves to eventual extinction on one lonely little planet!


Since life forms are constantly evolving, these hypothetical future-beings will in no way resemble humanity, instead we should be content with the fact that the universe likely contains myriad beings of no resemblance to humanity.

Eh, we don't actually know that. The best way to make certain is to do it ourselves.

[Obs]

You guys just keep finding weirder and weirder things to derail threads over, don't you?

[ContrarianLemming]

There is a common argument that capitalism has given us much, that we are advanced and we owe it all to capitalism. I find the argument makes litlesense, for several reasons

* the most capitalist nations are the least innovative

* The a huge number of everyday inventions which were state funded/made, and thers a lot of them.

* the believe that a mode of producton affects human intellect

* the suggestion that ths is somehow a good argument - we advanceda huge amount in feudalism, should we support fuedalim? Stalins Russia advanced a huge amount under Stalin,, but very few would advocate going back to Stalin days
It's like saying the slaves of the 17th century were better off then the slaves of the 18th - which is true - but that's hardly a good argument for slavery

You begin your premise falsly, most modern inventionsare not due to "capitalism" they are due o human ingenuity.

[Obs]

There is a common argument that capitalism has given us much, that we are advanced and we owe it all to capitalism. I find the argument makes litlesense, for several reasons

* the most capitalist nations are the least innovative

* The a huge number of everyday inventions which were state funded/made, and thers a lot of them.

* the believe that a mode of producton affects human intellect

* the suggestion that ths is somehow a good argument - we advanceda huge amount in feudalism, should we support fuedalim? Stalins Russia advanced a huge amount under Stalin,, but very few would advocate going back to Stalin days
It's like saying the slaves of the 17th century were better off then the slaves of the 18th - which is true - but that's hardly a good argument for slavery

You begin your premise falsly, most modern inventionsare not due to "capitalism" they are due o human ingenuity.
No one is advocating "going back" to anything. We're simply objectively and critically going through how human society has advanced.

[Widerstand]

* the most capitalist nations are the least innovative

Source? How do you measure how "capitalist" a nation is? Plus, Isn't it the capitalists (corporations and such) that are innovative?



* The a huge number of everyday inventions which were state funded/made, and thers a lot of them.

Source? Also, how is the modern state not a result of or at least deeply connected with capitalist modes of production? Aren't a lot of state-owned research facilities, such as universities, actually financed by corporations?



* the believe that a mode of producton affects human intellect

No. But the mode of production affects how much human intellect is supported. Capitalism is dependent on scientific technological advancement in order to keep maximizing profit and create more capital, which in return is invested into scientific and technological research, leading to more innovations and inventions being made. This is a novum in human history. The mode of production does not affect the intellect, it affects how that intelligent is allowed to emerge.


* the suggestion that ths is somehow a good argument - we advanceda huge amount in feudalism, should we support fuedalim? Stalins Russia advanced a huge amount under Stalin,, but very few would advocate going back to Stalin days

Where did anyone suggest we should support capitalism in itself? I would support capitalism over feudalism though. Are you suggesting that because both are flawed, the more advanced one is not preferable?


It's like saying the slaves of the 17th century were better off then the slaves of the 18th - which is true - but that's hardly a good argument for slavery

But it's an argument for 18th century slavery being preferable to 17th century slavery.

[Vanguard1917]

Aqua ducts and underground heating invented by the Romans are not inherently "slave-mode-of-production", so why would any technology created in the capitalist mode of production be so?

The technology created in capitalism may be to created to create profit, but so was Roman underground heating and aqua ducts created to provide for the slave owners.

Good point. It's social relations that are key. A factory is a factory -- it's only as a result of certain social relations that it entails the exploitation of workers, the production of commodities, etc.

[Ovi]

But like, most modern technology was designed with profit in mind, with few exceptions of course (like Jonas Salk). so if all of this technology was devised for such reasons, wouldn't that make modern society that we have today and human "progress" inherently capitalist and bourgeois?

Technology is not neutral. Society wasn't designed at random, but it's the product of profit motive and social hierarchy. Do you believe workers would have created the same factories with the same assembly lines that strips them of any creativity and thinking of their own? Would, say the residents of Vapi, India (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028_1661019,00.html) have poisoned themselves the same way the owners of Vapi Industries Association decided it's best for their profits? Would workers cram themselves in small apartments in big cities just to increase their odds of finding a job, and doing so unintentionally creating a wide distinction between countryside and towns? Would the workers have designed and built using enormous amounts of research, labor, materials and energy the sky scrapers of today for the sole purpose of office buildings? If you'd ask me, I'd say no. I think the entire society it's build on capitalist premises. There are no worker councils, but an office where the boss spies on the workers with video cameras to insure the ever increasing productivity which fails to insure any increase in the leisure time or happiness for the same workers. Using automation and mechanization, productivity has increased tens or hundreds of times, yet we have less leisure time than past hunter gatherers or peasants had, and our work has become more boring and stressful than ever. How come? If technology is neutral, does that mean that we're destined to do all day something that we hate in a stressful and alienating environment and any productivity increase should be used not to increase leisure time and happiness, but to produce even more?

Capitalism has failed to provide clean water, enough food and shelter for more than a billion people, yet many socialists believe one of our priorities should be developing space technologies. For the foreseeable future, space exploration for economic reasons is like snake oil. It's the savior of the unsustainable development of today; if this planet goes to shit, we'll just move on Mars; after all, the only things that Mars lacks are water and an atmosphere (and maybe big enough gravity). Stephen Hawking, who recently talked about the need for people to colonize other planets, mentioned as the main arguments, the threat of extinction caused by nuclear weapons and global warming, not some science fiction enthusiasm. But I don't think that the only solution against that would be moving into space.
Just to escape the Earth's gravitational field, you need the equivalent energy of about 13 kg of TNT for every kg of useful material. Put it in a different way, an object free falling from far enough towards the Earth, without any initial velocity (ignoring the orbital velocity of either body) would have 13 times the energy of the same mass of TNT as the object on Earth. It's an enormous amount of energy (of course, in real life, one J of energy in any form won't produce one J of extra gravitational potential energy) just to leave the Earth; never mind actually going somewhere and coming back. This huge effort should probably be expended into improving the life on Earth, developing sustainable technologies and removing the man made threats to the planet and our own lives rather than betting on a mass scale relocation on Mars or mining asteroids to fulfill our ever growing needs.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

You guys just keep finding weirder and weirder things to derail threads over, don't you?

What others call "derailing threads", I call the natural meandering of human conversation.

Also, I think a thread on the relationship of modern society to capitalism is a totally appropriate place for a mostly civil conversation about the ramifications of space travel.

[Adi Shankara]

No one is advocating "going back" to anything. We're simply objectively and critically going through how human society has advanced.

I just wonder though--a scientist named Daniel Everett documented a tribe in Brazil called the Piraha. they had one of the simplest languages ever discovered, with the fewest conjugations, etc. and they lived in a primitive communist hunter-gatherer society with relative plenty. none of them starved, they all led decent lives, and they had alot of social free time because their life style provided enough for them to live off of, they own all property communally, there is no leader, everything is done by democratic vote.

Now then, recently people tried to introduce them to agricultural farming, to "make their lives easier", and the tribe rejected agriculture and all other piece of technology by a vast majority of their members.

so they seem pretty happy, and I wouldn't know, but isn't universal happiness a good measure of human progress on a micro-scale? how is feudalism, slavery in Brazil, destruction of the forest, forced religion, war, and torture better than anything this tribe has?

[Blackscare]

I'm not sure about the 25% figure (I thought it was still over 50%), but it would be wrong to say that capitalism was not an improvement from feudalism (institutionalised slavery and whatnot).

This. If you don't understand the dynamic progression of society through stages, and the fact that these stages tend towards improvement, you are not a marxist.

Marxism has no room for emotional response and knee-jerk hatred of anything, even capitalism. Careful, objective analyses is our strength after all.



o they seem pretty happy, and I wouldn't know, but isn't universal happiness a good measure of human progress on a micro-scale? how is feudalism, slavery in Brazil, destruction of the forest, forced religion, war, and torture better than anything this tribe has?

But how is that in any way practical for the vast majority of humanity?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Technology is not neutral. Society wasn't designed at random, but it's the product of profit motive and social hierarchy. Do you believe workers would have created the same factories with the same assembly lines that strips them of any creativity and thinking of their own? Would, say the residents of Vapi, India (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028_1661019,00.html) have poisoned themselves the same way the owners of Vapi Industries Association decided it's best for their profits? Would workers cram themselves in small apartments in big cities just to increase their odds of finding a job, and doing so unintentionally creating a wide distinction between countryside and towns? Would the workers have designed and built using enormous amounts of research, labor, materials and energy the sky scrapers of today for the sole purpose of office buildings? If you'd ask me, I'd say no. I think the entire society it's build on capitalist premises. There are no worker councils, but an office where the boss spies on the workers with video cameras to insure the ever increasing productivity which fails to insure any increase in the leisure time or happiness for the same workers. Using automation and mechanization, productivity has increased tens or hundreds of times, yet we have less leisure time than past hunter gatherers or peasants had, and our work has become more boring and stressful than ever. How come? If technology is neutral, does that mean that we're destined to do all day something that we hate in a stressful and alienating environment and any productivity increase should be used not to increase leisure time and happiness, but to produce even more?

Technology is neutral, but its application is not. There is nothing inherent to a factory which results in boring, repetitive, unskilled work - in fact, that kind of work lends itself extremely well to automation, which can free up people to do more interesting work, or none at all. But this doesn't happen under capitalism - automation is instead used to squeeze out more productivity from each worker.

Similarly, nothing about chemical production itself necessarily compels one to simply dump the waste products nearby without a care for the consequences, unless it is carried out under a price system, as opposed to a resource-based economy which considers the good state of the environment to be valuable.

To finish my argument, a camera can be used to violate privacy for surveillance purposes, or it can be used to monitor animal activity for environmental study purposes.

Technology is a means to an end, not an end to itself.


Capitalism has failed to provide clean water, enough food and shelter for more than a billion people, yet many socialists believe one of our priorities should be developing space technologies. For the foreseeable future, space exploration for economic reasons is like snake oil. It's the savior of the unsustainable development of today; if this planet goes to shit, we'll just move on Mars; after all, the only things that Mars lacks are water and an atmosphere (and maybe big enough gravity).

I'm not sure about what other socialist space exploration advocates say, but I certainly don't think our extraterrestrial ventures should follow the pattern you're suggesting.


Stephen Hawking, who recently talked about the need for people to colonize other planets, mentioned as the main arguments, the threat of extinction caused by nuclear weapons and global warming, not some science fiction enthusiasm. But I don't think that the only solution against that would be moving into space.

Not all existential threats are anthropogenic - an impacting asteroid, an ice age, and an erupting supervolcano would devastate an Earth-bound civilisation regardless of whether it's capitalist or communist.


Just to escape the Earth's gravitational field, you need the equivalent energy of about 13 kg of TNT for every kg of useful material. Put it in a different way, an object free falling from far enough towards the Earth, without any initial velocity (ignoring the orbital velocity of either body) would have 13 times the energy of the same mass of TNT as the object on Earth. It's an enormous amount of energy (of course, in real life, one J of energy in any form won't produce one J of extra gravitational potential energy) just to leave the Earth; never mind actually going somewhere and coming back. This huge effort should probably be expended into improving the life on Earth, developing sustainable technologies and removing the man made threats to the planet and our own lives rather than betting on a mass scale relocation on Mars or mining asteroids to fulfill our ever growing needs.

We've got six billion people and barring some global catastrophe we are unlikely to lose them any time soon. That's more than enough potential talent to solve our major problems and start working on our future in the rest of the universe.

[AK]

Good point. It's social relations that are key. A factory is a factory -- it's only as a result of certain social relations that it entails the exploitation of workers, the production of commodities, etc.
Primmies and neo-Luddites could learn from this.