nanotechnology: armed resistance

[bcbm]

http://www.nature.com/news/nanotechnology-armed-resistance-1.11287

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Getting a real Coalition for Neural Purity vibe from that article haha. Armed struggle against technological development seems like a real dead end. I would be interested in reading more about opposition to nanotechnology specifically though

[¿Que?]

Interesting article, but a little frustrating to read for it's vagueness in some parts I felt needed more elaboration.


Most nanotechnology researchers acknowledge that some areas of their work raise legitimate environmental, health and safety concerns.
Ah I see, and those concerns would be...

I also am bothered that instead of talking about those legitimate concerns, the article just goes on to discuss what scientist are doing to allay public concerns and increase favorable opinions regarding nanotechnology.

Then again, Nature is a main propaganda organ of the scientific establishment, so I'd expect as much...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If it turns out nanotechnology has benefits for places like Mexico, and the actions of groups like ITS means that Mexico misses out, what will ITTS and their ideological cohorts do in recompense? Fuck-all, I expect.

As for the concerns, while the linked article mentioned nanoparticles, not all nanotechnological applications involve the release of them into the environment. Nanoscale replicators are a long way off.


California-based environmental writer Derrick Jensen — whose popular books call for an underground network of 'Deep Green Resistance' cells — is a highly influential figure in this otherwise leaderless movement, which argues that industrial civilization is responsible for environmental destruction and must be dismantled.

Fuck that, Derrick Jensen should be dismantled. He doesn't either doesn't realise or doesn't care how many people will die if advanced technological civilisation were to pass away.


Greenpeace Mexico, criticized by the ITS for having a soft stance on environmental issues, received an incendiary device from the group last November.

Lovely-sounding folks, these ITS. Even if you yourself have concerns for the environment, if you're not 100% with their primitivist agenda, you can expect to find devices capable of maiming and killing in your letterbox! I'm no fan of Greenpeace, but I would stop short at intimidation and violence because to use such tactics would be an admission that my own position is intellectually untenable.

[black magick hustla]

long live nanotechnology

[bcbm]

Fuck that, Derrick Jensen should be dismantled. He doesn't either doesn't realise or doesn't care how many people will die if advanced technological civilisation were to pass away.

jensen is a dummy but his argument is very concerned with how many people will die. he just thinks more people will die is technological civilization isn't dismantled because eventually (and probably sooner rather than later) it will collapse, which i don't think it takes a genius to realize would be an unparalleled catastrophe.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry to break a lot of hearts here at this nerd love-in, but it's worth pointing out that nanotech -- like all other technologies up to the present -- is subject to weaponization, especially for modern-era inter-imperialist conflicts.

While it's tough *not* to get dreamy-eyed about that one 'killer app' development that will usher us through into a real utopia, we shouldn't forget that militaries are always looking for an edge as well.

This doesn't mean that the whole world should freak and throw in the towel on what we call civilization, to embrace a fiercely basic egalitarian worm-eating subsistence, but rather that the class divide will continue to guide technological developments for better and for worse.

Even if the world came to know of a "perfect solution" involving nanotech that gave anyone immortality and instant regeneration without ever having to eat or sleep again, it *still* wouldn't resolve the class divide because the *means* of obtaining that benefit would doubtlessly be proprietary and brutally enforced by a capitalist economics.

[Ravachol]

I don't give two shits about that ITS group and their over-simplified conception of social processes or whatever but I'm sooooo sick and tired of the cult of so-called 'progress'. Technophilia is a disorder whose sufferers are unwilling and incapable of seeing technological development as shaping and being shaped by Capital.

[ckaihatsu]

[I'm] sooooo sick and tired of the cult of so-called 'progress'. Technophilia is a disorder whose sufferers are unwilling and incapable of seeing technological development as shaping and being shaped by Capital.


I'll play devil's advocate here and mention that recently, on another thread, someone brought up the example of birth control as being a decidedly *progressive* technological development....

So 'progress' *does* exist -- it's real and it happens, and can be boosted by purely technological developments.

[Clarion]

So what if technological development is partially shaped by capital? Would we rather a primitive 19th century capitalism over the modern kind?

Relations of production are shaped by the means of production. Advances in technologies like nanotechnology, which have the potential to completely revolutionise production, will increasingly undermine the basis of the dictatorship of capital.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

jensen is a dummy but his argument is very concerned with how many people will die. he just thinks more people will die is technological civilization isn't dismantled because eventually (and probably sooner rather than later) it will collapse, which i don't think it takes a genius to realize would be an unparalleled catastrophe.

He thinks it's inevitable (correct me if wrong), and draws conclusions based on that. I'm not so certain. Given how often some considerably intelligent and educated people have predicted catastrophe and ended up being wrong, I think I have reasonable grounds for skepticism.

[Ravachol]

So what if technological development is partially shaped by capital?


If you have no quarrel with the material structure of society being shaped by Capital there is no reason to oppose capitalism.



Relations of production are shaped by the means of production.


That's not fully true but if you argue production relations are shaped by the means of production, that means you argue capitalism is a product of a particular technological configuration which adds weight to my argument, not yours.


Advances in technologies like nanotechnology, which have the potential to completely revolutionise production, will increasingly undermine the basis of the dictatorship of capital.

Like how the advances in production with the shift from fordism to post-fordism undermined the basis of capital! :rolleyes: :laugh:

[ckaihatsu]

Relations of production are shaped by the means of production.


...And the means of production are shaped by social relations (of production). It's dialectical.

[Clarion]

That's not fully true but if you argue production relations are shaped by the means of production, that means you argue capitalism is a product of a particular technological configuration which adds weight to my argument, not yours.No, it means that relations between capital and labour are reshaped by technology in a way which capital cannot control.


Like how the advances in production with the shift from fordism to post-fordism undermined the basis of capital!The advances in production over the decades have continued to advanced the conditions for the development of socialism, so yes.


...And the means of production are shaped by social relations (of production). Yes, capitalism creates the conditions for its own abolition, by ruthlessly driving forward advances in production.

[Os Cangaceiros]

While technology is shaped by capitalism, I think it's a mistake to think that capital has a complete view of what that technology will ultimately evolve into. In other words, capital is not an all-knowing entity, and I think it's possible that they could develop something that ultimately undermines them. An example perhaps being the Internet, which I'd argue undermines property rights more than it re-enforces them, both through illegal means (piracy, cyber-fraud, etc.) and legal means (the fact that an unfathomable amount of raw information is available for free to many people who wish to look for it, resulting in things like the decline of print media). Of course that's why there's a continuous effort underway to "enclose the digital commons".

It's like conspiracy theorists who look at every disaster that the US government has ever faced, and obsess over how it really benefited them. The idea that an unforeseen circumstance could arise that the US government weren't behind is unfathomable to a lot of those people. I don't see why it would be any different with technology and capitalism.

PS Derrick Jensen is a salmon fucker, a snitch and seems to becoming more and more of a liberal every day. :closedeyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

But in all seriousness w/ regards to Derrick Jensen, I pretty much agree with what Noxion said. Personally I don't feel like industrial civilization will ever collapse, it might get a lot uglier, but it definitely won't collapse on it's own accord.

[Ostrinski]

Of course capital has been the facilitator of the great technological growth that has given us what we have today in terms of means of transportation, communication, and entertainment. After all, capitalism has been unprecedentedly productive in terms of providing for the most amount of people possible (in relation to previous modes of production).

That is why we don't see socialism as an alternative of capitalism, but capitalism as the incubator of socialism. Socialism is the ideal social organizational structure for the great lot of humanity, as it grants us what capitalism cannot: freedom from the wage system and other arrangements of economic bondage.

Capitalism is what has made socialism a possibility in the first place: it has presented us with the first economic class capable of running a complex industrial society on their own without needing to exploit other classes.

So we shouldn't phrase our dialogue with implications that we have to give up the pleasures and conveniences that capitalist society has given us. The point is, rather, to show that capitalist society can be transcended in all arenas of progress, technological included.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Like how the advances in production with the shift from fordism to post-fordism undermined the basis of capital! :rolleyes: :laugh:

Wait, are you trying to say that the end of capitalism "should" have coincided with the end of Fordism? Or what?

Isn't such a framing of the issue just as guilty as the "technophiliacs" of ignoring the wider socioeconomic picture? After Ford, the centre of gravity for manufacturing commodities shifted to the "developing" world, where labour and regulations are cheaper.

Of course, one then wonders what will happen when Chinese and Indian workers demand/get the same pay and conditions as their US/European counterparts.

[Ravachol]

No, it means that relations between capital and labour are reshaped by technology in a way which capital cannot control.


There's a difference between technological development being a deterministic function of Capital (which it isn't) and it's course being guided and set out by it (which it is).



The advances in production over the decades have continued to advanced the conditions for the development of socialism, so yes.


No they haven't. We're not an inch closer to communism than centuries ago. Capital's real subsumption (as opposed to mere formal subsumption) of the entire social terrain means that it has recomposed not so much every aspect of life AS an aspect of Capital but every aspect of life as part of the struggle between life and Capital. So, as Os Cangaceiros said, technology is a terrain of struggle with aspects that undermine Capital's domination and aspects that reinforce it. But that is not a result of it's unhindered development of the productive forces which somehow brings us magically closer to communism. If the terrain nanotechnology is developed it is developed within the framework of Capital and not against it.



Yes, capitalism creates the conditions for its own abolition, by ruthlessly driving forward advances in production.

No it doesn't. This whole linear progressivist fable simply subsumes socialism within Capital's frame, adding another batch of cheerleaders to it's deathmarch.

[ckaihatsu]

Relations of production are shaped by the means of production.





...And the means of production are shaped by social relations (of production). It's dialectical.





Yes, capitalism creates the conditions for its own abolition, by ruthlessly driving forward advances in production.


---





[R]elations between capital and labour are reshaped by technology in a way which capital cannot control.





There's a difference between technological development being a deterministic function of Capital (which it isn't) and it's course being guided and set out by it (which it is).


You're *agreeing* with Clarion here.

(A classic example would be the early industrialization of the U.S., particularly in the North, that wound up disrupting the class system of slave labor in the South.)





The advances in production over the decades have continued to advanced the conditions for the development of socialism, so yes.





No they haven't. We're not an inch closer to communism than centuries ago. Capital's real subsumption (as opposed to mere formal subsumption) of the entire social terrain means that it has recomposed not so much every aspect of life AS an aspect of Capital but every aspect of life as part of the struggle between life and Capital. So, as Os Cangaceiros said, technology is a terrain of struggle with aspects that undermine Capital's domination and aspects that reinforce it. But that is not a result of it's unhindered development of the productive forces which somehow brings us magically closer to communism. If the terrain nanotechnology is developed it is developed within the framework of Capital and not against it.





Yes, capitalism creates the conditions for its own abolition, by ruthlessly driving forward advances in production.





No it doesn't. This whole linear progressivist fable simply subsumes socialism within Capital's frame, adding another batch of cheerleaders to it's deathmarch.


I'm going to side with Clarion's line here -- which you, Ravachol, through your statement above, are actually *congruent* with.

We can't deny that advances in the *means* of production -- technology -- inevitably lead to results that have implications for class rule, that were unintended by the ruling class.

It's worth noting, as you're doing, Ravachol, that, in the context of overall *class rule*, technology *hasn't*, in and of itself, given rise to social conditions that "automatically" usurp class rule *altogether* -- but it has *complicated* it and decidedly aided the class struggle in material ways, as with the U.S. Civil War or the Internet.

[Ravachol]

You're *agreeing* with Clarion here.


No I'm not.



(A classic example would be the early industrialization of the U.S., particularly in the North, that wound up disrupting the class system of slave labor in the South.)


And which solidified the class system of wage labor.



I'm going to side with Clarion's line here -- which you, Ravachol, through your statement above, are actually *congruent* with.

We can't deny that advances in the *means* of production -- technology -- inevitably lead to results that have implications for class rule, that were unintended by the ruling class.


My position isn't congruent. Saying that technological development can have unintended consequences from Capital's perspective (which is not entirely the same as the perspective of the ruling class!) isn't the same as saying this development does anything to aid the move towards Communism. These are two completely different things.

Global warming is an unintended consequence of the development of the productive forces in the Capitalist framework but it doesn't move us closer to communism.



It's worth noting, as you're doing, Ravachol, that, in the context of overall *class rule*, technology *hasn't*, in and of itself, given rise to social conditions that "automatically" usurp class rule *altogether*


No, they produce rifts and shifts within the mode of production and (can) aid the establishment of a different form of class rule. But that is in no way the same thing as the destruction of class society. These are separate things, something clouded by a linear progressivist view of history.



but it has *complicated* it and decidedly aided the class struggle in material ways, as with the U.S. Civil War or the Internet.

It didn't 'aid the class struggle', the class struggle merely finds a new terrain to struggle on and within. Besides, simply aiding class struggle is not a guarantee for a move towards communism. Class struggle can be perfectly contained within and immanent to Capital and it's development.

The internet is such a terrain as well, while it has allowed a strong tendency towards erosion of private (intellectual) property (note that even some of the most hardline pirates never transpose their arguments to the 'physical' world though some others do) and allowed for the formation of clandestine technologies (encrypted instant communications, etc.) it has also paved the way for a rejuvenation of capital in the form of e-commerce, targeted advertising, etc. as well as solidifying the mechanisms of surveillance and control (facebook, google, etc.).

As technological development under capital, they're terrains of struggle and have no intrinsic tendency towards communism. Their intrinsic tendency is towards solidifying capital. It's through resistance and the composition of (in Deleuzian terms) 'nomad sciences' that the terrain might come to favor us. But this often involves not only subverting the terrain but in many cases doing away with many integral parts of it, taking what we want and burning the rest so to speak.

An analogy could be urban struggle where such urban structures as slums, prisons, etc. are not to be 'managed differently' but done away with altogether. Their material structure is shaped by class society and their structure facilitates such use.

[ckaihatsu]

No I'm not.



And which solidified the class system of wage labor.



My position isn't congruent. Saying that technological development can have unintended consequences from Capital's perspective (which is not entirely the same as the perspective of the ruling class!) isn't the same as saying this development does anything to aid the move towards Communism. These are two completely different things.

Global warming is an unintended consequence of the development of the productive forces in the Capitalist framework but it doesn't move us closer to communism.



No, they produce rifts and shifts within the mode of production and (can) aid the establishment of a different form of class rule. But that is in no way the same thing as the destruction of class society. These are separate things, something clouded by a linear progressivist view of history.



It didn't 'aid the class struggle', the class struggle merely finds a new terrain to struggle on and within. Besides, simply aiding class struggle is not a guarantee for a move towards communism. Class struggle can be perfectly contained within and immanent to Capital and it's development.

The internet is such a terrain as well, while it has allowed a strong tendency towards erosion of private (intellectual) property (note that even some of the most hardline pirates never transpose their arguments to the 'physical' world though some others do) and allowed for the formation of clandestine technologies (encrypted instant communications, etc.) it has also paved the way for a rejuvenation of capital in the form of e-commerce, targeted advertising, etc. as well as solidifying the mechanisms of surveillance and control (facebook, google, etc.).

As technological development under capital, they're terrains of struggle and have no intrinsic tendency towards communism. Their intrinsic tendency is towards solidifying capital. It's through resistance and the composition of (in Deleuzian terms) 'nomad sciences' that the terrain might come to favor us. But this often involves not only subverting the terrain but in many cases doing away with many integral parts of it, taking what we want and burning the rest so to speak.

An analogy could be urban struggle where such urban structures as slums, prisons, etc. are not to be 'managed differently' but done away with altogether. Their material structure is shaped by class society and their structure facilitates such use.


Okay, well, with all due respect, I'm still not seeing any substantive *differences* in positions here, though you're being very particular with your meaning.

I interpret this as being a glass-half-empty, glass-half-full kind of moment, wherein one may decide to describe developments and focus on their *deleterious* qualities, or, on their humanely *constructive* qualities.

I'll elaborate and contend that due to the Internet there is far more cognitive / political interconnection and communication possible, over broader populations, to a degree that simply wasn't logistically and qualitatively possible before. This enables a stronger sense of shared common mass public opinion -- as against imperialist warmongering -- one that almost *passively* impinges on class rule and ruling class policies through sheer numbers alone.

If many of the promises of an on-the-horizon nanotechnology do come to fruition we could see a corresponding empowerment as well that allows us to more-completely realize our numbers as the masses of the world. Perhaps it would be more personally-physically-based, as with augmentations that might aid physical strength, or something along those lines....

You can always argue cat-and-mouse, as is your wont, but any developments that aid the mass-*subjective*, while the capitalist-*objective* forces seize up in internal crisis, are always welcome.

[Ravachol]

I'll elaborate and contend that due to the Internet there is far more cognitive / political interconnection and communication possible, over broader populations, to a degree that simply wasn't logistically and qualitatively possible before. This enables a stronger sense of shared common mass public opinion -- as against imperialist warmongering -- one that almost *passively* impinges on class rule and ruling class policies through sheer numbers alone.


That isn't happening though, is it? Where is all this common mass public opinion, 'stopping warmongering', 'stopping global warming', 'stopping exploitation'?

Apart from the fact that your approach is entirely idealist (ie. the bringing together of opinions and ideas is what moves people) and somehow sees the medium of communication as having a qualitative influence upon the way ideas are formed and structured, the internet is just as fragmented, if not more so, than the rest of society.

Everybody has his or her little niche hub, their own little empty echo-chamber where only those with a minimum distance to a particular intersection of ideas converge towards. This is only aided by the existence of things such as Google's filter bubbles, facebook's personalized recommendations, etc. which only reinforce existing divisions.

True, it's easier to reach a lot of people through the internet and there's an unimaginable amount of information out there, but that does nothing to overcome separation (let alone alienation, something which the internet soothes at best and propagates at worst). There's masses of people who sit in their chairs all day, liking this or that charity, joining this or that facebook 'course' and when something happens, they're "elsewhere, watching screens".

The most ironic example I witnessed some time ago was during the student protests here in the Netherlands of winter 2010-2011 where there were giant commercial screens near the demo which displayed virtual 'avatars' of people who preferred to stay home (and were encouraged to do so through the idea of 'joining in' in this way) and 'like' a facebook page to have a 'virtual march' in front of parliament. :rolleyes:

Besides, even if the internet DID bring masses of people together, who then somehow spontaneously (as a result of ideas being the moving forces behind history or whatever) decided to 'take a stand' against an issue, how does that bring us any closer to communism?

If you wanted an example I'd say piracy and (some aspects of) open-source software. Though the latter is telling as it's being adopted by many tech-corps simply because it makes the maintenance and flexibility of their product so much easier and more versatile, an extra feature for a commodity on the markets.

In and of itself, technological development under capital tends towards reinforcing capital, in the fashion of a positive feedback loop. It's where struggle and conflict emerges that the terrain starts to shift, however briefly. But this is always in opposition to the regular 'course of technological development'.

If a development weren't compatible with Capital's goals, it wouldn't be adopted. Not through conscious political maneuvering against it, but simply because it wouldn't be economically viable.



If many of the promises of an on-the-horizon nanotechnology do come to fruition we could see a corresponding empowerment as well that allows us to more-completely realize our numbers as the masses of the world.


I don't know what any of that means, sorry.



Perhaps it would be more personally-physically-based, as with augmentations that might aid physical strength, or something along those lines....


You honestly believe such augmentations would (despite that you'd have to put a gun to my head before I'd get cybernetic implants) not only 'aid' (I cannot see in what fashion) the struggle against capital, but that they would be freely available to all? That's beyond naive....

Such augmentations would be shaped by capital, ie. contribute towards a maximum productivity and minimum autonomy of the worker, they would calibrate them towards the maximum extraction of surplus value. This time not only on the social level, but on the physical level!

And those implants which would offer abilities (though I would not want to take part in any of that bullshit) which allow individuals to perform 'better' (intelligence, strength, all that RPG bs) would be expensive beyond imagination, available to only those who could afford it, thus elevating the ruling class and their watchdogs from their social platforms placed above us to being actually physically and mentally superior.

If you want a clear picture of the course of technological development under Capitalism open up a cyberpunk novel, that's as clear as it gets.

[ckaihatsu]

That isn't happening though, is it? Where is all this common mass public opinion, 'stopping warmongering', 'stopping global warming', 'stopping exploitation'?

Apart from the fact that your approach is entirely idealist (ie. the bringing together of opinions and ideas is what moves people)


It's not idealism to concentrate on the subjective factor and see how capitalism's *means* of production have unintendedly benefitted the proletarian struggle.

While I appreciate your following analysis and see some validity in what you're saying, I think it's also altogether overly pessimistic, in my opinion.





and somehow sees the medium of communication as having a qualitative influence upon the way ideas are formed and structured, the internet is just as fragmented, if not more so, than the rest of society.

Everybody has his or her little niche hub, their own little empty echo-chamber where only those with a minimum distance to a particular intersection of ideas converge towards. This is only aided by the existence of things such as Google's filter bubbles, facebook's personalized recommendations, etc. which only reinforce existing divisions.

True, it's easier to reach a lot of people through the internet and there's an unimaginable amount of information out there, but that does nothing to overcome separation (let alone alienation, something which the internet soothes at best and propagates at worst). There's masses of people who sit in their chairs all day, liking this or that charity, joining this or that facebook 'course' and when something happens, they're "elsewhere, watching screens".

The most ironic example I witnessed some time ago was during the student protests here in the Netherlands of winter 2010-2011 where there were giant commercial screens near the demo which displayed virtual 'avatars' of people who preferred to stay home (and were encouraged to do so through the idea of 'joining in' in this way) and 'like' a facebook page to have a 'virtual march' in front of parliament. :rolleyes:

Besides, even if the internet DID bring masses of people together, who then somehow spontaneously (as a result of ideas being the moving forces behind history or whatever) decided to 'take a stand' against an issue, how does that bring us any closer to communism?


Well, the promise of mass networked communications would be an easier availability of access to politics, including the appropriately empowering kind -- communist. I'll maintain that, prior to the Internet, people were much more physically bound, and socially constricted. The net, as a material base, enables a freely individualistic initiative to come to the fore, as with an impulse to do some impromptu research on 'communism' with a web search, for example.





If you wanted an example I'd say piracy and (some aspects of) open-source software. Though the latter is telling as it's being adopted by many tech-corps simply because it makes the maintenance and flexibility of their product so much easier and more versatile, an extra feature for a commodity on the markets.

In and of itself, technological development under capital tends towards reinforcing capital, in the fashion of a positive feedback loop. It's where struggle and conflict emerges that the terrain starts to shift, however briefly. But this is always in opposition to the regular 'course of technological development'.

If a development weren't compatible with Capital's goals, it wouldn't be adopted. Not through conscious political maneuvering against it, but simply because it wouldn't be economically viable.


Again, no disagreements here, but I'd like to remind you of this:





Relations of production are shaped by the means of production.





That's not fully true [...]


You're acknowledging that there *is* *some* influence of means of production *on* social relations -- it's not a one-way street. There are common uses for technologies that were unintended by those who were in positions to back their development and implementation -- and you've even itemized some of these.

Your pessimism far outstrips and trumps your honest knowledge of what potentials lie within such technolgies, even moreso than someone's unfounded *optimism* might bound through rose-colored glasses. Your pessimism is politically irresponsible.





You honestly believe such augmentations would (despite that you'd have to put a gun to my head before I'd get cybernetic implants) not only 'aid' (I cannot see in what fashion) the struggle against capital, but that they would be freely available to all? That's beyond naive....

Such augmentations would be shaped by capital, ie. contribute towards a maximum productivity and minimum autonomy of the worker, they would calibrate them towards the maximum extraction of surplus value. This time not only on the social level, but on the physical level!

And those implants which would offer abilities (though I would not want to take part in any of that bullshit) which allow individuals to perform 'better' (intelligence, strength, all that RPG bs) would be expensive beyond imagination, available to only those who could afford it, thus elevating the ruling class and their watchdogs from their social platforms placed above us to being actually physically and mentally superior.

If you want a clear picture of the course of technological development under Capitalism open up a cyberpunk novel, that's as clear as it gets.

[bcbm]

He thinks it's inevitable (correct me if wrong), and draws conclusions based on that. I'm not so certain. Given how often some considerably intelligent and educated people have predicted catastrophe and ended up being wrong, I think I have reasonable grounds for skepticism.

nothing wrong with being skeptical but i think some of his ideas are worth considering. even a partial collapse (which doesnt seem all that unrealistic if we keep seeing this rate of crop failures...) would be catastrophic.