The United States of America have voted. In large numbers, electors have selected as their next President someone committed to:
- Making it much harder for many types of people to enter the country
- Deporting many of the current residents
- Ramping up anti-Islam hostility
- Denouncing global warming as a hoax
- Undoing legislation to protect the environment
- Reducing US support for countries facing hostile aggression
- Dismantling the US deal with Iran over nuclear technology
- Imposing punitive trade tariffs on China, likely triggering a trade war
- Packing the Supreme Court with conservative judges who are opposed to choice.
Over the past months, I have tried – and usually failed – to persuade many of my online “friends” of the dangers of voting for Donald Trump. Smart people have, it seems, their own reasons for endorsing and welcoming this forthcoming “shock to the system”. People have been left behind by the pace of change, I’ve been told. Who can blame them for reaching for an outsider politician? Who can blame them for ignoring the objections of elites and “experts”?
Because of the pain and alienation being experienced by many electors, it’s no surprise – the argument runs – that they’re willing to try something different. Electors have proven themselves ready to overlook the evident character flaws, flip-flops, egotism, sexism, and indiscipline of Trump. These flaws seem to pale into insignificance beside the hope that a powerful outsider can deliver a hefty whack on the side of a dysfunctional Washington establishment. Their visceral hatred of present-day politics has led them to suspend critical judgement on the Trump juggernaut. That hatred also led them to lap up, unquestioningly, many of the bogus stories circulating on social media, that levelled all kinds on nonsense accusations on the leadership of the Democratic Party.
(For a thoughtful, heartfelt analysis of why so many people leave behind their critical judgement, see this Facebook essay by Eliezer Yudkowsky.)
There are already lots of arguments about who is to blame for this development – about whose shoulders failed to hold the responsibility to uphold sensible rather than fantasist politics. For example, see this Intelligence Squared debate on the motion “Blame the elites for the Trump phenomenon”.
My own analysis is that what was missing was (and is) a credible, compelling vision for how a better society is going to be built.
Electors were unconvinced by what they heard from Hillary Clinton, and (indeed) from the other non-Trump candidates for nomination. What they heard seemed too much of the same. They imagined that any benefits arising from a Clinton presidency would be experienced by the elites of society, rather than by the common citizen.
What’s needed, therefore, is the elaboration of a roadmap for how all members of society can benefit from the fruits of ongoing and forthcoming technological progress.
I call this vision the “Post-scarcity vision”. Because it involves the fundamental adoption of new technology, for progressive social purposes, it can also be called a “Technoprogressive vision”.
I’ve tried to share my thinking about that vision on numerous occasions over the last 5-10 years. Here are some slides taken from a presentation I gave last month to the IC Beyond (Imperial College Beyond) Society in Central London:
If you want to hear my explanation of these slides in the context of a longer discussion of the impact of automation and technological unemployment on society, here’s a video of the entire meeting (the “vision” slides are in the second half of the presentation):
As this post-scarcity technoprogressive vision evolves and matures, it has the potential to persuade more and more people that it – rather than Trump-style restrictions on movement, choice, and aggregation – represents a better route to a society that it better for everyone.
But beliefs have deep roots, and it’s going to require lots of hard, wise work to undo all kinds of prejudices en route to that better society.
Footnote: I first wrote a formal “Transhumanist Manifesto” in February 2013, here (with, ahem, somewhat flowery language). For other related declarations and manifestos, see this listing on H+Pedia. Out of the growing community of technoprogressives and transhumanists, there’s a lot of potential to turn these visions into practical roadmaps.
dw2 
The vision is great, but the issue remains of us as people – if our whole attitude doesn’t change then the rest will never fulfill its potential. I see that abundance will eventually change our attitudes, but that will take generations. I would say that nothing short of a global dictatorship for a couple of decades or some monster global event will get us to where we need to be. Either that or some techno brainwave program that can change the base attitudes of society – re-program us for love and sharing instead of worshipping at the altars of profit and survival.
Without the change in attitude, your vision will all be rather like socialism – a nice idea on paper but proven to fail in reality. Nice idea and vision, shame it’s ruined by people.
Comment by reece — 9 November 2016 @ 11:12 am
Reece, you’re right, there’s not much chance of us progressing towards a better society unless we become better people en route. We need to transcend our historical traits of egocentrism, tribalism, xenophobia, short-termism, jealousy, and more. That emphasis – the core transhumanist message of human inner enhancement – was missing from the article I just wrote, though I talked about it recently at https://dw2blog.com/2016/09/15/two-cheers-for-technology-vs-humanity/ and at https://transpolitica.org/2016/07/18/flawed-humanity-flawed-politics/. It’s a topic that needs more focus.
Comment by David Wood — 9 November 2016 @ 11:30 am