They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present

This is a brief comment on Alan Feuer’s article “They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present”, The New York Times, March 17, 2009
– http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=1

“They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present” is very interesting point and generally speaking I agree with 90% presented by “Zeitgeist” movies and the Venus Project. Now I will comment very briefly only the rest 10%:

1. There is huge gap between Mr. Joseph’s description of current situation, the money-based economy etc. and J. Fresco’s very distant futuristic society. In fact entire transitional period (perhaps the next 5-10 years) is missing. This is very important, because transitional period is job for our generation; dream-cities are job for the next generation and Fresco’s ideas are impossible to be implemented without transition to new socio-economic system.

2. Indeed, in the meantime Mr. Joseph has mentioned that grassroots movement will put such a program into action. I am very sceptical that “bottom up” movement is a real solution. If 100 money-masters are in a position to pull successfully the strings of 6 billion people, they definitely will do that with any grassroots movement doesn’t matter how many – 1, 5 or even 10 million people are included, if such movement become treat to their power. Perhaps ID cards with bio-data are beginning and implanted chips will be final solution for such control.

3. The idea of technology (Artificial intellect) as decision-making mechanism is wrong. The machines, which would control government and industry is a myth proclaimed by Ray Kurzweil and uncritically accepted by many technocrats. Yes, machines are unemotional and unaggressive, but this is not only advantage, this is disadvantage as well. Unemotional AI is pure logic or model of left hemisphere only, which make machines fast and accurate, but very stupid indeed. If Mother Nature discovered emotions and evolved them throughout ages mean they are very important for human evolution. The emotions make human thinking “unreliable”, but morally sound and creative. Above all AI can’t make responsible decision. AI could solve “diagnostical” type of problems, but not social problem. Social problems are morally based, responsible and future oriented. For this purpose is needed right hemisphere. Perhaps technologically is possible to create such sub-system as part of AI, although in this case AI will become vulnerable to common errors as human mind. In short – the possibility to create AI is a technological problem and answer is – yes it is possible. To be created or not such machine (“to be or not to be”) is a philosophical decision and answer is – definitely not. Not because it is not possible, but because it is not necessary. Philosophy is complicated science and not for amateurs. Jumping from technological problems to philosophical conclusions is misunderstanding and very funny mistake indeed.

4. If grassroots movement and AI are not solutions to current socio-political situation then what? Well, theoretically there are five alternative solutions: theocratic (world Caliphate); political (restoring republic and democratic values); technocratic (above mentioned AI option); New World Order and humanitarian alternative. As options they are incompatible and could be elaborated independently. The first three are impossible (we could discusses in full details if necessary). Only real alternatives are NWO and humanitarian solution (changes in social consciousness or transition from political to moral values). Both solutions are diametrically opposite and could be discussed in parallel and as alternatives.