Tootfinder

The world needs more science fiction of the social- variety.
Rather than imagining how life could be different because of advances in purely mechanistic technologies, why not imagine how life could be different because of advances in social technologies: new inventions of ways societies can be organized or groups of people can relate to each other.
Some concrete examples of existing social technologies: Amish barn-raising, dolphin surf-fishing, online crowd-funding, Capoeira, potlucks, punk rock concerts, etc.
Each of these things was invented at some point, spread (not inevitably) through social communication, allows groups to achieve a specific purpose (or facilitates several different outcomes) and may or may not require specific tools or mechanistic technologies. There will be new social technologies in the future, and they could radically change how human societies function and what human lives look like, just as mechanistic technologies can.
In the current sociopolitical climate, we see one vision of the future, heavily propagandized, which assures us that advances in mechanistic technology will make life ever easier for humans, leading into a golden age where human needs are met by robots. In this imagination, each individual can actualize the productive capacity to meet their own needs because an individual's productive capacity has been multiplied in every dimension by new mechanistic technologies. Humans can finally be rid of the messy complexity of community-dependence and be totally free because mechanistic technologies will replace the need for community connections to satisfy material desires.
But there's an ugly underside to this vision explored by cyberpunk, where advances in mechanistic technologies bring us to a point of total hierarchical domination and control. In this future, productivity-multipliers are recognized as force-multipliers, and the humans who gain control of them use them to subjugate everyone else.
Some of the best science fiction authors, like Le Guin or Asimov, look at not only mechanistic but also at social technologies, and often at the interaction between the two. Social technologies also have the capacity to radically change the human condition, but they don't lend themselves as well to the power fantasy or libertarian utopia of the self-sufficient individual. Social technologies involve people satisfying their needs through dependence on others, and in turn being obligated to take part in communities.
As an anarchist, I believe that the social technologies needed for human flourishing have not been invented yet. I also believe that with the right social technologies, even without significant advances in mechanistic technologies, it's possible for everyone to be able to meet their own needs through community, in a truly sustainable way.
I wish we had more authors using their craft to help explore the space of social technologies and inspire others to join in that exploration, so that the technologies we need can more quickly be invented and evangelized.
#anarchy #SciFi #technology

Random thought that goes interesting places:
There are a lot of cheap ways to spend money to drastically improve the quality of life for lots of people (UBI, mosquito nets, digging wells, etc.). Those people almost invariably become way more economically productive in aggregate when this happens, far above the costs involved, if you measure from the perspective of the affected group. So for billionaires looking for outsized returns on investments, why not simply spend on some of these programs, then invest in a broad index of socks that are going to go up as a result?
The answer could be "billionaires by their nature are too evil to think of this," which, could be true....
But I think there's a deeper answer, which is that there *is no* bundle of stocks that goes up as humans flourish. This is directly contrary to neoliberal economic doctrine/propaganda, but it also has an explanation that's obvious from the neoliberal doctrine itself: the stock market is a gambling arena for bets on corporate profits. Corporate profits are money taken in in excess of costs. But the value of a corporation is not produced abstractly by the mere existence of the organization; it's produced by the labor of humans working for the organization, with raw materials that the organization purchases. So to make a profit, an organization has to do some combination of paying its workers less than the value the create, and/or paying less for it's raw materials than they are really worth. The more it does these two things, the more profit it can generate.
Notice that these two profit-generating activities directly and indirectly immiserate humans, *and* that reducing human misery by means other than reducing these activities makes them harder. People who have other means of income won't sell their labor for less than it's worth, nor will they sell their resources below their fair value. Only desperate people will agree to terms that corporations require to be profitable.
This is not a "Marxist analysis" by the way; it's the direct application of the basic principles taught in any neoliberal introductory macroeconomics class.
In any case, once we understand that the stock market is "gambling on how much corporations can exploit their employees/suppliers/customers", it's clear why you can't make money from stock investments in companies that profit from flourishing humans: profit is by construction made of human misery.
It also explains a lot of other things, like why private US employers who pay huge amounts of payroll towards health insurance for their employees would be *against* public health insurance that would offload those costs onto all taxpayers: the amount they're able to lower wages as a result of desperation for access to health care is more than worth the direct costs.
This is the central reason why capitalism (defined as: a system where money equals power) is inimical to human happiness: it allows profits built on suffering to be converted into the power to maintain the system of suffering and even extend and intensify it, creating a feedback loop of extractive domination.
Now I'm sure some people might read this and think: what about the good companies? The ones that pay their workers and suppliers a fair wage, and sell their products at fair prices? Even putting aside the fact that such a thing seems less believable than a unicorn these days, such a company by definition does not make a profit. The fair wage for its workers is the value they add to the raw materials it buys, and the fair price for those is the selling price of the finished product minus the value the company adds. The balance sheet will read exactly zero at the end of the day if compensation is actually fair. You can still run a company like this in theory, and even grow it, but of course under capitalism it will just get bought out by an unethical company that is profitable. Could you in some kind of utopian dream world run a tightly regulated series of markets where you have most of what people think capitalism is, without the bad parts? Maybe, but it definitely wouldn't involve actual capitalism, and it wouldn't have a stock market.
#anarchy #capitalism #econimics