Photo taken on November 2009 by Operaphasie.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Art of Manipulation
After reading "Petit cours d'auto-défense intellectuelle" I decided to share some of the psychological self-defense techniques I've been reading about since I judged them to be very useful. I’ll explain in here some of the very frequent techniques used by governements, TV, corporations and various other forms of autority to manipulate you. Knowing them may help you identify those.
First, it is essential to know a sophism is an argument used in purpose to fool someone. It seems to make sense but they usually are illogical or aren’t based on any real fact. There’s also what we call "fallacy". Despite of the fact a fallacies (or paralogisms), just like sophisms, also are some arguments relying on an illogical or uncorrect concequence, they are not necesserily used on purpose to fool someone. Most of the time, people won't even conciously use it. In order to refer to the concept of illogical usage of language in a general way instead of only its use on purpose, I judged, in the following text, the usage of "fallacy" to be revelant.
There are a multiple techniques used to manipulate. Some of them are easily noticeable, but some are not. Let’s just start with the most frequent ones medias and corporations are abusively using
I. Vocabulary
The vocabulary used into a text is really important since it has a huge impact on the feelings and beliefs of the reader. We can divide vocabulary in two different aspects: Connotation and Slang.
a) Connotation
Let’s just see those two versions of the same scenario:
When they entered, the bus started to smell very nasty. Those guys were all dirt and smelt like hell. It was just totally disgusting. Those guys just looked so uncivilized with their clothes and faces full of mud and grass. Nowadays, adolescents are getting worst and worst. They seem not to understand the concept of proprety and cleaning. That's the result of a laxist education.
As they entered the bus, I knew they've probably been playing for a long while. Luckily for them, it was a sunny day so they did not have to endure rain. All those football players were looking trained and muscular. They probably were training a lot! It’s fun to see how adolescents are involved in sports and activities nowadays.
You probably noticed the effects connotation had on the text. They transmited a total different feeling. While reading the first one, we get to believe they all look like stinky pigs while the other one shows how healthy and active they are. Medias, advertisers, politicians and even parents are using it to convince you their ideas are the best. When used correctly, connotations can twist anything to the advantage of the manipulator.
b) Slang
The slang regroups all the specific words related to complex domains (as Science, Maths, Medecine, Environment, etc.) and folks moslty don't know these. They usually are long and look complicated despite of the fact they very often describe some easy concepts to understand. Those words give some kind of credibility to the people using them. They look like they know what they are talking about since they appear to be very knowledgeable people. Althought, their explanations, most of the time, don't necesserily require the usage of those specific words. That means they can easily be clear and understandable by majority.
II. Fallacy
A Fallacy is an argument which seems convincing but isn't logically structured nir is based on solid reasonings. There are two kinds of Fallacies: Formal and informal. The formal one relies on a wrong logical structure while the second does not rely on a wrong logical reasoning. Let's take a look to the main types of Fallacies.
a) Fallacy of accident
The Fallacy of accident has this form:
All A’s are B
C is a A
Then C is B
It takes the form of a very logical situation.
example:
All men are mortals
Liche is a man
Then Liche is mortal
This logical reasoning makes sense. Now, using the same form, let's use other words.
All members of World Republic are cool
Philip is cool
Then Philip is a member of World Republic.
Some members of World Republic are Communists
Hutin is member of World Republic
Then Hutin is Communist
See. Those 2 sentences are looking logic, but when we take the time to analyze them, we notice they aren’t logic at all. All the members of World Republic are cool doesn't mean all cool people are on World Republic. Same with the second one: the fact SOME people are communist doesn’t mean everyone is. But the logical form keeps the same pattern than the first one example. That kind of fallacy is easy to notice, but can also be very sly.
b) Affirming the consequence
If P, therefore Q
So Q
Then P
Fallacy exemple:
It rains, therefore, the streets are wet
So because the streets are wet
Then it rains
The reasoning can be okay, but the logic isn't always right. It's not because something leads to another that this second thing necesserily leads to the first. That's what we call "Affirming the conscequence."
c) Appeal to autority
Appeal to autority consists into using autority to convince people a concept, a thought, a product, or a value is right. For example, the usage of logo is one. We can see it in medias too; when they quote scientists or experts, we believe them because they have the support of researches and we see them as intelligent people that studied a lot.
"Scientifical experiments proved X is right"
We hear it very frequently at the radio on TV, for example. It's a great technique because it automatically makes the audience think it's trustable. Plus the folks have no way to prove them wrong: they have no choice but trust them. As I said precedently, appeal to autority is also made when using the reputation of a corporation to convince people something is good. Once, I made an oral presentation for my french class and we decided to invent a false petition full of fallacies. To make our way to convince people, we used the logos of three different corporations and organisms well known here -in Quebec-. Because of that, more than 90% of the class decided to put their signature. If they accepted, it's mostly because they trusted those organisms or groups (Green Peace, Société Québécoise du Cancer and Le sommet du Millénaire). Even the teacher believed us, even if everything on the paper was completely fictive. The appeal to autority is a really effective way to influence people's decisions.
d) Ad Hominen
The Ad Hominen consists into a personal attack and is part of the most frequently used and efficient technique. However, it's one of the easiest one to notice. The objective is to divert the attention of the audience by attacking the caracteristical traits of the person instead of the argument or idea itself. This way, the manipulator discredits the arguments of that person to the eyes of the audience.
For example, into a leftist discussion, someone quotes a good point about Friedman, a rightist economist. Someone discrediting the argument only because the idea is associated to the right-wing is committing an Ad Hominen. Let's take Trolls as a second example: we all consider everything they say is made to disturb us without no exact prove of it. Those are deductions that are not necesserily always justified.
However, it is important to mention in certain cases, it's totally legitimate to ignore certain arguments. Only us can judge the limit, case by case.
e) Ad Populum (Appeal to the people)
"Most people think communism is bad. Therefore, communism must be bad."
An Ad populum is a fallacious argument relying on the majority's opinion to make the subject percieve the proposition as "true" or good" . "If a lot of people believe it is right, it must be right". This type of fallacy is committed while trying to convince someone that an idea, a service, a product, a way of living or an ideology is good because of the simple fact many people are thinking it's right.
Advertizers use this technique all the time:
"We are the leading brand in America, that' why you should choose us!"
"This is the #1 listened radio!"
In society, most of the people are really influenced by others. Fashion, brands, even anorexia... All those social phenomenon are result of this obsession of "being like everyone". No one wants to be appart, because they don't want to be judged. Medias show us an image of society showing everyone looking the same, everyone eating the same, everyne loving the same things . Ads are showing us what we want to see instead of what's real. They manipulate verity to make us think we need their product to feel good.
f) Appeal to fear
The appeal to fear (or Argumentum in terrorem) is committed when fear is created in purpose to convince an idea is good. It's widely committed in politics and marketing.
I've got a very good example of appeal to fear. As I explained before, I made a presentation and we wanted people to sign a false petition. The text was trying to convince the audience that the chemical element Ru (Ruthenium) was dangerous for health:
"This product could be very toxic"
"In contact to certain other types of metal, Ruthenium can explode"
"It could be cancerigen"
"We can find it in many objects we use very often, as pen, CDs, DVDs and High quality Speekers"
It helped to convince people to write their signature down because they felt concerned about it. They felt like they were in danger even though they never heard about exploding pens or other problems concerning Ruthenium. Appeal to fear is hard to detect because it not always explicit. This technique was used by Catholic Church in purpose to get money and power (Middle-Age) "If you don't ..., you'll go to hell" "God will punish you if you don't ...". This way, they have been able to manipulate and have total control on millions of people during a very long time. (Even nowadays)
g) Argument ad misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
The Argument ad misericordiam (or appeal to pity) is a fallacy consisting into exploiting his opponent's feeling of pity or guilt.
"Given to the fact that man has been living terrible events, we can easily understand the reasons why he took such a decision"
"You must have given me a good grade. I studied for weeks and if I fail I'm in trouble!!!"
This type of argument doesn't invalidate the conclusion. There may be other reasons to accept the conclusion but appeal to pity must not count as one of them.
h) Argument ad ignorantiam (Appeal to ignorance)
The argument ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) is a fallacy committed when it is claimed that a premise is true for the simple fact it's not proven false, or false because it's not proven true.
"God isn't real because nothing proved his existance"
"No one proved that God isn't real, therfore it's true"
We can notice the usage of this type of fallacy into justice system. Presumption of innocence or guilt:
"This man is claimed guilty because his innocence cannot be proven" or
"This man is claimed innocent since there's nothing proving he's guilty"
Both are logical fallacies.
There's a lot of different other types I could talk about but I felt the need of slecting only few of them: the principal ones. I could still write on that topic for pages and pages, but I better simply stop here for now. If you have any comment, suggestion or question, I'll read it attentively and take the time to answer. I will be glad to add some more if anyone asks for it.
I really hope you enjoyed reading and I also hope it was helpful. Always be aware when you debate, watch TV, listen to radio, etc.. Don't let others decide what you need. Only you can know. Don't let them manipulate your brain. Say stop to the capitalist brainwashing tendencies.
First, it is essential to know a sophism is an argument used in purpose to fool someone. It seems to make sense but they usually are illogical or aren’t based on any real fact. There’s also what we call "fallacy". Despite of the fact a fallacies (or paralogisms), just like sophisms, also are some arguments relying on an illogical or uncorrect concequence, they are not necesserily used on purpose to fool someone. Most of the time, people won't even conciously use it. In order to refer to the concept of illogical usage of language in a general way instead of only its use on purpose, I judged, in the following text, the usage of "fallacy" to be revelant.
There are a multiple techniques used to manipulate. Some of them are easily noticeable, but some are not. Let’s just start with the most frequent ones medias and corporations are abusively using
I. Vocabulary
The vocabulary used into a text is really important since it has a huge impact on the feelings and beliefs of the reader. We can divide vocabulary in two different aspects: Connotation and Slang.
a) Connotation
Let’s just see those two versions of the same scenario:
When they entered, the bus started to smell very nasty. Those guys were all dirt and smelt like hell. It was just totally disgusting. Those guys just looked so uncivilized with their clothes and faces full of mud and grass. Nowadays, adolescents are getting worst and worst. They seem not to understand the concept of proprety and cleaning. That's the result of a laxist education.
As they entered the bus, I knew they've probably been playing for a long while. Luckily for them, it was a sunny day so they did not have to endure rain. All those football players were looking trained and muscular. They probably were training a lot! It’s fun to see how adolescents are involved in sports and activities nowadays.
You probably noticed the effects connotation had on the text. They transmited a total different feeling. While reading the first one, we get to believe they all look like stinky pigs while the other one shows how healthy and active they are. Medias, advertisers, politicians and even parents are using it to convince you their ideas are the best. When used correctly, connotations can twist anything to the advantage of the manipulator.
b) Slang
The slang regroups all the specific words related to complex domains (as Science, Maths, Medecine, Environment, etc.) and folks moslty don't know these. They usually are long and look complicated despite of the fact they very often describe some easy concepts to understand. Those words give some kind of credibility to the people using them. They look like they know what they are talking about since they appear to be very knowledgeable people. Althought, their explanations, most of the time, don't necesserily require the usage of those specific words. That means they can easily be clear and understandable by majority.
II. Fallacy
A Fallacy is an argument which seems convincing but isn't logically structured nir is based on solid reasonings. There are two kinds of Fallacies: Formal and informal. The formal one relies on a wrong logical structure while the second does not rely on a wrong logical reasoning. Let's take a look to the main types of Fallacies.
a) Fallacy of accident
The Fallacy of accident has this form:
All A’s are B
C is a A
Then C is B
It takes the form of a very logical situation.
example:
All men are mortals
Liche is a man
Then Liche is mortal
This logical reasoning makes sense. Now, using the same form, let's use other words.
All members of World Republic are cool
Philip is cool
Then Philip is a member of World Republic.
Some members of World Republic are Communists
Hutin is member of World Republic
Then Hutin is Communist
See. Those 2 sentences are looking logic, but when we take the time to analyze them, we notice they aren’t logic at all. All the members of World Republic are cool doesn't mean all cool people are on World Republic. Same with the second one: the fact SOME people are communist doesn’t mean everyone is. But the logical form keeps the same pattern than the first one example. That kind of fallacy is easy to notice, but can also be very sly.
b) Affirming the consequence
If P, therefore Q
So Q
Then P
Fallacy exemple:
It rains, therefore, the streets are wet
So because the streets are wet
Then it rains
The reasoning can be okay, but the logic isn't always right. It's not because something leads to another that this second thing necesserily leads to the first. That's what we call "Affirming the conscequence."
c) Appeal to autority
Appeal to autority consists into using autority to convince people a concept, a thought, a product, or a value is right. For example, the usage of logo is one. We can see it in medias too; when they quote scientists or experts, we believe them because they have the support of researches and we see them as intelligent people that studied a lot.
"Scientifical experiments proved X is right"
We hear it very frequently at the radio on TV, for example. It's a great technique because it automatically makes the audience think it's trustable. Plus the folks have no way to prove them wrong: they have no choice but trust them. As I said precedently, appeal to autority is also made when using the reputation of a corporation to convince people something is good. Once, I made an oral presentation for my french class and we decided to invent a false petition full of fallacies. To make our way to convince people, we used the logos of three different corporations and organisms well known here -in Quebec-. Because of that, more than 90% of the class decided to put their signature. If they accepted, it's mostly because they trusted those organisms or groups (Green Peace, Société Québécoise du Cancer and Le sommet du Millénaire). Even the teacher believed us, even if everything on the paper was completely fictive. The appeal to autority is a really effective way to influence people's decisions.
d) Ad Hominen
The Ad Hominen consists into a personal attack and is part of the most frequently used and efficient technique. However, it's one of the easiest one to notice. The objective is to divert the attention of the audience by attacking the caracteristical traits of the person instead of the argument or idea itself. This way, the manipulator discredits the arguments of that person to the eyes of the audience.
For example, into a leftist discussion, someone quotes a good point about Friedman, a rightist economist. Someone discrediting the argument only because the idea is associated to the right-wing is committing an Ad Hominen. Let's take Trolls as a second example: we all consider everything they say is made to disturb us without no exact prove of it. Those are deductions that are not necesserily always justified.
However, it is important to mention in certain cases, it's totally legitimate to ignore certain arguments. Only us can judge the limit, case by case.
e) Ad Populum (Appeal to the people)
"Most people think communism is bad. Therefore, communism must be bad."
An Ad populum is a fallacious argument relying on the majority's opinion to make the subject percieve the proposition as "true" or good" . "If a lot of people believe it is right, it must be right". This type of fallacy is committed while trying to convince someone that an idea, a service, a product, a way of living or an ideology is good because of the simple fact many people are thinking it's right.
Advertizers use this technique all the time:
"We are the leading brand in America, that' why you should choose us!"
"This is the #1 listened radio!"
In society, most of the people are really influenced by others. Fashion, brands, even anorexia... All those social phenomenon are result of this obsession of "being like everyone". No one wants to be appart, because they don't want to be judged. Medias show us an image of society showing everyone looking the same, everyone eating the same, everyne loving the same things . Ads are showing us what we want to see instead of what's real. They manipulate verity to make us think we need their product to feel good.
f) Appeal to fear
The appeal to fear (or Argumentum in terrorem) is committed when fear is created in purpose to convince an idea is good. It's widely committed in politics and marketing.
I've got a very good example of appeal to fear. As I explained before, I made a presentation and we wanted people to sign a false petition. The text was trying to convince the audience that the chemical element Ru (Ruthenium) was dangerous for health:
"This product could be very toxic"
"In contact to certain other types of metal, Ruthenium can explode"
"It could be cancerigen"
"We can find it in many objects we use very often, as pen, CDs, DVDs and High quality Speekers"
It helped to convince people to write their signature down because they felt concerned about it. They felt like they were in danger even though they never heard about exploding pens or other problems concerning Ruthenium. Appeal to fear is hard to detect because it not always explicit. This technique was used by Catholic Church in purpose to get money and power (Middle-Age) "If you don't ..., you'll go to hell" "God will punish you if you don't ...". This way, they have been able to manipulate and have total control on millions of people during a very long time. (Even nowadays)
g) Argument ad misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
The Argument ad misericordiam (or appeal to pity) is a fallacy consisting into exploiting his opponent's feeling of pity or guilt.
"Given to the fact that man has been living terrible events, we can easily understand the reasons why he took such a decision"
"You must have given me a good grade. I studied for weeks and if I fail I'm in trouble!!!"
This type of argument doesn't invalidate the conclusion. There may be other reasons to accept the conclusion but appeal to pity must not count as one of them.
h) Argument ad ignorantiam (Appeal to ignorance)
The argument ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) is a fallacy committed when it is claimed that a premise is true for the simple fact it's not proven false, or false because it's not proven true.
"God isn't real because nothing proved his existance"
"No one proved that God isn't real, therfore it's true"
We can notice the usage of this type of fallacy into justice system. Presumption of innocence or guilt:
"This man is claimed guilty because his innocence cannot be proven" or
"This man is claimed innocent since there's nothing proving he's guilty"
Both are logical fallacies.
There's a lot of different other types I could talk about but I felt the need of slecting only few of them: the principal ones. I could still write on that topic for pages and pages, but I better simply stop here for now. If you have any comment, suggestion or question, I'll read it attentively and take the time to answer. I will be glad to add some more if anyone asks for it.
I really hope you enjoyed reading and I also hope it was helpful. Always be aware when you debate, watch TV, listen to radio, etc.. Don't let others decide what you need. Only you can know. Don't let them manipulate your brain. Say stop to the capitalist brainwashing tendencies.
Beyond Utopia by Jacque Fresco
"With the advent of future developments in science and technology, we will assign more and more decision making to machines. At present this is evident in military systems in which electronic sensors maintain the ideal flight characteristics in advanced aircraft. The capacities of computers today exceed five hundred trillion bits of information per second. The complexity of today’s civilization is far too complex for human systems to manage without the assistance of electronic computers. Computers of today are relatively primitive compared to those that will evolve in the future. Eventually the management of social systems will call for require electronic sensors interconnected with all phases of the social sequences thus eliminating the need for politics.
Today modern industrial plants have built in automatic inventory systems, which order materials such as bearings and other mechanical replacements well in advance.
We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where people would be able to live longer, healthier, and more meaningful productive lives. In such a society, the measure of success would be based upon the fulfillment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property, and power. Although many of the concepts presented here may appear as unattainable goals, all of the ideas are based upon known scientific principles. It is not my purpose to write an article that would be acceptable to people this is not the concern of science.
The social direction being proposed here has no parallel in history with any other previous political ideology or economic strategy. Establishing the parameters of this new civilization will require transcending many of the traditions, values, and methods of the past. The future will evolve its own new paradigms, appropriate to each successive phase of human and technological development.
Throughout the history of civilization few national leaders or politicians have ever proposed a comprehensive plan to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction. Although such individuals as Plato, Edward Bellamy, H.G. Wells, Karl Marx, and Howard Scott all made some attempts to present a new civilization, the established social order considered them impractical dreamers with Utopian designs that ran contrary to the innate elements of human nature. Arrayed against these social pioneers was a formidable status quo composed of vested interests that were comfortable with the way things were, and a populace at large that, out of years of indoctrination and conditioning, wanted no radical changes. These were the millions of unappointed guardians of the status quo. The outlook and philosophy of the leaders were consistent with their positions of differential advantage.
In 1898, Edward Bellamy wrote the book Looking Backward. He conceived of an ideal egalitarian social system with many advanced ideas for its time. This bestseller generated a great deal of interest, and many people inquired as to how this type of cooperative Utopian society could be brought about. But Bellamy replied that he was just a writer and did not know how to create such a society.
The proposals he presented, and those of Plato's Republic, the writings of Karl Marx, H. G. Wells in his book The Shape of Things to Come, and many others all represent attempts to find workable solutions to the many problems that earlier civilizations were unable to resolve. There is little doubt that at the time of Bellamy’s books the social conditions were abominable, which made the Utopian ideal extremely appealing. What appears to be lacking in most of these concepts, however, has been an overall plan and the necessary methods for a transitional system to enable the idea to become a reality. Most of the early visions of a better world did not allow for changes in either technology or human values, tending to arrest innovative efforts. Additionally, all have lacked a comprehensive set of blueprints, models, and a methodology for implementation. Finally, they lacked competent individuals to bring about such a transition.
The answers do not lie in debate or philosophical discussion of values, but rather in methodology. Thus what is needed is an operational definition of a better world, which is as follows: To constantly maximize existing and future technologies with the sole purpose of enhancing all human life and protecting the environment.
Today we have developed the necessary technology to surpass the fondest hopes and dreams of any social innovators of the past. The fact that previous attempts at social change have failed is no justification for us to stop trying. The real danger lies in complacence. The only limitations to the future of humankind are those that we impose upon ourselves. It is now possible to relieve humanity of many of its unresolved problems through the humane application of technology.
Many years ago an attempt was made in the U. S. to understand a social and economic system different from our own. A film called "The March of Time" had this to say about Soviet Communism: "We believe that the American free-enterprise system will function better than the collective system. However, we wish you the best of luck on your new and unusual social experiment." The failure of communism to provide for human needs and to enrich the lives of its citizens is not unlike our own failures. Both failure and success are inherent in the on-going experiment that is social evolution. In all established social systems it is necessary to devise different approaches to improve the workings of the system.
Science is replete with examples of experiments that have failed, as well as those that have been successful. In the development of the airplane, for example, there were thousands of failures before the first workable model was produced. In the field of medicine, Dr. Erlich attempted over 600 different approaches to controlling syphilis before one was finally proven successful. All of the technology we use today, such as computers, cellular phones, the Internet, aircraft, and automobiles, are in a constant state of improvement and modification. Yet our social system and values remain largely static. An inscription on one of our government buildings reads as follows: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Attaining visions requires change. The major reason for resisting change is that it tends to threaten the established interests. Actually, the fear of social change is somewhat unfounded when we consider that the entire history of civilization has been, in a sense, an experiment. Even the American free-enterprise system, during its earliest stages, faced a multitude of problems much more severe than they are today. These included long work hours, exploitation of child labor, inadequate ventilation in industrial plants, lack of rights for women and minorities, hazardous conditions in mines, and racial prejudice. Despite its many problems, it was the greatest social experiment in history in terms of diversity of lifestyles and individual freedoms, innovations in architecture and technology, and overall progress in general. It is imperative that we continue the process of social experimentation in order to transcend our present limitations and enhance the lives of everyone.
The future does not depend on our present-day beliefs or social customs, but will continue to evolve a set of values unique to its own time. There are no "Utopias." The very notion of "Utopia" is static. However, the survival of any social system ultimately depends upon its ability to allow for appropriate change to improve society as a whole. The paths that we choose will ultimately determine whether or not there is intelligent life on earth."
text by Jacque Fresco, http://www.thevenusproject.com/
I thought this text was pretty interresting and showing some points we do not focus so much on: find some workable solutions so these Utopic ideas really can apply to a real society: the transition from paper to reality must be an experimentation to learn from so one day, we can apply the concept as it really is.
This text relates my thoughts almost perfectly. Seems like the technology vs. Socialism (Communism) part of the text was very pertinent. Actually, for a commuist system to work, I believe technology is essential.
Like he said, nowaday's society is very complex and really could not work without the use of Internet. Just try to figure out the conscequences it would have on a country if the government's datas were destroyed (and/or accessed). The main part of the social managments are done using computers.
The point here is we can't compare those failures to the new attempts. Let's take URSS as example: Their attempt to follow Karl Marx's paths completely failed since the result turned out to be completely different, but taking a single failure as a generality cannot be justified. We have to take for account society can change, we changed, and technology certainly is a key for us to achieve our dreams as they really are. Human isn't nir good, nir evil, they are just the very fruit of what society gave them. Nothing more or less than that.
That point needs some further analysis: live longer, healthier and have more meaningful productive lives seems to me like very goal of human kind. Everything we do constantly relies on these goals. They are the reason why we live: we reach for better life conditions. Everyone does. Thought, we have to ask ourselves if those efforts we do everyday really lead us to this? Are power, property and wealth achieve those goals? No, they make us feel we need more, they brake our backs, they destroy environement, they make work a priority over family. Happiness in such a society is constantly to reach, since it is made for us to believe goods are the solution. Can't happiness be something to share with other people, instead of a the vulgar attempt to reach the new Lacoste t-shirt everyone will envy for a short while? Beauty fades, T-shirts get old, perls can be sold, but Friendship and Love are everlasting.
I didn't actually have the time to check at the Venus Project website it it seems to me like a very nice thing to look at, but I plan to deeply take a look at it so I can give it a feedback and comment on it.
Today modern industrial plants have built in automatic inventory systems, which order materials such as bearings and other mechanical replacements well in advance.
We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where people would be able to live longer, healthier, and more meaningful productive lives. In such a society, the measure of success would be based upon the fulfillment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property, and power. Although many of the concepts presented here may appear as unattainable goals, all of the ideas are based upon known scientific principles. It is not my purpose to write an article that would be acceptable to people this is not the concern of science.
The social direction being proposed here has no parallel in history with any other previous political ideology or economic strategy. Establishing the parameters of this new civilization will require transcending many of the traditions, values, and methods of the past. The future will evolve its own new paradigms, appropriate to each successive phase of human and technological development.
Throughout the history of civilization few national leaders or politicians have ever proposed a comprehensive plan to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction. Although such individuals as Plato, Edward Bellamy, H.G. Wells, Karl Marx, and Howard Scott all made some attempts to present a new civilization, the established social order considered them impractical dreamers with Utopian designs that ran contrary to the innate elements of human nature. Arrayed against these social pioneers was a formidable status quo composed of vested interests that were comfortable with the way things were, and a populace at large that, out of years of indoctrination and conditioning, wanted no radical changes. These were the millions of unappointed guardians of the status quo. The outlook and philosophy of the leaders were consistent with their positions of differential advantage.
In 1898, Edward Bellamy wrote the book Looking Backward. He conceived of an ideal egalitarian social system with many advanced ideas for its time. This bestseller generated a great deal of interest, and many people inquired as to how this type of cooperative Utopian society could be brought about. But Bellamy replied that he was just a writer and did not know how to create such a society.
The proposals he presented, and those of Plato's Republic, the writings of Karl Marx, H. G. Wells in his book The Shape of Things to Come, and many others all represent attempts to find workable solutions to the many problems that earlier civilizations were unable to resolve. There is little doubt that at the time of Bellamy’s books the social conditions were abominable, which made the Utopian ideal extremely appealing. What appears to be lacking in most of these concepts, however, has been an overall plan and the necessary methods for a transitional system to enable the idea to become a reality. Most of the early visions of a better world did not allow for changes in either technology or human values, tending to arrest innovative efforts. Additionally, all have lacked a comprehensive set of blueprints, models, and a methodology for implementation. Finally, they lacked competent individuals to bring about such a transition.
The answers do not lie in debate or philosophical discussion of values, but rather in methodology. Thus what is needed is an operational definition of a better world, which is as follows: To constantly maximize existing and future technologies with the sole purpose of enhancing all human life and protecting the environment.
Today we have developed the necessary technology to surpass the fondest hopes and dreams of any social innovators of the past. The fact that previous attempts at social change have failed is no justification for us to stop trying. The real danger lies in complacence. The only limitations to the future of humankind are those that we impose upon ourselves. It is now possible to relieve humanity of many of its unresolved problems through the humane application of technology.
Many years ago an attempt was made in the U. S. to understand a social and economic system different from our own. A film called "The March of Time" had this to say about Soviet Communism: "We believe that the American free-enterprise system will function better than the collective system. However, we wish you the best of luck on your new and unusual social experiment." The failure of communism to provide for human needs and to enrich the lives of its citizens is not unlike our own failures. Both failure and success are inherent in the on-going experiment that is social evolution. In all established social systems it is necessary to devise different approaches to improve the workings of the system.
Science is replete with examples of experiments that have failed, as well as those that have been successful. In the development of the airplane, for example, there were thousands of failures before the first workable model was produced. In the field of medicine, Dr. Erlich attempted over 600 different approaches to controlling syphilis before one was finally proven successful. All of the technology we use today, such as computers, cellular phones, the Internet, aircraft, and automobiles, are in a constant state of improvement and modification. Yet our social system and values remain largely static. An inscription on one of our government buildings reads as follows: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Attaining visions requires change. The major reason for resisting change is that it tends to threaten the established interests. Actually, the fear of social change is somewhat unfounded when we consider that the entire history of civilization has been, in a sense, an experiment. Even the American free-enterprise system, during its earliest stages, faced a multitude of problems much more severe than they are today. These included long work hours, exploitation of child labor, inadequate ventilation in industrial plants, lack of rights for women and minorities, hazardous conditions in mines, and racial prejudice. Despite its many problems, it was the greatest social experiment in history in terms of diversity of lifestyles and individual freedoms, innovations in architecture and technology, and overall progress in general. It is imperative that we continue the process of social experimentation in order to transcend our present limitations and enhance the lives of everyone.
The future does not depend on our present-day beliefs or social customs, but will continue to evolve a set of values unique to its own time. There are no "Utopias." The very notion of "Utopia" is static. However, the survival of any social system ultimately depends upon its ability to allow for appropriate change to improve society as a whole. The paths that we choose will ultimately determine whether or not there is intelligent life on earth."
text by Jacque Fresco, http://www.thevenusproject.com/
I thought this text was pretty interresting and showing some points we do not focus so much on: find some workable solutions so these Utopic ideas really can apply to a real society: the transition from paper to reality must be an experimentation to learn from so one day, we can apply the concept as it really is.
This text relates my thoughts almost perfectly. Seems like the technology vs. Socialism (Communism) part of the text was very pertinent. Actually, for a commuist system to work, I believe technology is essential.
"The complexity of today’s civilization is far too complex for human systems to manage without the assistance of electronic computers."
Like he said, nowaday's society is very complex and really could not work without the use of Internet. Just try to figure out the conscequences it would have on a country if the government's datas were destroyed (and/or accessed). The main part of the social managments are done using computers.
"Today we have developed the necessary technology to surpass the fondest hopes and dreams of any social innovators of the past. The fact that previous attempts at social change have failed is no justification for us to stop trying."
The point here is we can't compare those failures to the new attempts. Let's take URSS as example: Their attempt to follow Karl Marx's paths completely failed since the result turned out to be completely different, but taking a single failure as a generality cannot be justified. We have to take for account society can change, we changed, and technology certainly is a key for us to achieve our dreams as they really are. Human isn't nir good, nir evil, they are just the very fruit of what society gave them. Nothing more or less than that.
"We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where people would be able to live longer, healthier, and more meaningful productive lives. In such a society, the measure of success would be based upon the fulfillment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property, and power."
That point needs some further analysis: live longer, healthier and have more meaningful productive lives seems to me like very goal of human kind. Everything we do constantly relies on these goals. They are the reason why we live: we reach for better life conditions. Everyone does. Thought, we have to ask ourselves if those efforts we do everyday really lead us to this? Are power, property and wealth achieve those goals? No, they make us feel we need more, they brake our backs, they destroy environement, they make work a priority over family. Happiness in such a society is constantly to reach, since it is made for us to believe goods are the solution. Can't happiness be something to share with other people, instead of a the vulgar attempt to reach the new Lacoste t-shirt everyone will envy for a short while? Beauty fades, T-shirts get old, perls can be sold, but Friendship and Love are everlasting.
I didn't actually have the time to check at the Venus Project website it it seems to me like a very nice thing to look at, but I plan to deeply take a look at it so I can give it a feedback and comment on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)