anderyn
|
|
David Brin's Future Thought Questionnaire -- Discuss?
| 
Jul 20 18:48 UTC 1999 |
An Informal Opinion Poll Regarding Certain "Fundamental Questions"of
Politics, Ideology & Human Destiny
Introduction
As a "noted futurist" I'm often invited to speak about the coming
century before groups as diverse as libertarians, feminists,
democrats, venture capitalists, scientists and environmentalists.
Lately, I have seen first hand just how sobering many thoughtful
people find the approaching millennium. Will bitter ideological rifts
dominate the next century, as they have the 20th? Or might we shrug
off some of the obsolete intellectual baggage we've inherited from
past thinkers who (in fact) knew much less than we do now?
In a spirit of re-evaluation, how about taking a fresh look at some
fundamentals? Might there be some basic questions that haven't been
asked adequately, especially by those who fervently cry out that
their
answer is the only answer to vexing human problems? Do we really want
to find startling areas of common ground between folks who now see
each other as implacable foes?
What follows is a questionnaire meant to illuminate why you feel as
you do about modern issues... and why it seems so hard to comprehend
those who disagree. The questions are provocative... any two or more
people should find a lot to discuss, just by asking them of each
other.
Moreover your answers may have implications that go deeper than you
think! Some of the following ticklers approach familiar dilemmas from
unusual angles, ripping across familiar boundaries, such as the hoary
old left right political axis.
Many of you will already have read my nonfiction book, The
Transparent
Society, and my novel Earth. If so, you know I discuss several of
these points therein. I also plan on writing an essay soon, following
up on this questionnaire. Meanwhile, any of you are welcome to run it
past your own groups/friends/co-conspirators, in order to see for
yourself how people sort themselves in surprising ways.
The implications are especially crucial to some of the groups I
mentioned above. Groups who have my sympathy... but who also provoke
endless frustration as they keep relentlessly chewing over the same
old fixations, even when the evidence around us shows that it's time
to move on!
In any event, I hope you'll find the questions entertaining... and
provocative.
-- David Brin
February 15, 1999
======================================================================
QUESTIONNAIRE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) THE TIME FLOW OF WISDOM
(please choose which statement most closely models your own point of
view)
- You believe humans knew a natural idyllic condition at some point
in
the past, from which we fell because of bad/inappropriate/or sinful
choices, reducing our net wisdom. (The LookBack View.)
- You consider such tales mythological. Wisdom is cumulative and
anything resembling a human utopia can only be achieved in the
future,
through incremental improvements in knowledge or merit. (The
LookForward View.)
If pressed, could you provide convicing evidence to support this
point
of view?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2) PROPAGANDA: Are members of our present culture subjected to
propaganda? What kind? What are the principal messages? How effective
has this propaganda been?
If you spent the time, do you think you could name 50 popular modern
films in which this propaganda theme has been promoted as its central
message? Can you explain why you have noticed it while others
haven't?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTRA CREDIT FOLLOWUP: Which of the following best describes how and
why you arrived at your present set of opinions and your political
agenda?
- logical appraisal of the evidence.
- inherent qualities of your nature, character or intelligence.
- the effects of propaganda or upbringing.
- pursuit of this agenda may result in personal advantage.
* Now answer the same question about why your political opponents
hold
the opinions/agendas they do.
* Do you think your opponents would agree with the way you answered
just now? How do you think they would respond, if asked the very same
questions about their own beliefs... and yours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3) THE TOXICITY OF IDEAS: a followup on the previous question. Please
choose between the following:
- You think ideas are inherently dangerous or toxic. People are easily
deceived. An elite should guide or protect gullible masses toward
correct thinking. (Memic Frailty.)
- You believe children can be raised with a mixture of openness and
skepticism to evaluate concepts on their own merits. Citizens can
pluck useful bits wherever they may be found, even from bad images or
ideologies. (Memic Maturity.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTRA CREDIT FOLLOWUP:
If your answer to the preceding question was Memic Maturity, is it
justifiable or hypocritical to hold "the masses" in contempt for not
always agreeing with you?
If your answer to the preceding question was Memic Frailty, do you
believe you should be one of the guardians or guides who help
encourage right thinking? Can you be sure that belief is not, in
itself, the result of conditioning by a toxic idea?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4) BIRDS OF A FEATHER: With whom do you ally? Who do you listen to?
Person A agrees with your long-range dreams and goals, but disagrees
profoundly with your program for getting there.
Person B agrees with your near-term political agenda, despises the
same opponents, but has a very different image of what kind of
society
we should eventually arrive at.
FOLLOWUP: How often have your political or other discussions actually
focused on the distant goal? Do you have a clear image of the future
society all your efforts are aimed at achieving? Have you ever
verified that your "allies" have the same destination in mind?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5) DYNAMIC SYSTEMS: What attributes do the following social
innovations have in common?
Democracy, Science, the Justice System and Free Markets...
Now consider secrecy, a commonly prescribed social remedy. Decide
whether each of the four dynamic social systems named above
(democracy, science, etc...) will function better if:
(1) most participants know MORE than they presently do about each
other and whatever is going on...
(2) most participants know LESS than they presently do about each
other and whatever is going on...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTRA CREDIT: Is your safety enhanced more by denying knowledge to
your enemies or by increasing the amount that you know?
Which is easier to verify: (a) that your foes don't know something,
or
(b) that you do know something?
Given a choice between privacy/(secrecy) vs. accountability, which
would you choose for yourself? Which would you choose for the group
you consider freedom's worst enemy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6) PROGRESSIVE WISDOM: Are we wise or knowledgeable enough to
prescribe ideologies for our descendants?
Should one focus all efforts on achieving total victory for one's
particular political agenda? Or would it be enough to concentrate on
achieving pragmatic solutions, raise a new generation that is
appreciably wiser and more aware than ours, and then leave the rest
of
the details to them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7) HUMAN NATURE: Do you believe in evolution? Are humans still at
least somewhat part of the animal kingdom?
Can we learn politically relevant things from fields like mammalian
ethology, psychopharmacology, anthropology, and the historical
behavior of real human tribes? If discrepancies appear between these
sciences and our idealization of human nature, should ideology be
revised?
If there appears to be an intrinsic difference between basic human
nature and the ideal way we "ought to be", what is your response?
(1) The so-called information about our basic nature must be wrong.
(2) Society must adapt and conform to information about our basic
nature, letting us be ourselves, since people are what they are.
(3) The more we learn about 'basic human nature', the more clearly we
need vigorous guidance to encourage behavior more appropriate than we
would 'naturally' engage in. This can be achieved by hewing to
standards that have been known for generations.
(4) Information about our basic nature helps us understand the raw
material from which a new/better humanity might emerge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8) Historically, which prescription has best helped to maximize human
achievement, minimized costly errors and ensured freedom/happiness
etc.?
(1) Weak government
(2) Widespread and open criticism
(3) Strong leadership
(4) A cohesive shared value system
Can you think of historical examples to support your claim? Being
honest, can you cite counter-examples?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9) PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODS: Consider the following two approaches
that
have been used for many generations by people and societies
attempting
to solve problems or change their world.
THE LEFT HANDED APPROACH: concerted action by tribal or national
units, organized by leaders who gather social resources (e.g. taxes or
tithes) and apply them to attain goals in an organized manner.
THE RIGHT-HANDED APPROACH: create loosely regulated markets wherein
free individuals compete and/or cooperate, making the best deals they
can for their own self interest.
In 10,000 years we've seen countless left-handed projects - pyramids,
canals, wars and universities... and countless market contributions -
industry, medicine, slavery and bookstores
Radical socialists have long demonized the right-handed approach as
inherently corrupt/exploitive, and prescribe its amputation. Radical
libertarians and anarchists call the left handed approach coercive
and
stifling, and prescribe its amputation.
If you prefer one class of human problem-solving methods, would you
amputate the other entirely? Severely limit it? Or try to discover
which types of problem each approach is best at performing? Does your
preferred 'hand' create abiding conditions for personal satisfaction
or generation of wealth? How would it deal with accute problems like
natural disasters or Adolf Hitler?
Has democracy moderated many faults in the left-handed approach? If
so, what other reforms might help make it work better? Likewise, do
some kinds of market rules help the right-handed approach perform
better for everyone?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
10) STRATEGY: Over the long run, what are fundamental prerequisites
for nurturing a growing state of freedom and wisdom for all human
beings? (Please write a list.)
FOLLOWUP: Can these prerequisites you just listed be achieved by --
(1) persuading people to behave differently than they presently do?
... (Exhortation)
(2) ensuring that actions have consequences? ... (Accountability)
(3) creating environmental preconditions (e.g. heightened health &/or
wealth &/or education &/or low fear levels) then trusting people to
make correct decisions? ... (Changed Circumstance)
(4) some combination of (1) through (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTRA CREDIT:
Which of the above (or lack thereof) are most responsible for our
present state of civilization?
Which of the above (or lack thereof) are most responsible for YOUR
present beliefs?
How does your answer to this question corelate with your earlier
answers regarding Propaganda, the Time Flow of Wisdom and Toxicity
11) TACTICS: In the short term, which of the following describes how
you feel you are more likely to achieve immediate political goals:
(1) Consolidate your core supporters, demonize your opponents, and
dismiss compromise as a form of ideological betrayal.
(2) Negotiate the best near-term deal you can through whatever
political process works best, even if it means your opponents get
part
of their agenda accomplished, too.
(3) Learn as much as possible about the opposition, then offer the
other side's moderate wing enough to split them off from their
fanatics, destroying their coalition and building your own.
(4) Ignore your opponents because (a) they represent obsolete or
decrepit worldviews doomed to inevitably fail anyway, or (b) because
they are mere stalking horses or fronts for the real opposition --
power groups who operate inimically behind the scenes.
(5) Concentrate on perfecting your own position/behavior/or soul,
since that is all an individual can ever really be responsible for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
12) MEANS TO AN END: DO ENDS JUSTIFY MEANS? Can one justifiably
squelch speech by repugnant parties/individuals if it serves a higher
cause?
______________________________________________________________________
That's it so far. Of course this is hardly a complete questionnaire!
Many of you will find flaws or ways to improve these questions... or
come up with additional ones that might beneficially be added. Again,
the aim was to provoke new levels of discussion, not to promote a
particular point of view.
I invite someone to host a discussion on this topic somewhere, and
let
me know. I'll post the URL or Listserve address of the discussion
here, so anyone wanting to follow up on this will be able to do so.
Meanwhile, let's open up our minds. The satisfactions of
self-righteousness are very druglike, but in the long run human
problems will not be solved by junkies. They will be negotiated by
earnest and wise human beings.
DB
|
