[Victoribus Spolia]

So, after getting the chance to debate with folks on here on several occasions, much of the unspoken tensions seems to be regarding the future of mankind. It is eschatological in nature. Will the west collapse? Will it be overrun? Will we merge with A.I. and take over the universe? Will our future look like tribal Africa? Medieval Europe, Star Trek, The Terminator, or the Road Warrior? Will it be hierarchical or egalitarian?

Indeed, global warming, technology, religion, demographics, the pattern of civilizational decline, austrian v. marxist economics, all influence how we view and predict future outcomes. For our purposes in this poll, I want to know whether the next major shift in the future of humanity will be egalitarian or hierarchical, advanced, or primitive.

So some quick definitions.

When I say hierarchical I mean having formal and informal hierarchies based on gender, race, and/or class, to any degree whatsoever whether it be natural or imposed, in regards to power and influence or opportunity and relative wealth; whereas, by egalitarianism I simply imply the opposite, where political and economic equality exists irrespective of race, gender, or class.

When I refer to advanced or primitive, I mean relative to our current state in the west and east Asia. Will humanity, overall, become more technologically advanced in the future, or become more primitive?

[Cartertonian]

The immediate problem with this as a poll is that it is unclear whether you are asking respondents what they think will happen, or what they want to happen.

Thus, I'd like it to be advanced and egalitarian

But, I fear it's going to end up primitive and hierarchical

You'll have a lot of like-minded folk voting 'other'.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The immediate problem with this as a poll is that it is unclear whether you are asking respondents what they think will happen, or what they want to happen.

Thus, I'd like it to be advanced and egalitarian

But, I fear it's going to end up primitive and hierarchical

You'll have a lot of like-minded folk voting 'other'.

With all due respect, I believe I was incredibly clear:

For our purposes in this poll, I want to know whether the next major shift in the future of humanity will be egalitarian or hierarchical, advanced, or primitive.

I want to know what IT WILL be, not what you would want it to be. Nowhere did I imply otherwise.

[Cartertonian]

If you want to know what it will be, you're going to need a time machine.

Otherwise, all you can ask is what respondents think it will be.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you want to know what it will be, you're going to need a time machine.

Otherwise, all you can ask is what respondents think it will be.

That is the point of an Opinion Poll is it not?

Or did I accidentally post a new topic in the Prophetic polls section?

[Potemkin]

More egalitarian or more hierarchical? That depends what you mean by those words. 'Egalitarian' in the sense of formal equality before the law (which, for the most part, we already have in the West), or egalitarian in the sense of every individual starting off in life on a basis of economic and social equality and having equality of economic and social opportunity (which we don't have in the West), or egalitarian in the sense of imposing equal economic outcomes on everyone (which almost nobody actually advocates)? More advanced or more primitive? Again, it depends what you mean by those words. Technologically advanced? Economically advanced? Spiritually advanced? Not all of those forms of 'advancement' are necessarily compatible with each other.

For what it's worth, I think future human societies are likely to be hierarchical in the future, if only because an industrial society requires a certain degree of centralised authority and command and control structures to operate efficiently. You can't run a blast furnace based on popular votes. However, this hierarchy will likely be increasingly technocratic rather than traditional - it's inadvisable to put someone in command of your economy just because his daddy left him a couple of billion in his will, or because his family have owned most of Staffordshire for the past 700 years. Intelligence and technical training are what is required, not merely having the good sense to choose to be born to wealthy parents. Sorry VS, but your neo-feudalist shit ain't gonna fly, barring some generalised collapse of modern industrial society.

Advanced or primitive? Probably advanced, in a technological sense (again, assuming that industrial society doesn't simply collapse). Most people's lives will probably be just as miserable as they are now and have been for all of recorded history, but at least we'll have fancier gizmos to console ourselves with. Lol. We won't be building Dyson spheres or colonising the galaxy any time soon, simply because there is currently no economic incentive to do so - asteroid mining is only economically viable if you need the resources to construct stuff in space; otherwise, there are vastly more resources on the Earth itself than in the whole of the asteroid belt. Colonising the Solar System is therefore a Catch-22 situation - there is no economic incentive to kick-start it. I don't see this as a problem - we are still at an early stage of human civilisation, and trying to colonise space would in my opinion be premature, like trying to run before you can walk. Ask me again in 10,000 years time. Lol.

[Victoribus Spolia]

More egalitarian or more hierarchical? That depends what you mean by those words. 'Egalitarian' in the sense of formal equality before the law (which, for the most part, we already have in the West), or egalitarian in the sense of every individual starting off in life on a basis of economic and social equality and having equality of economic and social opportunity (which we don't have in the West), or egalitarian in the sense of imposing equal economic outcomes on everyone (which almost nobody actually advocates)? More advanced or more primitive? Again, it depends what you mean by those words. Technologically advanced? Economically advanced? Spiritually advanced? Not all of those forms of 'advancement' are necessarily compatible with each other.

I gave definitions:

When I say hierarchical I mean having formal and informal hierarchies based on gender, race, and/or class, to any degree whatsoever whether it be natural or imposed, in regards to power and influence or opportunity and relative wealth; whereas, by egalitarianism I simply imply the opposite, where political and economic equality exists irrespective of race, gender, or class.

When I refer to advanced or primitive, I mean relative to our current state in the west and east Asia. Will humanity, overall, become more technologically advanced in the future, or become more primitive?

Otherwise, interesting thoughts.

[Potemkin]

I gave definitions:

Which I considered to be too restrictive.

When I say hierarchical I mean having formal and informal hierarchies based on gender, race, and/or class, to any degree whatsoever whether it be natural or imposed, in regards to power and influence or opportunity and relative wealth; whereas, by egalitarianism I simply imply the opposite, where political and economic equality exists irrespective of race, gender, or class.

Somebody or other once said that history is the graveyard of aristocracies. There will undoubtedly be a ruling elite in the future, but it almost certainly won't be the current ruling elite or their descendants.

When I refer to advanced or primitive, I mean relative to our current state in the west and east Asia. Will humanity, overall, become more technologically advanced in the future, or become more primitive?

Barring the collapse of industrial society, humanity will likely become more technologically advanced, but likely not more advanced in any other respect. But then, what would spiritual or cultural 'progress' even look like anyway? Theories of physics advance in an obvious way, but can the same be said of theories of art or of theology? Probably not.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Which I considered to be too restrictive.

Well restrictive definitions and communism would be strange bed-fellows after all....So I can see your discomfort with such

here will undoubtedly be a ruling elite in the future, but it almost certainly won't be the current ruling elite or their descendants.

I generally agree with this, though some bureaucrats may buy lands and bunker down in the midst of a civilization reset only to rule in a different manner afterwards. Many Roman administrators in the European frontier did this in the midst of collapse, they went from mere bureaucrats of Empire to their own feudal lords, the old roman administrator's fort became the duke's manor without ever changing bloodlines (See Zimmerman's Family and Civilization where he discusses this).....So, though I agree that in such a circumstance a new aristocracy will have to emerge, that some of the old will continue into the new should not be written-off out of hand.

Barring the collapse of industrial society, humanity will likely become more technologically advanced, but likely not more advanced in any other respect. But then, what would spiritual or cultural 'progress' even look like anyway? Theories of physics advance in an obvious way, but can the same be said of theories of art or of theology? Probably not.

I think Industrial society will collapse in spite of itself, not because of some inherent limiting factor per se.

I see a primitive future coming more out of an economic reset which comes as the result of morally de-civilizing factors and much of the moral character that drives our current economy will change and many old techs will be lost out of disinterest more than anything.

I am now of the opinion that the effect of expanding democratic systems on the economic system caused moral and spiritual decline which then acts as a feed-back loop to further economically irresponsible decision-making by both individuals and governments, this progressive decay via the creation of a world-wide bubble of sorts will lead to a universal collapse scenario, such will also, and almost invariably, be associated with global wars and major population shifts.

The population that emerges from this scenario will be radically different in quality than our current peoples and, as such, their practical attitudes and economic conditions will not drive them to create or take interest in the technologies that existed in the preceding age (our own). In may ways, things like credit cards and microwaves would be almost unintelligible to them. They will ask: "Why" when presented with such things and not "How" as we tend to do as we throw money at the next instant-gratification gizmo that comes along every fifteen seconds. They would not have the same spirit as those that found such enticing in ages past.

[Potemkin]

I generally agree with this, though some bureaucrats may buy lands and bunker down in the midst of a civilization reset only to rule in a different manner afterwards. Many Roman administrators in the European frontier did this in the midst of collapse, they went from mere bureaucrats of Empire to their own feudal lords, the old roman administrator's fort became the duke's manor without ever changing bloodlines (See Zimmerman's Family and Civilization where he discusses this).....So, though I agree that in such a circumstance a new aristocracy will have to emerge, that some of the old will continue into the new should not be written-off out of hand.

Indeed. The title of 'Duke' is actually derived from the Latin word 'dux', which simply meant an appointed military commander of a border region or restive province. Once the central Roman authority had collapsed, the local dux would set himself up as an hereditary lord, with the slaves working the latifundia estates becoming his serfs (the word 'serf' being derived from the Latin 'servus', slave). The late Roman Empire morphed imperceptibly into medieval European feudalism. But it's important to realise that the feudal aristocracy were not the descendants of the old Roman aristocracy; for the most part, they were low-born appointees. Military technocrats, in other words.

I think Industrial society will collapse in spite of itself, not because of some inherent limiting factor per se.

I see a primitive future coming more out of an economic reset which comes as the result of morally de-civilizing factors and much of the moral character that drives our current economy will change and many old techs will be lost out of disinterest more than anything.

As a Marxist, I would say you are putting the cart before the horse - the moral decline of Western society is a consequence of the way that the economic system has developed and is developing, not vice versa. If you have an economic system which glorifies every human vice as a virtue and which sneers at every human virtue as a vice, then it is going to have a certain effect on the moral fibre of society. We are seeing this right now.

I am now of the opinion that the effect of expanding democratic systems on the economic system caused moral and spiritual decline which then acts as a feed-back loop to further economically irresponsible decision-making by both individuals and governments, this progressive decay via the creation of a world-wide bubble of sorts will lead to a universal collapse scenario, such will also, and almost invariably, be associated with global wars and major population shifts.

The problem with capitalism is not that it's too democratic. Quite the reverse, in fact. It tends to concentrate wealth and political influence into fewer and fewer hands, leading to a democratic deficit. Both the SJWs and the right-wing American militia movement, in their very different ways, are both reactions to this democratic deficit.

The population that emerges from this scenario will be radically different in quality than our current peoples and, as such, their practical attitudes and economic conditions will not drive them to create or take interest in the technologies that existed in the preceding age (our own). In may ways, things like credit cards and microwaves would be almost unintelligible to them. They will ask: "Why" when presented with such things and not "How" as we tend to do as we throw money at the next instant-gratification gizmo that comes along every fifteen seconds. They would not have the same spirit as those that found such enticing in ages past.

I agree that the populations of the 'developed' West have been brainwashed since the 19th century to believe in an abstract ideal of 'progress'. Life is shit now, but the future will be a utopia! This was often used to justify all sorts of abuses and exploitation, and still is. The Soviet Union was not the only society guilty of this. We're at it as hard as we're able. But this blind faith in progress only works so long as the ruling elite can actually deliver on their promises, if only partially. They are now increasingly unable to do so. If people can see that their children are economically and culturally worse off than they themselves were, and if this trend continues for multiple generations, then something is going to give....

[SolarCross]

I went with advanced and hierarchical.

Hierarchy is a given as basically every single human society to ever exist has been that in practice including communist societies. What hope for egalitarianism if even the commies can't do it?

"Advanced" is a bit less definite but barring some kind of catastrophic global disaster it seems unlikely that there could be any serious reversal of present day technology. The advance of science and technology could at worst plateau if not continue to advance.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Indeed. The title of 'Duke' is actually derived from the Latin word 'dux', which simply meant an appointed military commander of a border region or restive province. Once the central Roman authority had collapsed, the local dux would set himself up as an hereditary lord, with the slaves working the latifundia estates becoming his serfs (the word 'serf' being derived from the Latin 'servus', slave). The late Roman Empire morphed imperceptibly into medieval European feudalism. But it's important to realise that the feudal aristocracy were not the descendants of the old Roman aristocracy; for the most part, they were low-born appointees. Military technocrats, in other words.

No Disagreement, well said.

As a Marxist, I would say you are putting the cart before the horse - the moral decline of Western society is a consequence of the way that the economic system has developed and is developing, not vice versa. If you have an economic system which glorifies every human vice as a virtue and which sneers at every human virtue as a vice, then it is going to have a certain effect on the moral fibre of society. We are seeing this right now.

That is not exactly what my argument said:

I am now of the opinion that the effect of expanding democratic systems on the economic system caused moral and spiritual decline which then acts as a feed-back loop to further economically irresponsible decision-making by both individuals and governments, this progressive decay via the creation of a world-wide bubble of sorts will lead to a universal collapse scenario,

I have argued that political democratization creates certain economic conditions which causes moral decline which in-turn results in a feed-back loop that makes the whole thing worse until it reaches its terminus.

I believe religion drives ideology and ideology drives politics, politics drives economics, economics drives morals, which in turn creates a situation where morals feed-back into all of those categories, especially the economic.

I doubt this disagreement could be rectified without a debate over metaphysics.

The problem with capitalism is not that it's too democratic. Quite the reverse, in fact. It tends to concentrate wealth and political influence into fewer and fewer hands, leading to a democratic deficit. Both the SJWs and the right-wing American militia movement, in their very different ways, are both reactions to this democratic deficit.

Well, this obviously assumes the disproportionate holding of wealth as a negative, which I obviously disagree with; however, the oppressor v oppressed dichotomy is exaggerated due to statism which invariably increases through the assent of the democratic principle and its consequent expansion. Democracies which hold authority as corporate or public tend towards the corporate ownership of property also. This trend creates economic conditions where the time-preferences of individuals are heightened which results in what the Right might call decadence, which in turns fuels more irresponsible economic practices at all levels of society.

The issue is that the masses are driving public policy, not in the sense that the average person actually rules or has any legitimate say, but in the sense that their illusion of having political enfranchisement gives legitimacy to state expansion under bureaucrats and with the ensuing bread-and-circuses to the "poor," these elites only serve to accelerate an inevitable economic collapse of the nation (world).

They are now increasingly unable to do so. If people can see that their children are economically and culturally worse off than they themselves were, and if this trend continues for multiple generations, then something is going to give....

REVOLUTION!!!

The problem is not capitalism, its egalitarianism. The former is natural, the latter is not.

[B0ycey]

I have chosen other. The poll is too restrictive.

In the immediate future, Europe will become more open and accepting (egalitarian) whilst the rest of the world becomes more authoritarian (hierarchical). The whole world will become advanced. But society as we know it is only a global disaster from becoming primitive. If I was predicting when I see the future downturning for mankind I would say that a disaster of some kind is likely going to happen in two or three generations time. The likelihood is global warming being humanities eventual downfall. But it could be nuclear war, a pandemic, a solar flare, a natural disaster or just a simple class uprising. Who knows. But it will happen and I see the eventual fate of mankind being anarchism (so primative and egalitarian) and tribal.

[Victoribus Spolia]

But it will happen and I see the eventual fate of mankind being anarchism (so primative a egalitarian) and tribal.

I doubt anarchy will be egalitarian.... ask any woman who was standing in the way when the pillaging bands of vikings ran by....

[B0ycey]

I doubt anarchy will be egalitarian.... ask any woman who was standing in the way when the pillaging bands of vikings ran by....

There will be no laws so everyone is equal. I suspect it will be survival of the strongest and pillage.

[Potemkin]

There will be no laws so everyone is equal. I suspect it will be survival of the strongest and pillage.

Which is not egalitarianism. This is probably what VS means when he says that egalitarianism is not a 'natural' state of affairs.

[B0ycey]

Which is not egalitarianism. This is probably what VS means when he says that egalitarianism is not a 'natural' state of affairs.

Well I did say the poll was restrictive. Any form of equality is egalitarian. You can argue the semantics if you like. I don't see any form of hierarchy in terms of political class. Maybe you'll have elders in tribes. If you class that as hierarchical (I don't), then fine, to keep you happy, primitive and hirarchical.

[Potemkin]

Well I did say the poll was restrictive. Any form of equality is egalitarian.

By that logic, you could say that all human beings are equal in the sense that we have two arms and two legs and breathe air, so therefore we are 'naturally' egalitarian. Nope.

You can argue the systematics if you like. I don't see any form of hierarchy in terms of political class. Maybe you'll have elders in tribes. If you class that as hierarchical (I don't), then fine, to keep you happy, primitive and hirarchical.

Almost all human societies have some form of hierarchy, even if only tribal elders or the division of labour within the family in a hunter-gatherer society. It's a rather weak form of hierarchy, but it's still a form of hierarchy. Who are the village elders going to take advice from - another village elder or some snot-nosed youth who's always getting into trouble? Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. Lol.

[Victoribus Spolia]

But barring some kind of catastrophic global disaster

I tend to think that this is such an immanent possibility, that "barring" it amounts to the same thing as a big "if." It just sounds very presumptuous (which might be a little unfair since we are predicting the future....)

I think the current state of affairs, globally, is such that it seems crazy to assume unmitigated technological progress. So much of it is so contingent upon highly attenuated factors after all; whereas, in stark contrast, the factors of major decline and potential collapse amount to an almost irreversible critical mass.

I suppose I just find far-right futurists kinda baffling. Perhaps you could explain to me how this will all "resolve itself" but the end of the west, as we know it, seems to be foregone conclusion and with its end it seems that technological advance will almost have to cease or take a very long break (dark age?).....

Why should you think otherwise?

[B0ycey]

By that logic, you could say that all human beings are equal in the sense that we have two arms and two legs and breathe air, so therefore we are 'naturally' egalitarian. Nope.

I would not use the term egalitarian to describe anarchism in any form Pote. I used it in a bracket because I would say that anarchism is more egalitarian than hierarchical. The choices for this poll were restrictive which I had actually addressed. I forgot you are the English snooty on PoFo so I should have explained myself much better just for you so you didn't need to get your dictionary out.

Almost all human societies have some form of hierarchy, even if only tribal elders or the division of labour within the family in a hunter-gatherer society. It's a rather weak form of hierarchy, but it's still a form of hierarchy. Who are the village elders going to take advice from - another village elder or some snot-nosed youth who's always getting into trouble? Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. Lol.

Well that is true. But being that I suspect that there be no laws and you could do whatever you like (so complete freedom), I don't see it as a hierarchy as you can choose to ignore it if you like.