[Noumenon]

By projecting into the future, you lose all credibility as to what will be "overall" in the utility. By claiming to know the overall utilty of the torture, you are saying that you KNOW that this act of violence will NOT create more misery in the future than it will create goodness. And this is impossible to know in the present.

Cars were seen to be "overall" a good thing in the 40s and 50s, but that was BEFORE we knew all the nasty side effects of their universalization. But a previous generation thought they had established a good precedent as well. They didn't. They got humanity addicted to a poison, and torture is the same kind of poison if a society gets addicted to it (without realizing that this is something that has negatives over time and with generalization).

True utilitarianism is impossible in the first place without some kind of perfect knowledge of the future (this is why economics assumes "rational expectations" - that knowledge of future prices is correct on average - in order to get their social utility function based models to work). In order to make a properly utilitarian moral decision you must assume knowledge of the mass of utils projected out until humanity's end when the sun consumes the earth from one action, and how that compares to the alternate mass of utils in an alternate reality until the end of time for the other action. Of course this is completely impossible, and even disregarding the problems of measuring utils, according to chaos and complexity theory, systems can be extremely sensitive to initial conditions so that in the long run the consequences of one action versus another are completely unpredictable. "Even the wise cannot know all ends" as Gandalf says.

Therefore for utilitarianism to work at all, we have to assume a kind of "best reasonable guess" as to what the long term consequences will be on collective utility. There is inherently some degree of subjectivity to this, since no one really knows. So I don't have to know that this act of torture will maximize overall utility, it just has to be my best reasonable guess.

Based on this understanding, it is entirely possible that widespread adaptation of cars "maximized overall utility" in the 40s and 50s, based on people's best reasonable guess at the time, but that decision now has to be revised with our knowledge of climate change, and now our best reasonable guess is that widespread car use does not "maximize overall utility." This could be revised yet again in the future if say, scientists discover that the earth was about to enter another Ice Age that would be far more catastrophic for life on earth, and that the global warming caused by cars is actually what saved us from this fate.

The other weakness in the "overall"ness of torture, is that it obviously doesn't consider the side effects on the torture-victim or other humans of his class or race. Nor did the car industry consider the "overall"ness of their product - a kind of torture for our public roads.

Profit is made by shrinking what "overall" refers to. If a group of railway barons decide to genocide the First Nations, and they all agree with this plan, they can think that their plan is "overall" good because of how they have defined "overall." "Everyone in the room agrees, so it's overall good."

I think you will realize you are doing the same thing with torture if you think about how it could possibly be used for "overall" utility.

I think unfortunately, that my best reasonable guess as to the negative effects of torture is that it tends to be applied to a minority of the population - political dissidents, ethnic minorities, and so on. Therefore, even if the pain of torture is extreme and has lasting side effects, there is an inherent limit to how much effect this has on the overall mass of utils. All else being equal of course, avoiding torturing anyone would be recommended by utilitarianism since it has by itself a negative effect. But this is not so if there is a larger number of people who experience pleasure in seeing or knowing that this minority population is being tortured.

Even if I am an outside observer who is sympathetic to the minority population, if I am a good utilitarian then if I see evidence that the torture of a handful of them makes the whole population of millions of people very, very happy, then the latter outweighs the former according to my best reasonable guess of what will maximize utility for the whole collective (remember that the minority counts less than the majority in this calculation). As long as I don't see any evidence of this changing in the future. No one really knows the future, so for all I know, based on the evidence of the present which is all I have, then I am objectively forced to endorse the torture of this minority by utilitarian principles.

Again, yes there is a degree of subjectivity to this, and in reality people's judgements of what will maximize "overall" utility will tend to be self-serving. But that is all the worse for utilitarianism because then if the majority judges in favor of torture and the minority against it, each in their subjective perception of "overall", then the majority will of course overpower the minority judgement.

It is not too far of a leap to say that a utilitarian would be forced to conclude that the Holocaust maximized overall utility, when looking at the evidence of all those smiling Aryan faces. Or at the very least, they'd have to consider it for far longer than they should with any less inhuman moral theory.

My view is that utility is just one relevant factor among many when determining the morality of an action.

[QatzelOk]

True utilitarianism is impossible in the first place without some kind of perfect knowledge of the future...
...
Therefore for utilitarianism to work at all, we have to assume a kind of "best reasonable guess" as to what the long term consequences will be on collective utility.

Both of these statements are only "true" if humanity is forced to adopt new technologies constantly. This limits mankind's "utilitarianism" to guesswork about the side effects of new tech.

"I guess this is utilitarianism" is the best that is possible with technologies.

Based on this understanding, it is entirely possible that widespread adaptation of cars "maximized overall utility" in the 40s and 50s, based on people's best reasonable guess at the time, but that decision now has to be revised with our knowledge of climate change

And if we go extinct because of the pollution from one of our technologies, it's because we thought guesswork was enough to call ourselves "utilitarian." Dumb, huh.

[Noumenon]

Both of these statements are only "true" if humanity is forced to adopt new technologies constantly. This limits mankind's "utilitarianism" to guesswork about the side effects of new tech.

"I guess this is utilitarianism" is the best that is possible with technologies.

"I guess this is utilitarianism" applies not only to technologies, but to all moral decisions for the utilitarian. We ultimately don't know what the long run side effects of any action will be. Even shooting up a school could in the long run maximize utility if, say, one of the victims was, unknown to anyone, the next Hitler.

And if we go extinct because of the pollution from one of our technologies, it's because we thought guesswork was enough to call ourselves "utilitarian." Dumb, huh.

Guesswork is all we ever have though. Like with my Ice Age example, our pollution now could be thing that saves us from exinction, for all we know.

[QatzelOk]

"I guess this is utilitarianism" applies not only to technologies, but to all moral decisions for the utilitarian.

Not really.

By remaining super conservative, we are able to judge the good and bad "actions" of past humans, and make good judgements about what is truly useful "overall." Super-conservative means minimal impact on our environments, which is the opposite of what technologies do. They maximize impact on the environment by design.

It is because of technology that wise decisions on collective good are virtually impossible. It's all just guesswork and Russian Roulette. "Odds are, there's no bullet in this particular shot." And it's true that "overall" the likelihood is no bang. In each individual pull of trigger (this individual pull of trigger = using the present and ignoring the future to calculate "overall")

[The Young Wizard]

And it doesn't recognise that some seemingly irrational behavior is actually very utilitarian. It is just beyond our understanding of what is useful or rational.

For a person who doesn't understand obesity, over-eating seems very rational. More food = more life.

Any utilitarian (or consequentialist) worth their salt will reply to both these objections so.

Irrational (or even "irrational") behaviours are part of what we take into account when determining what will maximise utility (or the good more generally, if we are talking about consequentialism). If we didn't, we could end up not maximising whatever it is we are aiming to maximise, which would go against what consequentialist theories ask us to do.

[The Young Wizard]

"Likewise, "overall" means that utilitarianism CAN NEVER trust unproven technology, because new tech ALWAYS leads to unexpected negatives in the future, which can't be calculated in the present. "


This may be true, but it's not a done deal. Someone could as easily say new tech always leads of unexpected positives, which can't be calculated at present.

There are some utilitarians who argue that, correctly interpreted, it is a conservative philosophy. A philosopher named Dudley Knowles once published an article "Conservative Utilitarianism".

Basically, it all depends on how the facts pan out. The consequentialists only need to consider one principle ("maximise X"), and then all the facts they can get their hands on! It's really quite different from most other moral theories, and certainly from people's everyday moral opinions and intuitions.

[Noumenon]

Not really.

By remaining super conservative, we are able to judge the good and bad "actions" of past humans, and make good judgements about what is truly useful "overall." Super-conservative means minimal impact on our environments, which is the opposite of what technologies do. They maximize impact on the environment by design.

It is because of technology that wise decisions on collective good are virtually impossible. It's all just guesswork and Russian Roulette. "Odds are, there's no bullet in this particular shot." And it's true that "overall" the likelihood is no bang. In each individual pull of trigger (this individual pull of trigger = using the present and ignoring the future to calculate "overall")

So basically you're saying that minus technology, there is a more of a steady state in human civilization so that we are better able to use past human behavior to make predictions on the likely consequences of an action?

I guess I can't argue with that. In particular, nuclear technology is definitely a game of russian roulette.

I think that technology is progressing faster than our social institutions, which are basically caveman level in comparison. We should probably put a hold on any further technological development until we fix them.

[QatzelOk]

So basically you're saying that minus technology, there is a more of a steady state in human civilization so that we are better able to use past human behavior to make predictions on the likely consequences of an action?

Not only that, but in a technology-free environment, the consequences of "choosing badly" only affect a small number of humans, and not the survival of the entire species (and many more innocent victim species). If Human Being X eats a poison berry, only he and his family die. If Corporation X invents and markets a poison technology, entire species can die, and the accumulation of poison technologies could mean THE END - total failure.

I guess I can't argue with that. In particular, nuclear technology is definitely a game of russian roulette.

I think that technology is progressing faster than our social institutions, which are basically caveman level in comparison. We should probably put a hold on any further technological development until we fix them.

Another technology we have invented is a form of "techno-favoring" education which tells us that there is something wrong with our human natures and nature in general. Thus, the perceived need to "fix" the caveman in us, and to change every other naturally-occuring trait.

This censorship of our nutures... ensures a generalized lack of satisfaction with our lives, which leads to malevolence, social dysfunction, and eventually, collective suicide.

This may be true, but it's not a done deal. Someone could as easily say new tech always leads of unexpected positives, which can't be calculated at present.

For example, the trillion-dollar space program lead to Tang? Likewise, playing Russian Roulette can lead to slightly better finger dexterity? Is this all you got?

[Noumenon]

Not only that, but in a technology-free environment, the consequences of "choosing badly" only affect a small number of humans, and not the survival of the entire species (and many more innocent victim species). If Human Being X eats a poison berry, only he and his family die. If Corporation X invents and markets a poison technology, entire species can die, and the accumulation of poison technologies could mean THE END - total failure.

Very true. Why do you think it is that people talk so little about the risk of nuclear war? I mean sure, it felt like a more real danger during the cold war, but we still have thousands of nukes pointed at each other. Even if the risk is lower, the potential cost of killing the whole human race you'd think would justify putting it up there at least with climate change as an important topic of discussion.

Another technology we have invented is a form of "techno-favoring" education which tells us that there is something wrong with our human natures and nature in general. Thus, the perceived need to "fix" the caveman in us, and to change every other naturally-occuring trait.

This censorship of our nutures... ensures a generalized lack of satisfaction with our lives, which leads to malevolence, social dysfunction, and eventually, collective suicide.

Hmm that sounds a bit Rousseauian. I do think there's a lot good about our natural selves but probably a lot bad also which provides the impetus for a lot of technical and social change. A lot of historical change is a double edged sword - we gain in one area while losing in another. Anomie can definitely be counted as one of the major negatives to modern civilization. I'd like to think there is some way we can have our cake and eat it too - get back to "nature" as much as possible while preserving the benefits of modern medicine and luxuries/entertainment such as video games and Netflix.

[QatzelOk]

Hmm that sounds a bit Rousseauian.

*blushes*

Of course it does. Almost everything I write could have been (may have been) written by Rousseau or one of his peers.

I do think there's a lot good about our natural selves but probably a lot bad also which provides the impetus for a lot of technical and social change. ... the benefits of modern medicine and luxuries/entertainment such as video games and Netflix.

What is bad about human nature?

What is bad about a forest?

What is bad about a pond?

Can any of these things be "improved" with cut-and-drug modern medicine, video games and netflix?

[The Young Wizard]

So I was just highlighting that saying that technological change ALWAYS leads to negatives in the future needs to be argued for, otherwise your opponent can as easily say that it ALWAYS leads to positives. They would need to argue for it too. Given I didn't read the entire thread, I've probably just jumped in here, when I only meant to point out that your statement just came across as rhetorical.

Of course, you might be right - in fact, I'm in sympathy with alot of what your saying here, which is that "civilisation" is not what utility would have demanded, first when human beings were developing agriculture.

Utilitarianism would now ask us - given where we are now, and what people are like, what will maximise utility. I don't hold out much hope that humanity can be coaxed away from computer games etc., and if they can't be so coaxed then so coaxing them won't maximise utility, as it would be impossible to bring about. Anything which is impossible, no matter how much utility it would realise if possible, isn't what utilitarianism asks us to do, because it is impossible.

As to what we should do now. Well I don't know. And I'm not a utilitarian myself, so I haven't even put in the time to think whether things would be easier or harder if I were (for working out what to do).

[Noumenon]

What is bad about human nature?

I think to some significant extent we are programmed by evolution to be selfish - at best, we are altruistic to family members and maybe give some small percentage of our time to charitable causes. This is a recipe for disaster for humans trying to live together in large numbers. Therefore one of civilization's principle tasks is to tame and redirect our natures to at least not conflict with everyone else's.

What is bad about a forest?

Forests are pretty good. I do think we should have vast swaths of untouched forest and its a shame that capitalism treats trees simply as inputs to the production process instead of allowing us to appreciate them in their own right. If prices under capitalism were forced to adhere closer to their true social and environmental costs then capitalism would make a much more efficient use of such resources.

Can any of these things be "improved" with cut-and-drug modern medicine, video games and netflix?

Well human nature is definitely to get sick and die. I do think that despite over-reliance on modern medicine, it is a major reason why our lifespans have been extended and child mortality is orders of magnitude less. All the forests and ponds in the world wouldn't do you any good if you didn't live past the age of 5 to enjoy them after dying of polio or something.

Also I happen to like virtual forests and ponds while playing Zelda. Ordinary forests and ponds don't have secret treasures and hidden temples.

[QatzelOk]

I think to some significant extent we are programmed by evolution to be selfish...

We are certainly programmed by something to be selfish, but I think to blame "evolution" for our current state is to scapegoat nature *once again* for what has actually been socially constructed to fight nature. Modern selfishness is a way of defending your "self" in a community-less void.

at best, we are altruistic to family members and maybe give some small percentage of our time to charitable causes.

Does this really sound like "nature" to you? Charitable causes and nuclear family cocoons are not natural or related to natural evolution. Technological changes are not natural evolution, and the changes in human behavior that technologies demand are responsible for the selfish and miserable current human condition.

Therefore one of civilization's principle tasks is to tame and redirect our natures to at least not conflict with everyone else's.

By driving giant SUVs and bombing half the world? Nice way to "not conflict" by "redirecting" natures.

Well human nature is definitely to get sick and die. I do think that despite over-reliance on modern medicine, it is a major reason why our lifespans have been extended and child mortality is orders of magnitude less.

Not only our reliance on modern medicine, but our lack of respect for traditional cures and non-invasive assistance to one another... are other signs that we have removed the "health" part from "health." It's just numbers and profit-making at this point. And statistical skewing. We don't count abortions or war dead when we calculate "lifespans" for some reason. And extinction would reduce all future generations lifespans to ZERO. Not that we care about future generations, in reality.

Our "utilitarianism" is useless because we can't even honestly define "use" without pissing off a few entrepreneurs.

[Noumenon]

We are certainly programmed by something to be selfish, but I think to blame "evolution" for our current state is to scapegoat nature *once again* for what has actually been socially constructed to fight nature. Modern selfishness is a way of defending your "self" in a community-less void.

I definitely think there is a socially constructed layer of selfishness on top of our natural selfishness. Quite a large layer in our hypercapitalistic world. But selflessness also has to be taught and socially constructed. We don't come out of the womb with any thought but for our own needs. I just don't think that it makes sense to think that you can put 7 billion people on planet earth and "nature" will just automatically cause all of their actions to harmonize. Sorry but nature can be brutal and ugly too.

Does this really sound like "nature" to you? Charitable causes and nuclear family cocoons are not natural or related to natural evolution. Technological changes are not natural evolution, and the changes in human behavior that technologies demand are responsible for the selfish and miserable current human condition.

My point is not the particular forms specific to our society which are vehicles for altruism. My point is that whatever those vehicles are, by nature we are just not going to put an equal weight for stranger's lives as compared to those of our own and our family - nuclear, extended or otherwise.

We should construct society assuming this degree of selfishness in order to help negate it - as the free market in theory is supposed to do, but actually doesn't. In reality we need a significant cultural support system to encourage and cultivate selflessness on a wide scale.

Not only our reliance on modern medicine, but our lack of respect for traditional cures and non-invasive assistance to one another... are other signs that we have removed the "health" part from "health." It's just numbers and profit-making at this point. And statistical skewing. We don't count abortions or war dead when we calculate "lifespans" for some reason. And extinction would reduce all future generations lifespans to ZERO. Not that we care about future generations, in reality.

Our "utilitarianism" is useless because we can't even honestly define "use" without pissing off a few entrepreneurs.

I think that is a bit reductive. It is tempting to think in all or nothing terms, either modern medicine or alternative/traditional. The reality is that each has their advantages and disadvantages. It is true that our health system is not set up to encourage prevention. Profit making gets in the way because companies only profit if you're sick. We have some really perverse incentives but I would say this is a problem with capitalism not with technology in itself. The problem is not to get rid of technology but to harness it towards social ends.

[QatzelOk]

I definitely think there is a socially constructed layer of selfishness on top of our natural selfishness. Quite a large layer in our hypercapitalistic world. But selflessness also has to be taught and socially constructed. We don't come out of the womb with any thought but for our own needs.

Here you are mixing up the natural "education" of babies by adults in the band they are brought into, especially the nursing women. Like all animals, this kind of infant education is natural. But wanting useless collectible items in order to feel proud... is insane and has nothing to do with natural education. It is a result of a lot of added-on behaviorism which became 'necessary' because of increasing technology intrusion into natural human behaviors.

...by nature we are just not going to put an equal weight for stranger's lives as compared to those of our own and our family - nuclear, extended or otherwise.

Once again, I will ask you to stop throwing around the word "nature" to mean whatever you feel is normal or average.

we need a significant cultural support system to encourage and cultivate selflessness on a wide scale.

No. We need to go back to the way we lived before behaviorism warped us so much.

I think that is a bit reductive. It is tempting to think in all or nothing terms, either modern medicine or alternative/traditional. The reality is that each has their advantages and disadvantages.

Without modern medicine, it is impossible that there would be 8 billion humans alive right now consuming four planet earth's worth or resources. Impossible.

And it was the modern "desire" for more of everything that made us think that this would be a good thing. They're related because modern medicine isn't just technologies like drugs and surgery, it's also a whole mentality that separates the doctor from the lived experience of his patients and from the natural environment.

[Noumenon]

Here you are mixing up the natural "education" of babies by adults in the band they are brought into, especially the nursing women. Like all animals, this kind of infant education is natural. But wanting useless collectible items in order to feel proud... is insane and has nothing to do with natural education. It is a result of a lot of added-on behaviorism which became 'necessary' because of increasing technology intrusion into natural human behaviors.

I agree that there is some level of natural education that will occur to turn selfishness into selflessness. However this kind of education is suitable for the needs of a small band or tribe and not for coexistence with billions of others on the planet. Or often even with other tribes, as warfare has been a common thing in all of human history. Often behaviorist manipulation serves to increases our tribalism, to otherize the other even more. I wonder if it is even possible for humans to overcome this, because we seem to define our identity in contrast to some group which we are not. That is why it is necessary to have neutral and objective mechanisms in society to ensure that everyone's rights and basic freedoms are respected, a technology of governance if you will. We can't rely on people's natural goodness because is easily interpreted to mean goodness for people who deserve it. You know, people like us, not those other people. They deserve bad things to happen to them.

In order to fix society, or at least make it less broken, it won't do to fantasize about a beautiful past of natural harmonization that never was. We have to admit that left to our own devices, we are destructive, and voluntarily submit to a moderating authority. Its authority should be delineated in such a way that it is sufficient to solve the problems appropriate to its level of governance. E.g. local governments should decide on the county sheriff, but there should be a world government with sufficient authority to force self-interested nations to coexist peacefully and protect the planetary environment. Overcoming capitalism would help a lot too. The biggest enemy of nature is not technology, but unrestrained human selfishness combined with the profit incentive and brutal inequality. Why do you think Brazilians are cutting down the rainforest to grow beef? It isn't the fault of chainsaws, it's the fact that first of all we want tasty meat and secondly people need to survive economically and there is no rational social planning of how to make these two things compatible without sacrificing millions of acres of ancient forest. If you think this is a problem unique to modern society with all its technology just look at Easter Island. When Europeans arrived, they found not a single tree left on an island that was once covered.

Once again, I will ask you to stop throwing around the word "nature" to mean whatever you feel is normal or average.

It's not just a matter of being normal or average. It is literally impossible to consider 7 billion other people in your decision making process. First of all you don't have enough information about all of them, and secondly you can't process it, and then thirdly whatever amount and time and effort that would take would be exhausting. So the rational response is to do what's best for you and the people you include in your circle, and at best include the others' interest as a token or symbol, like buying fair trade coffee. You need a central coordinated entity to collect and process the amount of information necessary to rationally govern that many people.

No. We need to go back to the way we lived before behaviorism warped us so much.

If we go back to that, literally billions of people will die, because they are reliant on modern techniques of agriculture and distribution. I think a lot of anarcho-primitivists know this, but they're so pessimistic about our ability to solve problems with technology and governance that billions of people dying is a sacrifice they're willing to make. For the good of humanity I guess. I'm pretty sure they imagine themselves in the minority of people who will not be sacrificed.

Without modern medicine, it is impossible that there would be 8 billion humans alive right now consuming four planet earth's worth or resources. Impossible.

And it was the modern "desire" for more of everything that made us think that this would be a good thing. They're related because modern medicine isn't just technologies like drugs and surgery, it's also a whole mentality that separates the doctor from the lived experience of his patients and from the natural environment.

I agree this is a problem. But we are already seeing the seeds of a modern desire to escape modernity. Minimalism, environmentalism, interest in witchcraft and crystals, even philosophies like the one you are arguing for are things that are occurring in modernity and are a symptom of it. Logically, the desire for more reaches a brick wall when it desires that which can only exist outside of this structure of desires. Modernity will find a solution - well either it will find a solution or we'll be forced back to anarcho-primitivism whether we like it or not. I think there will be some way of integrating the natural environment into our societal structure. Like I imagine sealed off/self contained cities connected by high speed rail or flying cars, with everything between allowed to return to its natural state. I'm sure it sounds ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than the idea that we can return to a tribal way of living on a global scale.

[QatzelOk]

...submit to a moderating authority. Its authority should be delineated ...

Your entire last post depends on the idea that human society's will be able to control this new "moderating authority," rather than it becoming yet another instrument of dog-training by the elite (Foucault's Disciplinary Institutions).

So to recomment "new and improved dog training" to erase the effects of the last 10,000 years of dog-training (all of it made 'necessary' by technologies) is insane.

Insane seems to be our new paradigm, since it fits comfortably into the old box that we're not allowed to think outside of.

It is literally impossible to consider 7 billion other people in your decision making process.

That the technologies we hold in our hands can cause potential harm to all of those people including the person holding the tech in his own hand... is a sign of poor social epistomology, and not just social methodology.

Because we systematically learn "the wrong lessons" during our technology-burnout, we can only lose. If it was just our current practice that was problematic (current social norms), then a few tweaks here and there might make everything seem okay for a while.

But the entire social "accumulation of knowledge" is flawed in a fatal way. We learn the wrong things by doing the wrong things.

[Noumenon]

Your entire last post depends on the idea that human society's will be able to control this new "moderating authority," rather than it becoming yet another instrument of dog-training by the elite (Foucault's Disciplinary Institutions).

So to recomment "new and improved dog training" to erase the effects of the last 10,000 years of dog-training (all of it made 'necessary' by technologies) is insane.

Insane seems to be our new paradigm, since it fits comfortably into the old box that we're not allowed to think outside of.

For Foucault there is always governance, and simultaneously the right to challenge how you are being governed. Power is not strictly top down but also bottom up, a two way relationship. There is no escaping this dynamic in any society. So while it is true that the masses can't control the authority - that would be a contradiction because there would be no authority essentially - the masses can always challenge and push that authority in a direction of their "choosing" (well, leaving aside that for Foucault we are subjects shaped by power so there is no choice).

In reality neither you nor I gets to decide the direction of society, with our political ideas. However we have the right to challenge the existing order using whatever ideals motivate us to do so. In a sense, the inner logic of those ideas only matters so much, because the idea and the material results of the idea (if you can get enough people motivated by it) never correspond in reality. An incoherent political idea (or one that seems incoherent to our perspective, but internally consistent to someone holding it) has as much influence on the state of affairs as a coherent one. Usually more, to be real. The actual coherence never gets tested in practice, because reality is never coherent.

I think that we should take it for a given that the political ideologies of others will not make sense and may even appear insane from our perspective. Increasingly we live in atomized realities. No one ever changed their ideology from a single argument or disproof (well maybe a series of them over time since I credit this forum for helping me de-conservatize back in the day). Instead we should think of each other's ideas as a sort of closed loop symbolic chain in their head. Instead of trying to break their chain with ours, we should figure out where they might link up, what shared purpose might be achieved, and as for the rest of the chain just let it be. If that chain is meant to change to be more like yours, then it will, otherwise no disproof will have altered it anyway.

All of these individual symbolic chains together form a tangled mass of chains that are moving forward in time, and affecting our social and political reality. Where is all this going? No one knows. All that we can be certain of is that there will be change, and we either adapt to it or not. So maybe you're right and technology is just a mass of too many contradictions, a global movement of anarcho-primitivism arises to radically change our relationship to nature. Or maybe I'm right and technology/government can and must evolve to solve those contradictions.

But I'm pretty sure one debate is not going to decide either way

[QatzelOk]

(well, leaving aside that for Foucault we are subjects shaped by power so there is no choice).

Let's not leave that aside. This thread is about "utilitarianism," and it has already been noted that society's elites have found two words highly problematic, namely "use" and "overall."

If the authority that you advise that we all submit to is a disciplinary institution like a fascist government, then the "use" they have for most people is as a kind of non-deciding slave for a national machine-corporation.

This guarantees that "overall" benefits won't include the majority because the majority aren't involved in the decision processes - they are just pets being disciplined in order to make them "more useful" and thus, not part of the "overall" benefits of utlitarianism.

For the slave, the system is anything BUT utilitarian as it, if controlled by authorities, will ensure that the slave doesn't ever do very much that is of use to himself.

Where is all this going? No one knows.

And yet you recommend submission to authorities? How useless!

[Noumenon]

Let's not leave that aside. This thread is about "utilitarianism," and it has already been noted that society's elites have found two words highly problematic, namely "use" and "overall."

If the authority that you advise that we all submit to is a disciplinary institution like a fascist government, then the "use" they have for most people is as a kind of non-deciding slave for a national machine-corporation.

This guarantees that "overall" benefits won't include the majority because the majority aren't involved in the decision processes - they are just pets being disciplined in order to make them "more useful" and thus, not part of the "overall" benefits of utlitarianism.

For the slave, the system is anything BUT utilitarian as it, if controlled by authorities, will ensure that the slave doesn't ever do very much that is of use to himself.

I didn't say anything about fascism, that would be one specific type of disciplinary institution. A democratic or republic kind of government is also disciplinary (even if only to the minority). Democracy has its own issues as it is susceptible to demogoguery and electioneering, and an ignorant public. But it is essential in my view that the majority are involved in the decision making process. My proposal: a tripartite government. One branch of academic experts in every field including philosophy and the humanities, who convene to make policy recommendations. One branch of bureaucrats and technocrats whose job it is to implement the policies in the most efficient way. One branch of democratically elected representatives who can also make policy recommendations and have veto power over the academics as well as auditing power over the bureaucrats.

The system has to be designed with intentionality of benefiting the majority, constructing a system of incentives that encourage that outcome. Not even a democratic government necessarily benefits the majority because the elite can simply brainwash the citizens to vote for elite interests. It is more difficult to brainwash academic and bureaucratic experts. Of course then the objection is that they will become the new elite. That's what the veto power of the democratic branch is designed to prevent.

This government wouldn't be limited by the problems of utilitarianism because they have a whole branch of philosophers and political science people to figure out solutions to the issues previously raised.

And yet you recommend submission to authorities? How useless!

Submission but not wholesale submission. Revolt is the logical outcome if the government doesn't fulfill its end of the bargain.

Oh and one more idea, what if there was still a president or prime minister, but they were chosen randomly by lottery from all the local governors or mayors? That way we could do away with all this presidential election nonsense, and you are guaranteed to select someone who was both democratically elected and is qualified/has experience leading in a governmental capacity. All geographic areas would be equally represented (more or less) and it would be exciting that your local vote may end up picking the leader of the whole country, instead of pissing into the ocean which is often how voting in a national election feels. And then your local area would get a chance to shine as being special and recognized nationally.