Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Futurist Globalism

Futurist Globalism
September 29, 2009, 09:05:54 PM
In this clip, Dr. Michio Kaku talks about possible types of futuristic civilizations and claims that in order for humanity to continue developing, globalization is inevitable.


What say you?

edit: To elucidate, I'm wondering if anyone agrees, and then why or why not, that cultural, political and even racial globalization is inevitable as humanity develops technologically and if it expands into space. It's funny he mentions Star Trek, because in the mythos of that show, paraphrasing:

"[making contact with aliens] unties humanity in a way no one ever thought possible when they realize they're not alone in the universe. Poverty, disease, war, they'll all be gone within in the next 50 years [from about 2060, when contact is made]"

I know it sounds like propaganda, but what does everyone think about the effects of possible future exploration and discoveries on individual cultures, racial identities, political viewpoints, social practices, so on.

It could have a fragmenting effect. For a population to preserve their beliefs, they could load up on a ship and just blast off into space, where no one could influence them.

Re: Futurist Globalism
September 29, 2009, 09:27:17 PM
I was pleasantly excited at first but when he started to talk about global culture at 2.34 I became very sad. I hope he's wrong. A little bit later he suggests that everyone who is opposed to this futuristic capitalist monoculture is a terrorist, that's when I lost interest in the video.

Scientists aren't good philosophers anyway, like religious people they're too dreamy.


Re: Futurist Globalism
September 29, 2009, 11:55:07 PM
Sounds like pretty blatant propaganda. They hired someone with public credibility and had him talk about stuff that's loosely related to his field, only with a sharp political agenda attached to it.

Either way, globalization is a pretty loaded term. Globalization should be mainly in terms of economy and dissemination of technology/information. All the other bullshit associated with it are side effects that can be controlled.

I'd rather take a teleporter to eat in Tokyo than drive down the street to have an American interpretation of Japanese cuisine cooked by a Mexican chef. They can't even get German food right here, even when such a large part of the population has it in their background.

The viral colonization in the video is kinda cool though.

Re: Futurist Globalism
September 30, 2009, 01:16:43 AM
This assumes that we can continue on our current destructive pathway (overpopulation, etc. etc.), perhaps in some idealist, perfect society that balances environment it may be possible, but very limited. I haven't actually seen the video, as I have no time, but any form of continual development is impossible in a finite area (earth). If an economy reaches a steady-state and you have industrial ecology and other sustainable mechanisms, it still does not mean populations will merge.

Re: Futurist Globalism
September 30, 2009, 04:27:26 PM
I'm wondering if anyone agrees, and then why or why not, that cultural, political and even racial globalization is inevitable as humanity develops technologically and if it expands into space.

This person is typical of most scientists: a blockhead linearist/rationalist.

It took a few thousand people to get us into space.

The rest are irrelevant.

But he/she knows that the rest don't want to consider themselves irrelevant, so it's a good product to claim we all need to work together.

Fuck that. History was made by a few great people while the rest hung out, finger im po, waiting for a handout.

Re: Futurist Globalism
October 04, 2009, 03:36:25 AM
Most scientists are probably Aspies: Categorization/accumulation of a narrow area of knowledge to the fullest depths, but no breadth or grasp of how it all fits into the bigger picture.

I think each high-technology culture/nation/race/what-have-you should work separately and decide from there whether or not they want to colonize space.

If we work separately rather than as "the entire human race" we can probably get the best of humanity out there rather than trying to pool our resources together as a "global nation" and then having to make budget cuts because a bunch of irresponsible Africans are starving to death somewhere. Oh, that's because we caused them to starve by 'accident', since they can't keep up in the economy/technology development. BUT WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER! HAVE SOME MONEY AND PICK YERSELF UP, BROTHER!

There's a bunch of fat cats that care only for the money that goes into their pockets, not whether they acquired that money for a purposeful reason. Putting everyone together and watching them fight amongst themselves for ease of profit. Like how a scene kid throws together a bunch of mismatched riffs, breakdowns, and calls it a song for his own personal acceptance among his peers.

Globalization is inevitable -- the inevitable end of humanity.

On a side note, what would be interesting is if they bred people to be astronauts. They already have high standards for who makes the cut, but imagine if they selected people with high bone density and muscle mass and bred them for their offspring to be trained to go into space. Our new warrior/explorer race!

Re: Futurist Globalism
October 04, 2009, 11:53:27 PM
Based on my research, and based on the laws of thermodynamics (which are sometimes related to ecological and economic models), all ecological systems tend toward "environmental" equilibrium (which I define as sustainability) results in maximum entropy. The more we change the environment to suit the needs of man, there are more consequences. See definitions of congenic homeotaxis, homeorhesis and homeostasis for more information. In most regards, allowing natural processes to destroy the infrastructure of humankind serves the biosphere well.