Biolibertarian Chronicles: The Paradigm of the New Activism

When the word “activism” is mentioned, several images likely spring to mind. One of the most prominent is several young radicals shouting and waving placards around as riot police gather. The crowd gets increasingly violent, prompting the riot police to start breaking out the teargas and batons. The mob can be protesting anything from war, to affirmative action, to rights for a select “minority of the week.” While it may sound strange, the protesters are as much as part of the system as the riot cops themselves.

Many groups today continue to utilize the protest-mob mentality (and some even use counter-protest mobs). In protests for the Second Gulf War, groups were mobilized around the world to protest the American invasion of Iraq. However, in several American cities, mobs of counter-protesters appeared, and clashed with the “pacifist” protesters. Many of the resulting incidents ended up with riot cops subduing both sides, and no small amount of damage done to local property. The smashed storefronts and burning buildings were testaments to an irrational mob mentality that placed action before thought. Regardless of their beliefs, both protesters and counter-protesters succeeded in radicalizing their respective movements.

The mob model of activism is by no means limited to “serious” world politics. A recent protest at The College of New Jersey in Ewing, New Jersey shows this clearly. The town of Ewing worked with TCNJ to pass a new bill that cracked down on underage drinking at parties. Irate student groups congregated outside one of the dorms on campus, and started a protest. A mock game of “beer pong” was even set up. In many was, this is a case of sheer irony. The students on campus protested for their right to consume large quantities of alcohol when most were under the legal age of drinking.

This “yell first, think later” mentality is hardly new to American political thought. The “mob mentality” model of activism is not without success stories. Many of the reforms of the 1960s are a direct result of mobilizing students and liberal youth. It is important to note, however, that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s model of non-violent protesting was by far more successful. During a sit-in, the media would be sympathetic to the youth as racists taunted them. While the civil rights movement had radicals, the dominant model became nonviolence. This was something that the racists were not prepared for. In response, the racists used terrorist tactics to try to silence the civil rights movement, but they only succeeded in politically isolating themselves and shoved towards the fringe. The result today is the end of segregation and equal rights.

Today, however, the reverse is also true. A group from the fringe can make itself mainstream by changing the playing field to suit its objectives. Such is the case with one powerful group in American politics, the neoconservative movement, or neocons for short. The neoconservatives traced their philosophical heritage to a political philosopher named Leo Strauss. Strauss claimed that a liberal democratic society was made weak through selfish individualism and “moral decay.” In response, a group of philosophical elites must spread “national myths” used to keep the fabric of society together. Examples of national myths include nationalism, religious unity, and the constant fear of the Evil Outsider. Strauss advocated unquestioning, religious nationalism with xenophobia of outsiders, all maintained by a philosophical elite. The simpler terms, fascism.

The neoconservatives have been keen to notice the favored tactics of their philosophical foes, and adapted. Protests easily can become mobs, and the media coverage gives the impression of protestors as violent radicals. Even nonviolent protests are marginalized, as neoconservatives learn the importance of public relations. Partially due to Karl Rove and contacts with Christian fundamentalists, the neocons are able to mobilize a base of their own. Neoconservative religions nationalism, coupled with the remnants of the Republican Party, provides a suitable base upon which the neocons can institute their agenda from.

Contrast this with the Democratic Party. Despite some victories on Congress, the party remains fragmented and disorganized. Without a guiding philosophy, it becomes impossible for them to seriously challenge a group with a philosophy. The guiding philosophy is not a particular religion or values system. Instead, it is simply a consistent values system. Take, for instance, many of the activists for gay marriage. While many have gained some ground, they often remain on the defensive from social conservatives. Most argue from the heart rather than the head. Instead of appealing to Kantian “respect of ethics for persons,” many rely on standard youth activism and try to curry favor with social liberals. Thus, the movement compromises itself by not going for more “intellectual” supporters. The conservatives have the televangelists and political pundits, while the social liberals are left as either apologetics or radicals. Thus, the activists play right into the hands of their philosophical foes.

This is merely one symptom of a larger problem. There is a sense of blatant anti-intellectualism in the nation. It occurs in both political parties, several independent groups, and even in pop culture. To the Republicans, a favorite stereotype is the liberal college professor who makes excuses for terrorists and supports communism. To the Democrats, another is the greedy corporate executive who plots to keep down minorities while promoting fundamentalist religion. In independent groups, many bioconservatives on both the left and right fear genetic engineering of both crops and humans.

Unsurprisingly, anti-intellectualism is a favorite tactic for racists. To racist groups, there is fear of intellectuals of another ethnic group arising, as they can serve as “role models.” It becomes impossible to keep down an ethnic group if they educate themselves. This is why there is a good deal of xenophobia against Asian immigrants in the USA, due to the myth of the “model minority” and the rise of Asian economies. Intellectuals are seen by racists as “race traitors” who defile “racial purity.” Many xenophobes cite globalization and outsourcing, as well as immigration, as examples of immigrants coming to “steal jobs.” While overt racism isn’t a neocon ideal, the images of “evil outsiders” are appealing enough to many racist individuals.

Violence and terrorism are clear extensions of the mob-mentality. Any group that values action over thought can easily fall into the trap using violence. When indiscriminate violence is applied, it isolates the cause of the movement from the mainstream. People are simply less likely to follow a movement that uses fear-causing tactics, unless the movement has enough force to establish an authoritarian state. In the case of radical Islam, many groups opposed fundamentalist movements. The fundamentalist movements in each state were a group of radicals that considers the “true Muslims.” They considered any Arab state that allowed foreign influences in to be “corrupted,” an its leaders could “justly” be killed, as they were no longer “true believers.” As the movements became more radical, there was a public backlash against them in several nations, such as Egypt. As they became more disliked, the fundamentalists lowered their standards. Since the people were not launching fundamentalist Islamic revolts, it must be “their” fault, as they were corrupted to. Thus, people could also be “justly” killed. This caused even more public backlash against them. The fanatics began to think the reason they weren’t “winning” was due to internal corruption, so violent infighting began as to who were the “true Muslims.”

Many terrorist groups turn on each other in absence of a shared foe. Violence and terrorism, however, is often self-defeating in the end. Attacking a spokesperson for an opposing idea is a great way to get sympathy for the “other side.” Racists attempted to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr., and only succeeded in making him a martyr for the civil rights movement. Early Christians were brutally executed by the pagan rulers of Rome, until they converted to Christianity and began brutally executing the pagans. Russian royalists murdered the Bolsheviks, until the Bolsheviks took power and began executing the royalists and other political foes. The “new boss” was often the same as the “old boss.” As writer Isaac Asimov stated, “Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent.” Ability to cause violence, thus, is often more of a liability than an asset, and an unsatisfactory way to achieve long-term, mutual gain.

If the mob-mentality, non-violent activism, and raw violence are not enough to change the system, is there any hope for the activist? Of course. Imagine if there was a force that politics and economics is still playing “catch-up” too. There is, and it’s called “technology.” A recent example of this is file-sharing programs online and the music industry. Many recording companies panicked due to the technology. The Internet allowed songs to be copied an infinite about of times, with no costs at all. The recording industry has “reformed” some utilities, such as Napster, but illegal file-sharing remains commonplace online.

True activism and true change can greatly benefit from use of technology and science. Intellectualism breeds innovation and change, and individuals should use this. Instead of empowering an abstract ideal known as “humanity,” work to empower intellectuals worldwide. This does not, and should not, mean that everyone should agree with you. However, the world can only benefit from having more critical thinkers. However, do not assign yourself to ideological cliques, like “right” or “left.” The System already has defenses against both, and if you debate, come at your opponent from an unexpected angle. Think laterally.

There are nigh-infinite ways to use technology to help real change. You are only limited by your imagination, and current technological capacities. Rest assured: Even if not available now, it will likely be available at some point in the future. Until then, it’s best to lay the political philosophy of how to utilize it. Below are several relevant topics.

Technology: It is no secret the rate of technological change is dramatically increasing. There are three “waves” of technologies that redefined society. The first was agriculture, developed ten thousand years ago in the Middle East. Second was industry, developed in Europe two centuries ago. Third was the Information Revolution, which started two decades ago. Some thing the fourth is biotechnology, which is perhaps now. We don’t have the advantage of historical hindsight, but it is safe to say the world is still getting used to the full effects of the third wave. After all, the Internet has only been available to most people in America for about a decade.

Regardless, there are always some skeptical of technology. Some will claim technology is out of control, and might compare it to a runaway train with a bridge out, and the technology will destroy humanity or society, or some such. Others might claim a certain technology will bring utopian dreams. Neither extreme is correct. Technical realism requires understanding of real science, rather than political junk science. Too overestimate or underestimate a technology is pure stupidity.

Likewise, without understanding the science behind a technology, it might as well be magic. There’s an increasing problem with junk science, from anti-genetic engineering bioconservatives to “intelligent design” advocates. They want bans on some research, which is a nightmare to enforce. Enforcement would be a nightmare. Imagine if the government banned potential venues for gene therapy or instructed kids in “intelligent design” with your tax money. Likewise, attacking science (and technology indirectly) with crappy fundamentalist philosophy is economic suicide for a developed nation.

Decentralization: Technologies threaten to change the status quo. With online dealing, there is often less need for middlemen. Bureaucracies can try to regulate it all, but it easily becomes impractical to enforce. All illegal online downloads cannot be tracked and prosecuted. With top down hierarchies and bureaucracies, there are always holes. Terrorist and criminal groups have adapted to slip through. Terrorists often have an “adhocracy” as a political structure, which refers to a loose network of people with the same basic ideology. Such organizations are harder to coordinate and control, and don’t have a single leader (though they may have several individuals of high standing). They rely more on “quality” of members rather than sheer quantity of numbers.

Imagine the structure of adhocracy used as a vehicle for political activism. Even with “old fashioned” nonviolent protests, this would be a great way to organize. Likewise, with an adhocracy, you can use the “Big Tent” method. That is, you can unite a diverse variety of groups for a single issue or cause. Don’t rule out friendships with your “normal foes” or even “former foes.” For instance, one might befriend a non-interventionalist social conservative as well as pacifist social liberals for a joint anti-neocon editorial writing campaign in several worldwide newspapers. Consider this: There is only one race in the world, despite what xenophobes and “racists” types say. That race is the human race. There’s ethnicities and nationalities, but they should be irrelevant. It doesn’t matter where one is from. The Internet and globalization is a great way to finally remove the vestiges of racist policies in some parts of the world.

Economics: Economics is a lot less dry than one can think. For one, all governments in the world counterfeit “money.” Money is something that is issued that can be backed up by a good of objective worth on the part of the issuer. Government used to use gold standard, but that artificially inflated the value of gold, leaving the economy to be dependant on that. If there’s too much gold (like when the Spanish dominated the New World), the price drops and the economy implodes. Now, there’s no gold standard, only whatever the government decides money is worth. In other words, people that use paper money are screwed over. The only difference between a “common criminal” and a government mint is order of magnitude when it comes to counterfeiting.

Now, here’s an interesting option: Perhaps instead of gold or government whims, we set the value of currency equal to say the informational equivalent of one hour’s worth of labor. A computer program that takes three hours to write is worth three credits. An engineering schematic that takes six hours is worth six credits. This is not so much an exchange of goods as an evolution of barter. Both parties decide on the value of a service or a good. Commodities might be a bit harder, though a decide price can be set (IE “A two credit computer program for a two credit table”). If one produces too many “credits,” they inflate the value of their own currency, and will However, this system becomes even more interesting with nanotech (see below). This here is real capitalism, not pay-to-play corporate welfare. Socialism is a rotten idea because it goes against everything we know on human nature. So, if you want people to join the “right cause,” why not make it profitable?

Biotech: Biotechnology allows life itself to be altered. People on both the left and right fear this passionately. Of course, they have good reason to. Biotechnology allows humans to finally cast off the constraints that nature inflicted on us (more on that below). First, it is important to note that nature is not a vengeful deity that smites people “playing God,” but instead a loose equilibrium formed by competing species. This equilibrium can be disrupted, but Mother Nature is hardier than some would have you believe.

This technology has good and evil applications, like all others. Genetic engineering can be used to make better medicines, or create nasty biological weapons. Even with basic biotechnology, however, you can get an interesting result. Back in the 80s, genetically engineered bacteria was used to clean up an oil spill off Alaska. The bacteria broke down oil to its basic components, preventing lots of contamination of the local environment. Now, in biology, if you have breaking down, you can have the reverse as well. Imagine a type of bio-fuel, made with genetically engineered bacteria. There’s already types of bio-fuels that work perfectly with existing cars that you can make in your garage. Not like oil companies want to know that. Imagine if there was a vat of oil-growing bacteria a vat you could use to make your own fuel. The oil companies would start trying to ban it, I’m sure.

Computers and Surveillance: The power of Big Brother is undeniable. Security cameras are in most public places, programs like the Carnivore scan your emails for certain keywords, and any phone can be tapped. Even if Congress and the President has oversight of it, you, the citizen, are the one who can’t look and see if the power is being abused or not. Even without government surveillance, the power of snooping in the private sector is also very potent. Look at social sites like MySpace or Facebook. People post their personal information online, their likes and dislikes, and many times, embarrassing pictures or facts. Imagine if a potential employer found a picture you (or even a friend) posted online of you drunk at a party back in college. That’s one job you probably won’t be getting.

How can you, the average citizen react? Well, if you read David Brin’s The Transparent Society, you’ll have some ideas. Electronics are cheaper nowadays, so you might be able to set up some of devices of your own. Now, this could be used to stalk fellow citizens, but you could use your own devices to counter-spy on your stalkers, and alert the cops. Likewise, Brin had an interesting premise: If the government can spy on the citizens, the citizens can spy on the government. I think Congress would reconsider passing a bill that allows the NSA to spy on citizens if the citizens can spy on Congressmen (and women). After all, I’m sure Congress has plenty of things they don’t want the public to know. That’s why it’s called government accountability. And why we need more of it.

Nanotech: These two things are likely to become an issue in the not-to-distant future. Nanotechnology relates to microscopic machines made of a few atoms, or things on the nanoscale, or one billionth of a meter (an atom’s diameter is normally .1 nanometer, for comparison purposes). On this scale, you control atoms directly. Here’s a problem: So far, we don’t have many practical nano-devices, save perhaps some circuits. The real fun begins if you have nano-assemblers, or rather, nanobots that can make finished products. Now, there’s always the idea of self-replicating nano-bots, or nano-devices that make copies of themselves (a process called von Neumann machines). Some fear this technology would go out of control and convert the entire world into nothing but nanobots (called the Gray Goo scenario). This turned some people away from nanotech, despite the fact such technology does not exist, and won’t for a long time. We already have something that can theoretically eat anything: bacteria. Know why the world isn’t completely covered in nothing but bacteria? Mainly because environmental factors prevent it. Nanobots that require exotic elements wouldn’t last too long, especially if they’re more fragile than bacteria. Likewise, nanobots in the near future would likely be constrained to tanks with special chemical concentrations carefully controlled.

Even in this limited state of nano-assemblers constrained to tanks, you have plenty of options. Imagine several tanks full of several different chemical types. You have a central control console that feeds instructions to each tank. The nanobots in each tank assemble a separate part (or perhaps eventually several parts). You assemble the device yourself (unless you have an assembly line type deal with several replicators going at once). While it might seem awkward, this is the material equivalent of filesharing goods. All you need are the schematics and enough “feed-stock” for the device. You can also get a device that works the opposite way to disassemble things, or convert trash to feed-stock. This will help economic-self-sufficient. Remember that “credit” based economy? Imagine you add in barter of nano-schematics (a credit also helping determining the complexity of a schematic). Then economics gets a lot more interesting. There would then be less use for utility corporations. Need power? Make your own nano-composite solar panels for your roof. Need water? Make your own efficient purifier. Trash piling up? Throw it in the disassembler. Need gas? Make some yourself. Same with medicines (though double checking it with a doctor might be recommended). The only utilities you’d need are the fire department and perhaps police. Believe it or not, this would be a boon for both capitalists and environmentalists. After all, imagine someone starts buying up old landfills and trash dumps, then throwing trash into disassemblers for feedstock. It’s the ultimate in recycling, and another person’s trash becomes your treasure.

Education, Transhumanism, and Organization: So, we’ve got all these nice ideas, but how do we organize them and spread them around? First, let’s add a few aspects together. The group would likely be decentralized. There’s several smaller subunits with a common set of principles. They’re transhumanist, meaning they desire people to be able to modify themselves as they see fit. Forcing others to modify themselves is out of the question, as that’s just collectivism. They use subversive technologies like biotech, and work to legalize other technologies by making them common before politicians can ban them. Politicians are forced to play catch up as they are bypassed and held more accountable to the public.

Likewise, this group prefers to spread education around. Using online educational resources which they’ve compiled themselves, they offer free education to anyone interested (and they have double-checkers, just to be sure). They help educate people in the Third World as well as the First World, and invite all to become self-sufficient. This system, dubbed nanocapitalism, is about innovation and self-sufficient. Individual rights and decentralization will allow bureaucracy and ignorance to be bypassed. Likewise, people are now free to lead freer and more fulfilling lives, and use technology to help raise standards and lower the hassle. This is because “intellectual activism” worked, rather than the “destruction” and “culture wars” of mindless activists, neocons, and racists. Construction is harder than destruction, but more rewarding in the long term. That is why intellectual activism will trump mindlessness and ignorance. If you’re interested, see below.

Recommended Resources:

Organizations:

Symbiotry International: This is an organization I’m forming along the principles I’ve listed in this essay. We have a constitution posted already. Go to my profile, click on the “My Forums” link, and check out the constitution in the “Symbiotry International” forums. For more info, email me.

AntiwarDOTCom: This is a libertarian anti-interventionalist website I check out. They’re very much against the neocons, and their writers range from “traditional” conservatives to “standard” liberals to libertarians. A favorite writer of mine there is Justin Raimundo.

Extropy Institute: The Extropians once said, “Just say no to death and taxes.” They’re stereotyped as libertarian transhumanist (and many do hold to this image), but Extropianism is more about techno-libertarianism and freedom to self-modify and innovate.

World Transhumanist Association: One of the premier transhumanist groups in the world. They have all sorts of general information on transhumanism at wwwDOTtranshumanismDOTorg.

Eudoxa: They’re a think-tank in Sweden and America with a libertarian transhumanist bent. A personal favorite writer of mine there is Anders Sandberg.

Writers, Nonfiction:

Murray Rothbard: A libertarian economist who wrote a lot on decentralized and non-state economies. Justin Raimundo did a biography on him called Murray Rothbard: Enemy of the State.

Anders Sandberg: A Swedish libertarian-transhumanist academic who does research in computational neuroscience. He’s fairly young, and writes hard sci-fi role-playing games. Check out his setting Infowar especially, which is a clear inspiration for my novel. (Just Google the following phrases together: Concordat+IOU+Infowar)

Steven Hughes: The writer of the book Citizen Cyborg, which is a favorite among some transhumanist groups. Worth checking out if the World Transhuman Association interests you.

Justin Raimundo: A libertarian and paleo-conservative writer for Antiwar. He writes a very interesting column, and has great arguments against neocons and other radicals.

Writers, Fiction:

Isaac Asimov: A scientist and sci-fi writer who wrote about future sociologies. Very interesting writer and person.

Greg Bear: A hard sci-fi writer who includes lots of transhumanist themes. His science is top-notch, and he’s won the Hugo and Nebula awards for sci-fi.

David Brin: His non-fiction The Transparent Society is an interesting read, and his sci-fi tends to reflect such themes.

Other Media:

The Art of War by Sun Tzu: A classic of military science and philosophy. This places a lot of importance on logistics and forethought, something many people overlook.

Unrestricted Warfare: A treatise on asymmetric warfare by two Chinese generals. Includes information on hacking, economic subversion, and the like, and why they are dangerous in the right hands.

Engines of Creation by Eric Drexler: The book that more or less laid out the theoretical foundations of nanotechnology. While powerful nanotech will take a while to be developed, this book had a lot of forethought and vision.

The Power of Nightmares: This excellent documentary tracks the parallel rises of the neocons and Islamic fanatics. It details the “evil outsider” mentality that both groups employ for their own benefit, how both groups dislike democracy and individualism, and other things.

The Infowar: A novel I am writing about intellectual activism. An international network of subversive intellectuals battling both despotic governments and ruthless terrorists using hacking, economics, and subversive technologies.

Alpha Centauri: A hard sci-fi computer game detailing many transhumanist themes, as well as warring ideological factions. This is my favorite game ever.

Deus Ex: A role-playing and shooter combination game where the protagonist is a transhuman soldier who can modify himself on the fly. The game is best described as cyberpunk meets high literature meets conspiracy theory. This is my second favorite game ever.