Slashdot Mirror
Revolution, Flashmobs and Brain Implants in 2035
siddesu writes "Marxist revolution, WMDs, flashmobs and other sci-fi items are coming soon in a country near you, according to the UK Ministry of Defence. 'Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat. The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, while Europe's drops as fertility falls. "Flashmobs" — groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups.
This is the world in 30 years' time envisaged by a Ministry of Defence team responsible for painting a picture of the "future strategic context" likely to face Britain's armed forces.'"
Or watched too much television or other media ''predictions''. This strikes me on par with the typical predictions made 30 years ago. Allmost none of them have come to pass.
Bottom line: These people should be liable for wasting taxpayer money.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
So Britain's answer is to spend more money on nukes? I'm no hippy, but I think some innovation is needed here by the folks at the MoD
... was just a movie people.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Islamic fundamentalists currently fume against the shower of western culture entering their lands - TV, movies, etc., and the presence of US soldiers. Fairly soon they will face (or already face) a torrent of goods and products from China, which will surely bring with it some cultural impact. Perhaps this will not be of critical impact until Chinese soldiers are stationed outside of China, but that too may occur, as China becomes the main consumer of middle-eastern oil and other resources, prompting it to secure those resources, if only by token military presences in various locations.
The events they're commenting upon have not happened in the past (45% chance of rain) and are just one possible option of an effectively unlimited number of options (how many cards in the deck). And many of them seem self-contradictory.
So we see more extremism. But
So the democracies become extremists and the extremists become democracies.
What the fuck
I'm in favour of radical systemic change, but let's not make the mistake of 20th century revolutions. The main problem was creating an all powerful state that owned everything, including the people. In one word: centralisation.
The new goal should be the total opposite: decentralisation, community sovereignty, individual freedoms. Instead of creating a centralized state to control everything, lets create global networks of autonomous local communities and workplaces. No central authority, no presidents, effectively no nation-states. Democracy works best when people can meet in real life, face to face. Direct democracy, or horizontal democracy (no hierarchy) means everyone can have a say on issues that effect them. That means small scale is best.
A.K.A: Anarchism.
The system I've just described is not unlike the Opensource community. So we have an example already that works.
I don't intend to poke fun at the British peoples or anything, but I am inclined to express my concern. I began to toy with this idea after watching Children of Men, which caused my concern really started to reach its pinnacle, with this report solidifying it.
Can all of these circumstances be viewed as a cry for help?
What I mean is, so many movies out of Britain really paint a dismal picture of the future with urbanization and then the fall of society. That with near daily Orwellian reports about the copious amounts of surveillance the British citizens put up with, and it starts to feel like we, be it the United States or whomever else as a third party should be taking some cues here to help.
You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.
Name one state that has ever worked that way.
deus does not exist but if he does
Not really. Remember that religion is the excuse, not the reason. The reason is power.
There are only four paths to power:
#1. Political
#2. Economic
#3. Family/Tribal
#4. Religion
As long as there is flexibility in those, only the hard-core nut cases will become extremists. Once you start blocking access to any of them, you start creating more extremists.
And look at that. The goods represent economic issues. The soldiers represent political issues (political power flows from the barrel of a gun). Crack those and the fundamentalists become just more street lunatics who don't bathe regularly.
This is where I believe the Chinese will learn from our mistakes.
DO NOT make your presence visible in the volatile areas. Have them travel to see you.
DO NOT make your economic advantage visible in the volatile areas. Adopt their appearance.
Work with their family/tribal structures.
Keep your religious practices subdued. We have a big problem because of the Crusades. China doesn't have that issue.
Any european will recognize this as plain extreme right tainted speech. French will recognize Philippe de Villiers. This is absolutely false.
You fuck with the middle classes at your peril. A large, prosperous middle-class is the best guarantee of social stability -- unfortunately in the past it has accompanied appalling treatment of classes below, and neglect of the classes above.
If you can somehow engineer middle-class contentment along with opportunity and encouragement for those less fortunate, and keep the rich or aristocratic in their place at the same time as letting them use their wealth, you'll have solved it. But somehow I don't see either a surveillance UK or a fundamentalist USA as the places for this Brave New World to arise.
I'm not defending any particular system of government, but simply saying that this "running the country for the benefit of the people in general" that you envision is impossible.
That's one of the single best things that any country could do to prevent long-term instability and internal conflict, but politicians (at least here in the US) typically work for short-term benefit—usually their own short-term benefit.
You can actually extend that concept to the entire world. The income and quality-of-life disparity between, say, the US and Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq/etc. is enormous. Someone needs to tell Bush that they don't hate us because they hate freedom, a growing number of them hate us because they want a piece of the pie.
You can actually extend that concept to the entire world. The income and quality-of-life disparity between, say, the US and Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq/etc. is enormous. Someone needs to tell Bush that they don't hate us because they hate freedom, a growing number of them hate us because they want a piece of the pie.
This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. On one hand, you have people -- usually but not always social liberals -- claiming that the source of the world's problems are mostly economic, and that terrorists are produced by folks envious of our plasma TVs, SUVs, and 40-hour-workweeks.
On the other hand you have others -- usually but not always social conservatives -- claiming that the source of terrorism and related global instability is philosophical, religious, and dogmatic: e.g., what the terrorists hate isn't our conspicuously consumptive lifestyles per se, but really they hate the concept of a secular society in general, and really only hate McDonalds, etc., as a symptom of this essential problem.
I don't think the differences between these views can be overstated, because they lead to vastly different ways of visualizing and dealing with the threat of Islamic radicalism and terrorism generally. If the problem is economic imbalance, then you could theoretically correct it through trade and economic-aid programs. But if the problem is philosophical, then by fixing the wealth disparity, you're just enabling terrorism; giving people whose motivations are fundamentally opposed to secularism the means with which to really attack us.
I've seen little convincing evidence and lots of rhetoric on both sides. The fact that people like Bin Laden came from wealthy families, not poor ones, would seem to at least partially substantiate the theory that you can't just give radicals a house, a car, and a front lawn, and suddenly transform them into happy little proto-Americans.
I would much prefer to believe that the problem is economic rather than religious or philosophical, because that to me seems like a tractable problem. However, I'm not particularly upbeat on that being the case.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Which continent is the one that allows Sharia law courts? Which is the one where Muslims nearly riot over a CARTOON?
I also believe it was France that had a ton of Muslim youths rioting all over the place. I don't recall massive Muslim riots in America.
The reason that parts of Europe are going to go Islamic is because of the attitude that all ways of life are equal - even to the point that it allows views as extreme as Sharia law which takes away basic civil rights.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
"Terrorism is linked to extremism. You cannot eliminate extremism so you cannot eliminate terrorism. But you can can reduce the appeal of extremism by increasing the accessibility of political and economic power."
The crux of the issue is that...
People want what they want, and when they can't have it or are prevented from doing what they wish or believing, they will begin to feel trapped and suffocated until they embrace "extreme-ism" or a method that allows them some reprieve from the tyranny of other groups ideas, ethos or way of life. The world CHANGED because of people embracing extremism, people once thought slavery was 'natural' and to not believe in slavery was "extremism", anything can be extremism. Extremism is a tool to change society when all your other options cut off. People don't embrace extremism for nothing, they embrace it because the cannot solve their problems or get access to resources in a timely manner. Or are prevented by cultural racism from living a civil life. Most people in the world today are uncivilized, slaves to their animal nervous systems prejudices. i.e. think of the last time you told someone to get away from you because "you didn't like him" for no justifiable reason, just 'because' he offended your senses.
Indeed it has scarcely been 100 years since moving away from racism and slavery and we STILL haven't moved away from racism and slavery, we're still at war with them both, corporations want to re-institute slavery under the guise of capitalism but the truth is: A good war is better then a tenuous and suffocating peace.
You can't win idealogical or philosophical battles that people are programmed to believe. This is why capitalism, communism and socialism are such politically hardening terms. You can scarcely have a discussion without the the ideology of the dominant group mocking any dissent. This is especially apparent in our market society.