Revolution, Flashmobs and Brain Implants in 2035 327
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.'"
Don't let them distort the term! (Score:4, Interesting)
So you say you want a revolution? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is how socialism and eventually communism will happen - by default, naturally, no revolution. The cost of capitalizing a new activity will eventually drop to near zero for everything. I don't know if this is going to happen through a universal nanotech assembler, or through ubiquitous robotic slaves building shit for us in exchange for duracells, but it's going to happen. Everything is going to eventually be so cheap that it won't be worth selling. When you can get your robot to build you a car of your own design, and all you have to do is plug it in, you won't be going to Ford to buy a piece of shit Tempo-like ugly box. No, you'll design your own, or you'll download a GNU car schematic of something cool like the Linux-go-cart and tell your robot slave to build it for you. Richard Stallman will finally become relevant to everyone when his ideas move up a level of implementation from computers to the real world. It'll be just like Second Life where you use a computer editor to change your house - and your REAL house changes into a castle. Plus you can edit the length of your own cock to keep up with the Jones's. Hell, your wife could edit the length of her cock too!
That's my fantasy. Now, who's written a nice sci-fi novel about that?
Missing prediction... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't Worry About Iran, Though (Score:3, Interesting)
The UK needs some Anarchy (Score:1, Interesting)
When was the last time a politician knew anything about technology? (beside Al Gore)
If the Ministry of fucking idiots wants to play science fiction, that's fine, but the issues of 2035 aren't going to be vastly different from those of today. Humans and technology aren't really changing that fast. The computer is not exactly the revolutionary device that people see it as. If we keep going at this rate by 2035 we will have some awesome CPU power, but we will still not have intuitive interfaces or well written software. If anything more interpreted languages and less binary thought will result in the current trends of low performance bloated crap ware. Just like how everything is made out of plastic because it's cheaper even though metal lasts longer most of the time. The modern programmer is already less talented than programmers of 30 years ago. Without good quality programmers developing nations like China ane India are going to produce the next generations of great software because their cultures do vastly better in math.
and.. flashmobs... cmon. What makes that a reality in 2035 and not today? Are you guys sure it wasn't the Minister of Defense's grandchild that thought up this stuff? Technology dictates itself. The year 2035 will be shaped by the technologies of that year and that's all. Predictions beyond that are useless. Look at all the great leaps in technology that humans were supposed to have made by now. We should at least have fusion power and Star Wars lasers in space right. Well that's why you don't try to create technologies through some kind of funded prophecy like Reagan did for Star Wars, which in case you didn't know was a complete failure.
Obviously we already have implanted microcomputers in people so we are hardly waiting till 2035 for that.
Do these people have nothing better to do but make laughable predictions of technology and terrorism in the future.
They can't know the path of terrorism. Are they fucking retarded or what?
These people still think that terrorism is just like a season thing that just what started happening and now will require constant military attention ?
That's what they are hoping for. They hope that in 2035 they can convince the people that terrorism is a threat and warrants continued military spending.
They STILL don't realize that terrorism doesn't happen by chance, but for obvious and exact reasons. We can't plan for social movements like terrorism without planning the social happenings for the next two decades. All we can assume is that the current situation with arabs will not resolve itself by 2035.
30 years ago terrorism wasn't really a threat that scared Americans. No more at least than the common criminal happenings all throughout the world.
Until people learn that terrorism happens for a reason not random unpredictable chance we are fucking doomed.
Their long term plan is to blindly fight terrorism. How fucking retarded can you be people.
I mean HELLO... flashmobs. That doesn't sound like terrorism anymore. It sounds more like the government planning against citizens who want to protest and using terrorism as an excuse. You can't quickly assemble mobs because.. that's terrorism.
If they want to battle terrorism the first step would be to stop constantly contributing to it. For Briton the first step should be to DISTANCE yourself from America anytime we have a conservative as president because CONSERVATIVES = WAR. Now, this is nothing new. I mean even conservative college level professors will tell you when describing cons and dems that cons will be the ones who take you to war almost every time. It's not even something that cons have yet to see as a bad attribute of their party. They are proud to be the war party just ask them.
Anyway it's sad to see such government propaganda being displayed as news even on Slashdot. If you want put up a
Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (Score:1, Interesting)
I do agree with you 100% -- in fact I am a peaceful anarchist myself -- however it's impossible that it would happen in our lifetimes. Why? If a peaceful, productive anarchy were ever to emerge, it would be immediately destroyed by the current world superpower government. It would probably be attacked by several governments, probably with UN support, the whole nine. Centralized power has incredible momentum at this point in history, perhaps more so than ever before, and there is no way the power elite are going to to sit back and watch as a voluntary society discredits every single lie that the champions of organized coercion feed us.
No, the voluntary society won't have a chance until the majority of the world's governments move towards libertarianism, where centralized power is restrained enough -- both in revenue and power over the people -- to prevent imperialism. The world isn't even close to that today.
Re:So you say you want a revolution? (Score:2, Interesting)
They just don't get it ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, man; talk about clueless. What "flashmob" really means is that the PR guy at a local commercial outlet has hired a viral ad guy, who spread the rumor that Britney or Paris or a member of the latest hot local indie band has been spotted at said outlet.
Of course, one could classify the ad agencies as criminal gangs or terrorist groups, and then maybe you'd have a point.
(I live in the Boston area, which recently had a fun example of advertising being mistaken for terrorism. So I'm not surprised to read nonsense like this. And I'm looking forward to further entertaining mistakes along this line. Anything to make the Homeland Security people look even more foolish.)
Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, laypeople are stupid. This is why direct democracy is not feasible.
It also means that large-scale is impossible. I hope you don't need a road that extends beyond your own block.
I suspect that most if not all Open-Source projects are either authoritarian regimes or highly-centralized pseudo-democracies.
Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (Score:2, Interesting)
Anarchy does not mean "chaos" as government teaches you. It does not mean lack of morals, lack of rules, or lack of compassion. They have to tell you that. If the majority of the subject class believed that life without government was possible, let alone preferable, that wouldn't be very good for the people who built their fortunes on centralized power, would it?
The Amish are an example of anarchy (however small) which happens to lean towards socialism. Coercion has no place in their society: they are there because they choose to be there. They help each other because they choose to help each other, not because of a centralized power telling them what to do under the threat of force. The Amish are allowed to exist by the superpower government surrounding them, only because they pose no economic threat to organized coercion. You can bet that if the Amish started to practice anarcho-capitalism instead of anarcho-socaialism -- building actual economic presence -- they would be immediately destroyed by the US government. For now, organized coercion simply points and chuckles, "how cute".
In fact, if we pretend that government wasn't there for a minute, you practice anarchy every day of your life. Your relationship with just about everybody but government is anarchist in nature: your friends, your family, your employer, your mechanic, your waiter at the restaurant. You do operate on the principle of voluntary association, rather than coercion, don't you?
Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (Score:2, Interesting)
Ministry of Defence always against British people (Score:3, Interesting)
While most wage slaves are watching TV, porn, or praying to Jesus, the powers-that-be are deathly afraid people will one day "shape transnational processes in their own class interest". Actually, Marx's Capital has a pretty good history of the English working class - it slowly lost its feudal rights over several centuries with the onset of industrialization, but began organizing and began expanding its rights again.
There is no SINGLE cause of extremism. (Score:5, Interesting)
Then they discard any examples that doesn't match their model while over emphasizing the ones that match.
A rich guy can turn extremists because he sees how poor people he identifies with are.
The models you describe do not account for empathy or other forms of social awareness. They are purely mercenary.
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.
One nut case is just one nut case. If there isn't a ready pool of converts, that nut case will eventually take care of himself. The problem is when that nut case finds a pool of potential converts and those converts usually do result from political / economic / family / religious inequalities.
Re:There is no SINGLE cause of extremism. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not something unique to terrorism either - you see it with many religious converts of all faiths and on the secular side you see it in things like joining a fraternity or even just spending a lot of money on a car - certain personality types just have to justify their decision by being as gung ho as they possibly can, it keeps them from examining the situation too closely and finding any flaws once they have committed. Like they are trying to avoid "buyer's remorse."
Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, it's explainable. Fashionable French women still wear stockings instead of pantyhose. They still wear dresses instead of pants. They still wear lace bikinis instead of "boy panties." They still wear perfume. Finally, they spend a lot less time being repressed, sexually speaking, than many other countries. What is more attractive? Some awesomely sexy woman, dressed to knock you off your feet, or some woman in her jogging sneakers, jeans and "hoodie"?
There was a social error made by the ladies in the 60's...70's where they decided that in order to be "equal", they had to look and act like men. Unfortunately, all that did was make them unattractive and lose the social training that taught them how to deal with attracted males. They could have been equal all along without giving up the sexually charged plumage they had; there is no question that "equality" is about performance, not plumage.
There is, of course, a silver lining to all of this. Those females who understand what has happened can completely trounce those who don't in any situation where performance is relatively equal - because hiring, or simply hanging with, a lovely, sexy woman who can handle the task at hand is a lot more desirable than hanging with an equally capable woman who dresses like a guy on his way to a pickup game.
The consequences for reproductive rates are obvious.
Politically correct? No. True? You bet - every word.
Re:in this twilight (Score:2, Interesting)
My kids are in public school, and (sigh) this pretty much sums it up. Add to this the fundie teachers who use the classroom to echo superstition, e.g., they have Time For Kids (a Time Magazine joint) handouts, meant to provide talking points in a Letter to the President--but instead, give their own twisted narratives, e.g., "The Iraqis want to blow themselves up so they can be with their false gods," and "It would be a sin not to finish God's War." Add to this the attendant anxiety that my nerdy kids are already experiencing in elementary school, and...
My approach is to get the entire curriculum up front, and to review it with the teachers every six weeks. I teach my kids most evenings, and every weekend. I teach them what I believe, and I explain where and why it differs from what is said at school. We play a game whose object is to master the proffered subject matter and regurgitate appropriately at school on tests and in class--while realizing that it's only one of many possible views.
So I'm essentially home schooling inside of the state's educational structure. It's actually way more fun that I thought it would be. I have an extraordinary relationship with my kids, and I get to see what they're being sold as The Truth. The major benefit is that the one child who has the high IQ with low performance has blossomed beyond anyone's expectations. He gets the game better than I do, and he spontaneously extrapolated how children-oriented TV is the same con game. He's the oldest, and has taken to finding more perspectives.
The trade-off is that I don't get enough sleep. I'm hoping that their summer vacation will make this easier, but they seem to expect the game to continue. I also notice a smugness about them, but I think this would have been inevitable in, say, middle school or high school when they realize or at least see evidence that they're more intelligent than some of their teachers, and all of their administrative staff. Maybe the summertime is for non-school subjects, like building and testing PCs.
To the AC's point: I want for them to understand that there are those who believe that my children should know their place, and I want for them to know what that is--in order for them to know the workarounds.
Re:One interesting speculation (Score:4, Interesting)
War is about Can I hurt you more than you are willing to tolerate before you could hurt me more than I am willing tolerate? Till about WW-II all nations have similar high level of tolerance to death/destruction/loss. Russia lost 20 million people including civilians. Germany about 8 mill, and USA about 0.5 mill. Presently the level of tolerance for loss in America is very low. The threshold the Islamic militants have to reach to "hurt" America is as low as killing one single solitary soldier. The level of tolerance to loss by Al Quaida is very very high. It is impossible for America to hurt al-Quaida enough before it kills one soldier. On the other hand, the level of tolerance to loss is very high for China. Islamists will lose badly to China.