Posted by jeanne
the article i reposted yesterday affected me all evening. ostensibly about peer review issues in science, it spoke to me about how thru history the rich and powerful have dominated and abused the poor and meek, and how we’re busy dealing with this same issue on a whole new batch of hardware. we have free information on the internet, and they try to control it. we try to grow our own foods and they patent the seeds. we try to organize to take back some of the huge disparity of wealth and they call out the troops. it has happened in every phase of civilization, whether we’re talking about king john against the merry men or the industrial factory owners against the luddites or the robber barons against the wobblies or the cellphone factory against the workers. and in each case, it was whoever had the most money won and the opposition got stamped out. and that’s always been the way it was.
but if it was quantum, it wouldn’t work that way.
at least, the quantum ideal i’m thinking of in my own head, not related to the actual reality at all and not backed by current scientific understanding. but so what. i’m writing idealistic fiction, and i can dream up the kind of world i want to live in and make it come alive on the page. and it can find its own way to reality.
reading the article i’m referring to, the comments were very thought provoking, and i’ll summarize the interesting ones.
the problem with having a duplicating transporter, something that would generate viable copies of itself anywhere and everywhere, thus increasing the supply of that item without cost, is that people would just forcibly seize control of it and we’d be in the same boat as we always are, with a few people owning everything and everyone else suffering. this is the way of the world, and why i sometimes hate being a human.
but what if you can’t seize it, what if everybody has the ability to do it themselves, directly, without anything that can be broken or confiscated? you could then try to disable it in them, somehow break their new abilities. or kill them. you’d have to kill them all, but that’s kind of where they’re going with this. but what if you couldn’t? what if there was no more power-over, and you couldn’t just kill those who disagreed and otherwise threatened you. you couldn’t stop them at all. but they could stop you, and suddenly it wouldn’t be a matter of the few controlling everything.
is this where the slaves rise up against their masters and kill them in their beds? that’s certainly a good argument for keeping the status quo, by force if necessary. but it’s fear-based. so it’s not quantum thinking. no, what happens is the slaves free themselves and ignore their erstwhile masters, who then have to do everything for themselves and can now inspire only pity instead of fear and loathing.
then you have the problem of infinite resources and uncontrolled growth, when there is no scarcity. the argument here is that if you have no limits to growth, then people increase and increase until there’s no more room and the whole thing blows up in your face. again, that’s a good argument for limits, which then turns into disparity and ends up as a zero-sum game. so it’s fear-based, and wrong. do people drug themselves to death when it’s legal and available? no, that’s a scare tactic, people regulate drug use within themselves; some become addicted (but not criminals), and others don’t. people would, if everything were freely available, take only as much as they needed, and not hoard because that would diminish their own lifestyle.
but this is only once they got used to it. until people lost the fear, they would continue to hoard and suppress and be agressive against perceived threats. and you’d have them trying to take it away from us again. how would people with infinite resources react to this? fight back? or erect appropriate barriers? or laugh? depends on how fear-based they are themselves.
the main problem is that people fear quantum reality. they want certainty; they want a daddy god, they want a clear right and wrong, they are comfortable with us versus them, might makes right, do it my way or burn motherfucker. so they will resist the shift to quantum consciousness. even the protagonists of this story resist becoming quantum beings. it’s ever so much harder being god than being an infantile petty human.
people will try to suppress quantum consciousness themselves, if it should arise in them spontaneously. they would listen to the voices that tell them there’s only one right way and it’s certainly not quantum, it’s classical. and they would be ashamed of their differentness, and they would punish themselves, just like in the bad old medieval days when religious types went around hitting themselves with scourges.
there are many times a day when i pause and think how impossible a task this is that i’m working on. there’s no bringing quantum consciousness to this part of universe, nobody really wants to be god-in-aggregate. they want their petty individualistic human squabbling, like a married couple that loves to fight. and then in my research i’m always coming up with evil ways to use these energies, like the military’s perversion of neuroscience to incapacitate declared enemies and protestors. this is discouraging to me, because it clearly shows how even a power for good (quantum thought is inclusive, non-hierarchical, tolerant) can be misused to achieve power over.
but i can’t despair, because that’s fear-based. i can only proceed one day, one paragraph, one post at a time. my part to create the future i want to live in.