[ExI] Protected Elites
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Sat May 16 21:07:08 UTC 2009
2009/5/16 painlord2k at libero.it <painlord2k at libero.it>:
> Aristocracies have power because their ancestry, so their reason to hold
> power and control and wealth is past and not present. The reason to hold
> power, control and wealth must be always present.
In fact, it could be said that as soon as an "aristocracy" turns into
an hereditary gentry, the regression towards the medium starts
operating, and the society as a whole become less competitive as
selection becomes less efficient or stops altogether. Even though
in-breeding might be in principle considered as an empirical effort to
protect some specific group traits which led to its success in the
The issue is whether all that is also applicable to many "capitalist"
societies, the social Darwinism of which may end up being more
imaginary than real.
Georges Sorel, for instance, in spite of his being a sort of
"marxist", saw the struggle of class as the struggle of new
proletarian élites, selected by their harsh life, to replace and old
and decadent bourgeois ruling class.
To bring back things to transhumanism, it seems that most ruling
classes whose powers depend on legal and economic inertia rather than
by their ability to excel in whatever skills time and circumstances
under strong selective pressures would require are hostile to any
technological change, as it inevitably threatens such inertia.
May it have anything to do with the widespread governmental wariness
towards transhumanism-relevant technology? It would be interesting to
compare political and philosophical stances in this respect with the
average social (and generational!) mobility in each given society.
Whenever the rich tend to remain rich irrespective of their other
features, and elders surrend powers only upon their death, luddism
should in principle be stronger amongst the powers-that-be.
More information about the extropy-chat