So, if one disposes with a belief in historical periodicity and a definitive theory of value,
and yet Masons thesis still stands, are there any other pitfalls?
I would say yes. Because, whereas the thesiss general direction of travel is indisputable
things are changing there are several question marks about what is the final destination.
If humans create machines capable of doing more or less all tasks i.e. real Artificial
Intelligence equal to, and indeed exceeding, human intelligence then these machines,
inevitably, will decide they no longer need humans. The only defences against such are a
proposition are: a) for some nebulous reason this cant be done, or b) failsafe safeguards can
be built into (all) these machines. Both these defences are nonsense there is no question that
eventually (if we create them, and the temptation not to is too great to resist) the machines
will take over.
Naturally while, step-by-step, machines get more and more advanced, but not yet good
enough to implement a coup, there will be a honeymoon period in which the machines do
all the work and humans, freed from having to earn a living, will be able to do as they please.
But this honeymoon period wont last long. With computer power continuing to grow
exponentially, the interlude will be at best a few decades. After that its goodbye humans!
On top of which, there are other factors to take into account regarding this envisioned
Brave New World - a phrase Huxley borrowed from The Tempest. For example, how long
does the required spirit of altruism prevail? Idealists need to remind themselves that human
nature is ultimately selfish. Happy-clappy hippy communes always collapse (often amidst
tales of exploitation and sexual abuse) and the phenomenon of compassion fatigue never
takes long to rear its head even in the aftermath of the greatest tragedies. Sorry to be cynical.
By the same token, its all very well to cite wikipaedia as a triumph, but how many
wikipaedias do we need? Only one. Moreover, the motivation of most contributors to it is not
heroic, merely a chance to show off what they know (a very Freudian, atavistic sentiment).
And the same goes for Open Source operating system software pioneering challenges
always have a certain romance, but once they are achieved enthusiasm tends to dissipate.
And, similarly, operating systems, like wikipaedia, are not something that it makes sense to
develop in quantity.
So, in summary, in writing PostCapitalism Paul Mason has sketched in a very possible
short-lived scenario en route to a machine-dominated world. In a sense his vision is one of a
Nirvana with an (initially) unseen sting in its tail. And, in passing, since he mentions it, I
wouldnt worry too much about climate change finishing us off - the machines will do it first!
That said, Mason writes clearly and well even though sometimes the text reads like a
transcript of a piece-to-camera and despite his self-confessed somewhat leftist leanings he
comes over as pretty much objective. He is correct to say that we live in an unfair, elitecontrolled world hardly a revelation in itself.
Yet, all reservations aside, his book is thought-provoking and very much worth reading.