Friday, February 14, 2020

On Medium: Technological Utopia and the Roots of Inequality

This article is about why we're still so unequal despite the socialist promise of technological advancement.


  1. I was thinking about it, brooding I might say, and what I've understood — that's just the nature of occupation or profession of it (if one chooses it to be so), art is exposed and should be exposed; where businessman, scientist or lawyer can bask in his uniqueness of local authority, unaware of millions of just like him, doing the same work. It easier in science and business to just copy what's working and be okayish in your commercial wellness, in art you need to innovate and originate, cultivate your own style and ideas to be noticed and really stand-out, copying and emulating is shameful in art, just a nature of it, I think.

    Let us think, that art is force pushing us to individualization, in such extent, that it will be valuable and for the collective.

    1. I'd add that we might want to distinguish between art and the art establishment. Although originality was important in early modern art, as it signified genius or the pushing of the boundaries of the medium, novelty is currently important to art institutions for economic reasons, I think, because originality helps create fads that can be marketed.

      It's hard to say what the purpose of art itself should be. I think art should redeem the monstrosity of nature, by taking nature in some uplifting, artificial, anti-natural direction, but it's not obvious what that direction is.

  2. Silicon valey will not save us, the rich have a problem, or they share with the unemployed or murder them.

    Your ideas about a technologically advanced society seem wrong and fatalistic, at least if one studies and understands what the Venus Project could be like.