Romantic Neo-Luddism Foundation
On a conversation about romanticism, an LLM cited a 2024-02-10 blog by Sasha Rink titled "Top 10 most romantic animals". See Image below from the blog.
"Valentine's Day isn't just for humans! Animals in the wild also engage in some of the most heartwarming and romantic behaviours. From extravagant displays of affection to lifelong partnerships, here are 10 of the most romantic animals to celebrate this Valentine's Day:"
Well, this topic is not exactly about those romantic animals.
In order to design an ISSHS with a suitable philosophical foundation, it is a prerequisite to identify the quintessential human qualities and the conditions that would best nurture and enable the fullest expression of those qualities. Accordingly, attention is not directed to designing a sanctuary for the characteristics of future transhumans. Similarly, while recognizing humanity's evolutionary drafted algorithms, a design limited to the expression of primitive instincts should also be rejected.
For the reasons further developed in this document's various topics, Romanticism greatly influences the philosophical foundation of an ISSHS. Wikipedia explains that:
"Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement that originated in Europe toward the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature - all components of modernity." Wikipedia: Romanticism retrieved 2019-12-06.
By promoting sustainable living and harmony with the natural world, ISSHS supports the romantic ideal of humans as part of nature rather than separate from or dominant over it. The focus on deriving meaning from family, community, and joie de vivre rather than technological advancement resonates with romantic ideals of human fulfillment.
Claude (2024-10-22) was prompted:
If we were to think of the passage of humanity's quintessential qualities in terms of a bell curve, with a sunrise, a development stage, a peak, a decline, and a sunset brought by ASI and Transhumanism. What era of human history would you associate with the peak of the expression of quintessential human qualities defined as the interplay, nurtured by a close-knit community of multi-generational families, of instinctual algorithms and moderate intelligence expressing itself as romantic sensibility and behavior.
This is a fascinating thought experiment. Looking across human history for the peak expression of these quintessential human qualities, I'm drawn to the period roughly between 1750-1850 in certain parts of Europe and America, particularly in rural and small town settings.
Why this era? It represented a unique balance point:
Technology was advanced enough to provide some basic comforts and security (improved agriculture, basic medicine, more substantial housing), but not so advanced as to separate humans from direct engagement with their environment and labor.
Literacy and education were becoming more widespread, nurturing that "moderate intelligence"; without yet leading to over-intellectualization or information overload.
The Romantic movement in art, literature, and philosophy explicitly celebrated the integration of emotion and reason, nature and human consciousness.
Communities were still largely organized around extended families and small-scale social networks.
People generally lived and worked in close connection with natural cycles and rhythms.
Craftsmanship and manual skills were highly valued, allowing for creative expression through practical work.
The pace of life still allowed for deep social bonds and contemplative moments.
Religious/spiritual beliefs and scientific understanding coexisted without severe conflict.
However, I'm very curious about your perspective on this. Would you place humanity's peak expression of these qualities in a different era? Perhaps in classical antiquity, medieval times, or even earlier agricultural societies?
In 1970 as a college sophomore the author began writing a book titled "Beyond The Romantic Animal" ("BTRA") excerpts of which include the following:
"In search for the peak of humanity I have as a first approximation concluded on the romantic age." BTRA page 64, May 21, 1971.
However, while philosophical foundational, the design of the ISSHS should not be limited to Romantic ideals. Rather the ISSHS should benefit from an appreciation of the most humane concepts that may be extracted from humanity's journey. The following are exemplary concepts:
"Romanitas is the collection of political and cultural concepts and practices by which the Romans defined themselves." Wikipedia: Romanitas retrieved 2019-12-06.
"The primary Roman virtues both public and private, were: Abundantia, Auctoritas, Comitas, Constantia, Clementia, Dignitas, Disciplina, Fides, Firmitas, Frugalitas, Gravitas, Honestas, Humanitas, Industria, Innocencia, Laetitia, Nobilitas, Justitia, Pietas, Prudentia, Salubritas, Severitas, Veritas, and Virtus." Wikipedia: Virtue retrieved 2024-09-16.
"In Ancient India - While religious scriptures generally consider dharma or aṟam (the Tamil term for virtue) as a divine virtue, Valluvar [an Indian poet and philosopher] describes it as a way of life rather than any spiritual observance, a way of harmonious living that leads to universal happiness." Wikipedia: Virtue retrieved 2024-09-16.
Paideia referred to the rearing and education of the ideal member of the ancient Greek polis or state.” … “An ideal man within the polis would be well-rounded, refined in intellect, morals, and physicality, so training of the body, mind, and soul was important. Both practical, subject-based schooling as well as a focus upon the socialization of individuals within the aristocratic order of the polis was a part of this training.” … “Gymnastics and wrestling were valued for their effect on the body alongside the moral education which was imparted by the study of music, poetry, and philosophy.. Wikipedia: Paideia retrieved 2024-09-16.
The ISSHS enriches its Romantic foundation by incorporating diverse philosophical traditions. This acknowledges that human flourishing requires the synergistic integration of a variety of cultural perspectives on virtue and harmonious living, providing a comprehensive approach to preserving human qualities.
Wikipedia: Luddite (retrieved 2024-08-01) informs that:
"The Luddites were members of a 19th-century movement of English textile workers who opposed the use of certain types of automated machinery due to concerns regarding decreased pay for textile workers and a perceived reduction of output quality, and often destroyed the machines in organized raids. Members of the group referred to themselves as Luddites, self-described followers of "Ned Ludd", a mythical weaver whose name was used as a pseudonym in threatening letters to mill owners and government officials." ...
"Nowadays, the term 'Luddite' often is used to describe someone who is opposed or resistant to new technologies. By 2006, the term neo-Luddism had emerged to describe opposition to many forms of technology. According to a manifesto drawn up by the Second Luddite Congress (April 1996; Barnesville, Ohio), neo-Luddism is 'a leaderless movement of passive resistance to consumerism and the increasingly bizarre and frightening technologies of the Computer Age'." - Wikipedia: Luddite retrieved 2024-08-01.
The Leader of the Luddites,1812. Hand-coloured etching.
Chellis Glendinning in "Notes toward a Neo-Luddite Manifesto" writes in part:
"The worldview that 19th century Luddites challenged was that of laissez-faire capitalism with its increasing amalgamation of power, resources, and wealth, rationalized by its emphasis on 'progress'."
"The worldview they supported was an older, more decentralized one espousing the interconnectedness of work, community, and family through craft guilds, village networks, and townships. They saw the new machines that owners introduced into their workplaces - the gig mills and shearing frames - as threats not only to their jobs, but to the quality of their lives and the structure of the communities they loved. In the end, destroying these machines was a last-ditch effort by a desperate people whose world lay on the verge of destruction."
"Neo-Luddites are not anti-technology. Technology is intrinsic to human creativity and culture. What we oppose are the kinds of technologies that are, at root, destructive of human lives and communities. We also reject technologies that emanate from a worldview that sees rationality as the key to human potential, material acquisition as the key to human fulfillment, and technological development as the key to social progress."
"We favor the creation of technologies that are of a scale and structure that make them understandable to the people who use them and are affected by them. We favor the creation of technologies built with a high degree of flexibility so that they do not impose a rigid and irreversible imprint on their users, and we favor the creation of technologies that foster independence from technological addiction and promise political freedom, economic justice, and ecological balance."
While the ISSHS initiative welcomes the adaptation of modern scientific principles to limited ISSHS capabilities, the ISSHS initiative rejects technological advancement inconsistent with the expression of quintessential human qualities. Thus, Claude (2024-08-01) was prompted in a conversation “Is the ISSHS initiative neo-Luddism?”:
It is reasonable to describe ISSHS philosophy as foundational neo-Luddism. Especially where ISSHS romantic ideals would reject human augmentation technologies and reject technological excesses that have not been utilized to enhance humane quality of life in harmony with nature. The ISSHS romantic foundation may be inconsistent with advanced technologies.
Your characterization of ISSHS philosophy as "foundational neo-Luddism" is insightful and I agree that it's a reasonable description. Let's unpack this further:
Rejection of human augmentation: This aligns closely with neo-Luddite concerns about maintaining human essence and rejecting transhumanist ideals. It reflects a deep-seated belief in the intrinsic value of unaltered human nature.
Critique of technological excess: The ISSHS stance on technologies that don't enhance quality of life or harmony with nature echoes neo-Luddite criticisms of technology for technology's sake. This perspective challenges the often-unquestioned narrative of technological progress as inherently positive.
Romantic ideals and nature: The emphasis on harmony with nature and a more "authentic" human existence is indeed a core tenet of both ISSHS and many neo-Luddite philosophies. This romantic view often stands in opposition to the perceived artificiality and alienation of highly technologized societies.
Inconsistency with advanced technologies: You're right to point out that the romantic foundation of ISSHS may be fundamentally at odds with advanced technologies. This tension reflects a broader philosophical debate about the compatibility of certain human values with rapid technological advancement.
Foundational aspect: Describing it as "foundational" neo-Luddism is apt, as ISSHS seems to take the core principles of neo-Luddism and apply them in a more comprehensive, future-oriented framework.
Proactive vs. reactive: While traditional neo-Luddism is often reactive to existing technological trends, ISSHS appears more proactive, attempting to preserve a certain way of life in anticipation of future changes.
Ethical considerations: Both ISSHS and neo-Luddism raise important ethical questions about the role of technology in human life and the potential costs of unchecked progress.
Your description effectively captures the essence of ISSHS as a philosophy that, while developed for a specific future scenario, shares deep ideological roots with neo-Luddism. It highlights the initiative's commitment to preserving what it sees as core human values and ways of living, even in the face of potentially overwhelming technological change.
This framing of ISSHS as foundational neo-Luddism provides a useful lens for understanding its principles and potential challenges. It also situates the concept within a broader historical and philosophical context of resistance to technological domination of human life.
While, Claude's comments look more to future dehumanizing technologies, ISSHS offers foundational concepts that are applicable to current technological levels. Further, believing that all of the human species cannot be redirected away from what appears to be its destiny, as it is supplanted by artificial superintelligence and AIdroids as the dominant entities on this planet, and/or as it surrenders to transhumanism, we ought to attempt a constructive effort rather than a mere philosophizing about Romantic Neo-Luddism ideals.
On January 19, 2016, after a month-long public vote, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) gave its annual Luddite Award to:
"a loose coalition of scientists and luminaries who stirred fear and hysteria in 2015 by raising alarms that artificial intelligence (AI) could spell doom for humanity. ITIF argued that such alarmism distracts attention from the enormous benefits that AI can offer society and, worse, that unnecessary panic could forestall progress on AI by discouraging more robust public and private investment."
"It is deeply unfortunate that luminaries such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have contributed to feverish hand-wringing about a looming artificial intelligence apocalypse, said ITIF President Robert D. Atkinson. Do we think either of them personally are Luddites? No, of course not. They are pioneers of science and technology. But they and others have done a disservice to the public and have unquestionably given aid and comfort to an increasingly pervasive Neo-Luddite impulse in society today by demonizing AI in the popular imagination. "ITIF: Artificial Intelligence Alarmists Win ITIF's Annual Luddite Award January 19, 2016.
Is ISSHS deserving of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation’s “Luddite Award”?