Sunday, November 18, 2012

Presidential Debate Transcript from the year 2054.

UPDATE to this posting:  There is an article discussing recent research babbling on this topic here.

I won't say how this document came into my possession, but the circumstances were related to my work and certain physics experiments.  These experiments would be too technical for this forum.  The year 2025 saw a great economic breakdown followed by a protracted civil war before things eventually settled down.  A group of technocrats was then appointed to come up with a new world-wide government.  Looking back at the trends, it was discovered that the human intellect had been atrophying as a result of technological progress.  If an aborigine makes an illogical choice, he could very well be dead and not pass his genes on.  For a modern, however, illogical choices were frequently rewarded more than logical ones, while more recently sperm banks actively sought out genetic material from the most illogical specimens. The result was that illogical had a significant evolutionary advantage over logical.  The technocrats went back through the literature of illogic and were able to scientifically prove this connection.  Early advocates of illogic such as Marx, Engels and Hitler wrote large works that supplied detailed and exhaustive illogical explanations which were necessary to convince the reluctant masses.  By the year 2000, however, all this had been reduced to little more than tomes that were collections of anecdotes.  An argument could neither be developed from premises to a conclusion, nor could the masses actually process one had it been presented to them.  What was really striking, however, was that as the politicians logical faculties diminished, they were increasingly lauded for their communication ability, while people were more and more connected and enamored by the existential message.

The technocrats analysis resulted in a dual governance system.  The real government was turned over to computer programs that efficiently managed things, but then there was a virtual government that permitted humans to engage in the usual pandering and power politics, but with little harm done.  A "wealth placebo" had been invented which confused the distinction between the rich and poor, yet the class warfare raged on based on the "perceptible wealth gap".   A presidency was re-instituted which primarily had the function of continuing class warfare rhetoric, since this proved to be necessary component of human existence.  

And now, an excerpt from the debate, with some changes made so that we should not be easily able to change the future when we see this happening.  The following portion was deemed to be the highlight of the debate by various pundits and specialist observers, and where the clear knockout blow had been delivered:

Moderator:  "What are your proposals with regard to the proposed temporary increase in the 'placebo tax', and the impact of this measure on the perceptions of inequality?  Candidate B, it is your turn to go first."
Candidate B: "Um, well, duhhh."
Moderator:  "Candidate A?"
Candidate A: "Yes, certainly, like duh-uh"

Afterwards, a focus group was interviewed to see how they thought the candidates performed.  

Interviewer:  "What did you think of this daring move by Candidate B?"
Member 1: "He came across as elitist.  Candidate A was the clear winner.  He empathized with my needs and truly expressed that he cared more for the things that matter to me."
Member 2: "Yes, Candidate A clearly won this round.  He simply explained his plan better than Candidate B."
Member 3: "Well, I certainly like and respect Candidate B.  But I am worried about the future, thus, I will vote for Candidate A."
Member 4: "Candidate A.  He is clear minded and eloquent, whereas Candidate B is simply out of touch with reality."

And so it was.  Or will be.  Or whatever.

4 comments:

Delirious said...

You forgot to include the whole cultural aspect of passing on an illogic mentality. This includes "political correctness". ;)

Max Coutinho said...

Looney,

"Looking back at the trends, it was discovered that the human intellect had been atrophying as a result of technological progress."

I am told that this debate is already taking place as we speak. So hopefully something will be done to reach that projected chaos in 2025.

"For a modern, however, illogical choices were frequently rewarded more than logical ones, while more recently sperm banks actively sought out genetic material from the most illogical specimens."

lol not too far from the present truth.
Let me guess, the illogical side is science and evolutionists? Would you put the scientists who believe in God in the same category (i.e. illogical)?

LOL LOL you placed Hitler in the same category as Engels and Marx? Sweeeet. I have been meditating hard to be able to read a book, I recently acquired, from Karl Marx and Engels "The Manifesto of the Communist Party"...I know I must read it but just by looking at the red cover my stomach feels sick - I am kidding (except for the meditation before reading the book part).

ROFL ROFL ROFL message received, Looney. I will repeat it: your sense of humour is fabulous!

Laughing I leave...cheers

Looney said...

@Max, I will certainly need a lot more practice to do sci-fi writing!

"... the illogical side is science and evolutionists ..."

Since I work in R&D, I will note that the "scientist" is a 19th century mythological fantasy creature whose existence has never been documented. A bit like the Loch Ness Monster. (OK, I might have a problem now.)

As for intellectualoids who call themselves scientists, along with evolutionists, their parental breeding units are famously non-productive in terms of live births, thus, they really weren't a factor in the future gene pool. This isn't to say that they weren't a significant presence in the year 2054, however it wasn't due to the genetics, but rather the properties of a "meme" - as Dawkins calls it - to reproduce through non-biological means.

".. I recently acquired, from Karl Marx and Engels "The Manifesto of the Communist Party"..."

I ready this book more than 30 years ago. It was quite a rant as I recall. My skimming of Hitler's work (browsing at a bookstore in an earlier era) indicated that it was a rant as well. Sitting on my book shelf is Das Kapital, which whispers to me periodically regarding her neglect. Have fun with the book, and don't be intimidated by the red cover ... The Economist uses a red cover for their books also.

Max Coutinho said...

Looney,

"I will certainly need a lot more practice to do sci-fi writing!"

I'd say: you are doing a pretty good job so far.

"Since I work in R&D, I will note that the "scientist" is a 19th century mythological fantasy creature whose existence has never been documented. A bit like the Loch Ness Monster. (OK, I might have a problem now.)"

lol oh, you do know how to provoke...I like that.

"As for intellectualoids who call themselves scientists, along with evolutionists, their parental breeding units are famously non-productive in terms of live births, thus, they really weren't a factor in the future gene pool. This isn't to say that they weren't a significant presence in the year 2054, however it wasn't due to the genetics, but rather the properties of a "meme" - as Dawkins calls it - to reproduce through non-biological means."

How Matrixish of them. Will we be able to avoid this?

"Sitting on my book shelf is Das Kapital, which whispers to me periodically regarding her neglect."

LOL LOL how I understand your reluctance to read it *nodding*.
How many leftists, do you think, have actually read the work of Marx and Engels?

"Have fun with the book, and don't be intimidated by the red cover ... The Economist uses a red cover for their books also."

I will try (perhaps after I finish it, we will be able to discuss it a bit). LOL LOL I hear you.

Cheers