March 15th 2021
A Historical Turning Point
In the year 1453 AD, Memhed II, the great Sultan of the rising Ottoman empire, after many years of anticipation, was able to finally break through the walls of the legendary city of Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, otherwise known today as the Byzantine empire, and siege the city (Today it goes by the name of ‘Istanbul’). To do so, he utilized the hottest new military invention of the day, the innovation that had everyone buzzing about it: The cannon. The walls of Constantinople, being designed a millennium before, obviously not designed for cannon warfare, was no match. The city, and with it the empire, fell to the Ottomans. Because of its historical importance, it’s history dating back to the Roman empire, and the spark it helped set off, many historians and everyday people alike prefer to call 1453AD “the end of the middle ages”, and therefore, the start of something resembling modernity.
Of course this event, a bloody influential one at that, acts only as a signifier or microcosm for something much bigger than itself, when it is said to be the end of the middle ages, and the start of the modern age. The truth is, the transformation of the world into what we know it today was caused and has factors stretching far beyond what happened on that faithful in 1453 AD. Certainly the advent of the printing press, the “age of exploration”, the protestant reformation, the black death, the renaissance attitude and mindset towards art and science, humanism, the wealth and trade networks established after the crusades, the rise of semi-globalised commerce (most notably, the African slave trade), as well as many other changes, also played a role in this too. But indeed it was a transformation, and the siege and subsequent fall of the ancient city of Constantinople was a large part of it.
This time in history (approximately 1450AD - 1520AD) is extremely important to reflect upon today. I believe this not just because it is incredibly fascinating (which it is), but also because it can teach us something about the current age we live in, and where we are headed. Just as Memhed II conquering of the Byzantines is held today as an microcosmic event meant to symbolize larger shifts and transformations, I believe future historians (if there are any) will look at events transpiring in our era as a shift away from what could be called “modernity” or postmodernity” (or any other label meant to categorize the current period of time) and as a catapult for a new era.
The specific event I am thinking of, which may be compared to the events of 1453 AD, is the Coronavirus Pandemic that goes by the name of COVID-19, but really came on the world scene in 2020 AD. Similar to the transformation that happened during the era of Constantinople's demise, today’s transformation goes far beyond COVID-19. These events are only, as I said, catapults and symbols (although they are both quite influential themselves). Accompanying the coronavirus to propel this transformation are almost unthinkable developments in information technology, digital currency, AI, an energy system revolution, privatized space travel, events like 9/11, the rise (or rebirth) of powerful empires such as China, genetic modification, medical advancements, surveillance technology, a fully globalized world, and of course, the list could go on. It has been called many things; the computer age, the information age, an Orwellian dystopia, the age of machines, and so on. Perhaps we don’t need to call it by one name, just as the era of 1450AD - 1520 AD does not go by one name. Perhaps we just need to recognize the massive transformation ahead.
I proclaim that it is in fact a transformation, although I know there are certain reactionaries who will downplay what is happening and disagree. To them, I say that I don’t necessarily agree with everything transpiring; I don’t believe it is all for the good of humanity, but even so, we must still recognize the reality of the situation. As Bob Dylan sang, “The times they are a changin”. My hypothesis, although not difficult to see, is that the COVID-19 is accelerating these transformations and sending us into this new era faster than we could have ever anticipated previously. This new era, if I am correct about the desires of the ones who are leading it, will bring changes to the economic, political, technological and socialsystems that are present today. Look around (if you are reading this during the Pandemic, if not, read a history book). This last year has been marked by events much different than the norm. In other words, society is changing. 2020 was marked by social isolation, a reliance on communication technology, the skyrocketing value of cryptocurrency (Bitcoin in particular), the collapse of the oil market (although it recovered), the dominance of a few corporate conglomerates over the economy, large scale protests against the criminal justice system, a widespread distrust of government institutions (which came to a front in the US capital insurrection on January 6th 2021), an increase in drug addiction and overdoses, and all the technologies that came to prominence (Zoom, for example). If trends continue, the technological revolution will further digitize society and bring other, profound, changes.
There are all sorts of opinions on this. Politicians such as Andrew Coumo, backed (or, could be argued, controlled) by tech executives such as Eric Schmidt of Google, are gearing up for a full scale technological transformation of one of the world's largest cities and cultural hubs, New York, Naomi Klien explains. An especially telling excerpt reads:
"Just one day earlier, Cuomo had announced a similar partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to develop “a smarter education system.” Calling Gates a “visionary,” Cuomo said the pandemic has created “a moment in history when we can actually incorporate and advance [Gates’s]" ideas ... all these buildings, all these physical classrooms — why with all the technology you have?”
Why, with all the technology we supposedly have, would we not completely digitize our education
system? That is the sort of attitude pushing us into a new era, and it applies to much more than just education.
Then there are those who wish to change the economic system to fit this new technological era. Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World economic forum, proposes a system that he calls “Stakeholder Capitalism” in which Corporate leaders, although still operating in a capitalist free market, will be expected to care and work for all the stakeholders of the business. In other words, in the case of the massive conglomerates that are currently dominating the global economy, everybody. Everybody is a stakeholder of ExxonMobile. Under stakeholder capitalism, corporate leaders, somehow, acting sort of as the leaders of the free world, will need to care for and govern the rest of us. Alongside this will come other economic changes such as automation of basically everything, and a system that will leave a few people controlling world affairs, As the WEF puts it, “you will own nothing, and you will be happy”. Assuming, in this system, that everyone won't immediately starve to death, there will need to be some sort of UBI, or Neo-feudalistic (techno-feudalism, as coined by Yanis Varoufakis) structure where wealth and resources can be transferred back and forth between social classes. Either way, these are the sort of economic changes we could witness in the new era.
There is, on the other side, mass opposition to all of this. Since the transformation is so large in scale, covering countless disciplines and areas, opposition comes from more than one place. The same was truein the era leading out of the middle ages. The Catholic Church,a power house in the western world at the time, had many opponents, ranging from the protestant reformers, wealthy merchants, kings like Henry VIII, and religious radicals who wished to completely reform society (such as the Anabaptists). Today, opposition to the technological power base comes similarly
from political radicals, but also from average people, who have great disdain for the so called “elites” (this is obvious if you spend any time on the internet researching this stuff). Opposition also comes from who Karl Marx called the “petite bourgeoisie”, people, groups, and families that operate businesses and organizations in their small locality, who only know and sell in their community, and who are now facing the dominant powers of corporate empires such as Amazon or Walmart. These people likely voted for Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, and in other countries, some form of Populous right or left party. You see, there is a well documented populous uprising that is happening around the world right now, and to a certain extent, I think it is a reaction against this transformation. People, just as some were 500 years ago, are scared and anxious about where they fit in the new emerging paradigm. They are scared that they and
their kids and loved ones will be left behind in the old world as a few technological elites benefit
immensely. And who can blame them for this feeling? Just observe who has benefited from the pandemic (like previously stated, a catapult event that has rapidly increased the pace of change); a massive transfer of wealth has gone from the bottom and middle, to the top.
Opposition also comes from academics, journalists and activists like Naomi Klien, although probably in a different form then those who voted for Donald Trump. Going to the farther expreme, there is intense opposition from groups who either claim to be, or act like “neo-luddites”, a term in reference to the workers and artisans who were prominent at the start of the industrial revolution because of their hatred for the new technology and their tendency to destroy it. This sort of opposition is much deeper than the others, as these are people who wish to destroy the technology that they claim is destroying humanity. In Mexico, this conflict of ideology has resulted in violence. One such group, who admitted to sending a bomb to a prominent University Professor in Mexico, had this to say in the same message:
"We bitterly oppose the progress of the technological or industrial system, its cultural values and its slave society, since progress is the enormous bunch of attacks against wild nature. It is for progress that rivers, seas and oceans are contaminated, that forests and jungles are deforested, that the species are exterminated from the various environments where they exist on this earth, that other worlds inside and outside of the Milky Way are examined in order to corrupt them like this one, the physique, character and mentality of the human being is manipulated and dominated now by machines, our deepest and darkest natural instincts are domesticated with their propaganda on television, radio, internet, newspapers, schools, jobs and universities. Progress kills, sickens and makes everything artificial and mechanical. Narro is only one of its most efficient spokespersons, so he was the target".
In my view, this attitude, present in many groups and people today, is the antithesis to the ideological position espoused by those at the forefront of the technological and cultural transformation.
Thesis - Humans are constantly evolving and progressing, and information, digital, AI, medical, military, and engineering technology is the next logical step forward in that “progress”.
Antithesis - Throughout human evolution humans have been, and needed to be, connected to nature and each other. This new era of technology separates us from, and therefore removes, this connection.
The synthesis, if we are to use the Hegelian Dialectic, is hard to predict at this time. Remember, we are at only the beginning of this new potential era (potential because at any time humanity could go extinct after a nuclear or climate apocalypse). Likely, the opposition, or antithesis, will lose, and the thesis will become the synthesis, unless there is some kind of compromise. I say this because of the sheer power of the technology in question. Of this technology, I am particularly talking, and worried, about the military and digital expects. Military, for its outright ability to destroy the opposition whenever it sees fit, and digital, for the control it is able to impose over the human brain. In a fight pitting the controllers of this technology versus it’s opposition, I'm afraid the latter would have little chance.
If we are to agree that a complex, multi dimensional, transformation of the world into a new era is indeed happening, then one completely logical and understandable question to ask is “What is my purpose in this new world?”. I ask myself this all the time, and I still have yet to come up with a coherent answer, partly because I don’t yet fully understand what is actually happening. Intuitively, I have an adverse reaction to the thought of robot friends and doctors, fully digitized currency, private space hotels, designer babies, and a ruling class that is completely unaccountable to the masses. After adding greater nuance, I can at least see some potential benefits, like innovations in medical technology, or energy powered in an environmentally friendly way. But even so, I still don’t know where I fit in. I am someone who enjoys reading regular books on paper, attending in person lectures, and having close intimate contact with other humans. I appreciate the homo-sapien genome for what it is, and I appreciate an economic system that is decentralized and under community control. Where will I be if all of this is no more? Some people tell me
I should learn and master how to use a computer; those are where all the jobs will be, I am told. Adapt or die, is another popular way of saying it. “Join the herd, and bow down to your technological overlords” would be a cynical way of putting it. But, as someone who is an idealist, I don’t want to have to adapt to a world that I detest; instead I would rather shape the world the way that will work best for the broad masses of people. I would hope others feel the same?
One interesting thing to observe through all of this is the role of the nation state. It seems that, due to the rising distrust in government and the increasing power of other institutions like corporations and NGOs, we may see new forms of societal organization in this future era. If there is a revolution or civil war in, lets say, America, what will come out of it? In this scenario, the duopoly in American politics could collapse, and new sources of power and control could emerge. I think what is likely, and what those like Kluas Schwab are probably pushing for, is for those corporations and NGO’s to take control; those sources of power that right now, are working on the technology that will push us into the new era. The ideology these people hold rejects the authority of the nation state, rejects democracy, and rejects popular accountability. Power, according to this world view, should be held by those that own the technology that is increasingly prevalent in our everyday lives. The nature of Power, according to this world view, should be transformed alongside the transformation of technology.
Returning to the original thesis of this essay, the Coronavirus, in all its micro-biological wisdom, is doing a very effective job at speeding up and accelerating the transformation ahead. This is potentially why there are so many conspiracy theories surrounding it and its vaccine counterpart. It has had such an impact on general culture that people don’t know if things will ever be the same, and the conspiracy is, powerful forces are conspiring together to say, it won’t. One comparison that could be made of the transformation from the middle ages to the modern world is the “Jesuit Conspiracy” that took hold in protestant countries. In a time of turbulence and change, the Jesuits were (and are) a powerful organization that seemed to have influence everywhere. Protestants did not (and don’t) like this very much, just as there are those today that don’t like the power of certain tech companies and global organizations. I believe this is a natural progression in a changing world, especially when that change benefits some more than others. When millions of people clearly witness corporate leaders like Bill Gates objectively benefit from the fallout of the pandemic, it can be frustrating, and lead to suspicion. What is not a conspiracy, is the desire certain forces have (similar to 1450AD - 1520AD) of leading this transformation kick started by the coronavirus. “The great reset”, far from a conspiracy, is a slogan meant to draw support for what the new era will bring.
I, for one, will continue to resist any change that does not align with my value system. I would encourage others to do the same. In a time of change that has the potential to be catastrophic, this is necessary. If the attitude I profess here had prevailed in and around the time of the fall of Constantinople, the world would certainly be much different. For better or for worse, I can’t quite tell.