Tag Archives: gunther anders inverted utopia

Promethean Shame

Now comes Nicholas Carr, with a few salient paragraphs from his New Cartographies substack, always worth close consideration:

We find ourselves today, Anders wrote in The Obsolescence of the Human, surrounded by products that don’t appear to us as having been produced by us. We have handed off so much of their design and production to industrial technologies that we can no longer take a shared pride in their invention and manufacture. Indeed, they have come to project an otherness that seems not just separate from us but superior to us. They mock us as outdated masses of meat and bone. Today’s products, Anders observed,

are simply “there.” We encounter them primarily as necessary, desirable, superfluous, affordable, or unaffordable consumer goods that become “mine” only after I have bought them. As such, they are much more likely to be proof of one’s own insufficiency than evidence of one’s power.

This sense of insufficiency transformed “Promethean pride” into “Promethean shame”—the shame contemporary man feels at having been born instead of made, of being a product of natural processes rather than technological ones. “He despises himself,” wrote Anders, “in the same way that things would despise him if they could.” The shame, he went on, becomes particularly sharp when a person first sees a so-called thinking machine:

As for the man who is for the first time confronted with a working computing machine, self-aggrandizement and pride are even more alien to him. An observer who erupts with the exclamation, “My goodness, aren’t we great guys, to be capable of this!” when encountering such a machine is a clown, a figment of the imagination. Quite the contrary! He rather murmurs with a shake of his head, “My god, it’s incredible what it—the machine—can do!” At the same time, he feels highly ill at ease in his creaturely skin, for the machine half gives him the creeps and half puts him to shame.

Though it was written seventy-five years ago, that last sentence strikes me as one of the more perceptive descriptions of man’s confrontation with generative AI: “he feels highly ill at ease in his creaturely skin, for the machine half gives him the creeps and half puts him to shame.”

______________________

 

So where does Promethean Shame end? As Anders writes elsewhere: in a world without us!

 

˜˜˜˜˜


Inverted Utopians

fukileak

PHILOSOPHICAL LEAK

Günther Anders’ “philosophy of discrepancy” centers around his lucid insight that our Promethean ability to create weapons, tools and productive networks far exceeds our capacity to absorb their implications into thought. As he writes in The Atomic Menace:

anders1

How do “inverted Utopians” behave? Unimaginably — with an instinctive drive towards disappearance. From his essay The Term:

anders2

In Visit to Hades, an analysis of the extermination camps as a form of productive labor, Anders notes historically overlapping modes of obliteration. One way or another, the future belongs to mass murder.

anders3

UNIMAGINABLE LABOR

UNTHINKABLE DISAPPEARANCE FABRIK

Since the age of the Inverted Utopian is far from over, Anders’ philosophy of discrepancy remains strikingly relevant. We continue to devise tools, techniques and networked systems, with ethical and ecological implications that we are unable to fathom, whether in neurobiology, financial algorithms or energy extraction.

Anders would likely be surprised that the species is still around in the year 2013. And surely he could not have imagined that there would eventually exist such an occult ecstasy within the lethal discrepancy, namely among those infatuated with the coming (yearned for) “singularity” between human bodies and artificial intelligence.

In fulfillment of the inverted utopian maxim, a world without us will be such a crowning achievement for the species; let’s be sure not to leave any loose ends.

rothko

ENDPUNKT