ENGL 5380–The Exterminist Future Is Yet Another Fine Line in Frase’s Four Futures
In this week's readings of the second half of Peter Frase's Four Futures, we see the possibilities of two types of economic futures: one in which socialism equally distributes a world of dwindling resources, and one in which the lack of resources are distributed to the top in a future called 'exterminism'. Peter Frase cautions his readers that, while these futures are not necessarily accurate in their predictions, "we should be particularly concerned with the road leading toward these utopias and dystopias, rather than the precise nature of the final destination" (145). Within these two futures are relevant discussions of what happens when the abundance that Western society enjoys is cut short, and which responds to a lack of limitless energy and an ever-increasing population. Exploring the implications of socialism versus a capitalism that is taken to the limits of wealth concentration is useful for fleshing out the present situation. As human beings, we either address the problems that climate change and automation present us together, or we allow the bourgeoisie to decide our fate.
One issue that is a pressing matter is the present state of capitalist affairs, which seems to be zooming forward towards solutions that favor the future of exterminism. Frase uses the film Elysium to illustrate that what happens when you have a combination of hierarchy and scarcity "is that it makes the great mass of people superfluous from the standpoint of the ruling elite" (123). This results in a dystopia where the bourgeoisie are protected from the riff-raff underneath (usually it is a height relationship like Ballard's High Rise and Elysium's Space/Earth dichotomy), and where security is enforced and funded by the state to protect the rich from the poor. In our current situation, we are walking a fine line between all of these futures; however, this future seems worse when we view the increasing wealth inequality, the dwindling of precious resources as a result of climate change, and the advances in technology that almost "require" people to have a smartphone. Social mobility is a part of this discussion of exterminism, and it factors into Frase's critique because it is the method by which capitalism advances into popular use and into the modern advancement of technology.
In the future Frase describes, technology could be used to further exclude the poor through the consistent increases in wealth inequality, combined with the security measures surrounding the monitoring and use of this technology. For one example, Amazon's new launch of Amazon Go eliminates the need for a staff that double-checks consumers' carts. The setup features a QR code scanner that is hooked up to a turnstile (similar to one you would see on a metro). Once you scan the code linked to your Amazon Go app, the turnstile allows entry, while hundreds of cameras running algorithms monitor your activity. While this heavy monitoring may seem sinister, it runs with near-field communications technologies to "know" what you take off the shelves, automatically adding it to your account and charging you upon exit (so no need for a cashier). This type of technology, according to Bryan Turner, exacerbates the problems with the fact that we live in an 'enclave society,'" that we "inhabit an order in which 'goverments and other agencies seek to regulate spaces and, where necessary, to immobilize flows of people, goods and services' by means of 'enclosure" (Frase 128). This type of security seems natural to those benefitting from the convenience of automation that this technology provides. In fact, technology like this could reduce costs due to the store's lowered overhead costs (staffing, security, shrinkage of inventory, etc.,); however, if the beneficiaries are limited to the bourgeoisie, we are within the 'enclave society' in which no one can cheat the system.
On the other side of this discussion, Frase thinks about the idea of living in a world where the bourgeoisie is levelled-out through necessity. The socialist future of limited resources looks at the idea that we would live in "an egalitarian society that must work together to rebuild its relationship to nature" (Frase 92). It seems that we are also walking a fine line between this future (although not close enough) with open source projects; however, we are not quite there because many of these open source projects require funding or incentive of some sort besides simple credit for intellectual property (as in last week's discussion). We are currently living in the society where wealthy corporations are taking creative people's work and claiming it as their own intellectual property. What we need to avoid the above technological catastrophe is an open source for both science and technology, combined with a type of hierarchy that Frase mentions in Chapter 1. The hierarchy that could be created within a socialist world like this could be one of STEM prestige. Frase claims that, in a world that is ecologically doomed, "[t]he real question is not whether human civilization can survive ecological crises, but whether all of us can survive it together, in some reasonably egalitarian way" (97). It is interesting to see what kinds of socialist business models could arise (if they would look like the "Ecological Reconstruction Corps"), or what technologies would arise out of the sheer numbers of people thinking collectively.
Note: The video on Open Source Projects on GitHub is just a small insight from the former CEO of GitHub, Chris Wanstrath. In this video, he has his doubts about the potentials for open source projects and stumbles a bit through the possibilities versus the reality. It is interesting stuff.
Frase, Peter. Four Futures: Life After Capitalism. Verso Publishing, Brooklyn, NY. 2016. Print.
Amazon Go Promotional Video:
https://youtu.be/NrmMk1Myrxc
Open Source Projects on GitHub (CEO Chris Wanstrath):
https://youtu.be/e5YLqC_Ab_4