Empire Ants: The Coming End of the Liberal vs. Conservative Debate

"Oh, joys arise, the sun has come again to hold you
Sailing out the doldrums of the week
The polyphonic prayer is here, it's all around you
It's all around you out here
And if the whole world is crashing down
Fall through space, out of mind with me
Where the emptiness we leave behind on warm air rising
Those are the shadows far away."
~Gorillaz, from "Empire Ants"

Where political polarization in American society and political gridlock in Washington may make any sort of resolution to the ongoing liberal versus conservative debate appear impossible, I argue that continuing developments in human technology, evolving geopolitical realities, and changing socio-cultural attitudes will eventually bring the liberal vs. conservative debate to a close in the not-so-distant future. It is important to keep this in mind as we weigh social and economic policy determinations in the contemporary time period; given the emergence of the Information Age, our modern politik is fleeting.

Historical periods often have their own respective political and philosophical debates. During the medieval period, philosophers fiercely debate on whether universals exist in reality. The question of universals asked, "Does the ideal man, ideal cat, or ideal chair exist in physical reality or only in the mind?" Where nominalists and realists fervently argued for their viewpoints in philosophy, after the Middle Ages mercantilists and physiocrats were at odds with each other regarding economic theories. What is important to note with respect to these historical debates is that as humanity evolves, the debate shifts and appears to progress with additional perspectives and dimensions. Just as we no longer read about realists and nominalists constantly debating whether universals exist, there will come a day when the liberal-conservative debate becomes irrelevant.

That being the case, from my perspective, I see the historical liberal vs. conservative debate as being the fruit of humanity's emerging from the monarchical/aristocratic feudalistic culture of the medieval period. The phrases "left-wing" and "right-wing" have their roots in the respective positioning of politicians in European legislatures. Those who favored tradition sat to the right of the king; those who wanted change sat to his left. In terms of philosophical views related to liberty and economics, the seeds of the contemporary liberal-conservative interplay were sown during the Enlightenment.

Where humanity has developed quite rapidly during the Information Age, from a macro-historical viewpoint, it would appear that our current time period is a segue between the 500-year period following the Middle Ages and whatever is to come. Given the volatile state of international politics and the prospects of global war, it can be difficult trying to determine the future of human development. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that technological development will continue in one form or another -- including advancements in medicine to extend human life. Such advancements portend the emergence of a posthuman age on Earth within the next few centuries.

Where the liberal vs. conservative debate began at the twilight of the Middle Ages in the Lockean spirit of affirming man's free will & property rights while rejecting mystical explanations for the nature of the universe, I believe the liberal vs. conservative debate will come to a close in the near future as privacy wanes and as humanity comes to terms with some variation of determinism. While efforts may be taken to expand human intelligence biologically through medical procedures, I believe that the advancement of humans to a posthuman state in conjunction with increased longevity of life portends that our political debates of today will come to a close.

As humanity divides into "normal" human and "posthuman" classes, political differences are going to take on a much more metaphysical air that will probably warp our contemporary conceptions of freedom, intelligence, good & evil, and power. Could you imagine having a debate on religion, philosophy, or law with someone who is 120 years but appears to only be 50 years old? Could you imagine appearing before a highly intelligent, biologically-advanced judge who is 120 years old while you are only 20 years old? How much more could an individual accomplish were he or she permitted to live another 30 to 40 years? With an increasing population as humanity attempts to rein in on misbehavior and dysfunctionality merely for the sake of planetary preservation, technological development, medical advancements, and human creativity will probably coalesce to lead our species out of the current time period to a posthuman age.

As we get closer to the dawn of that posthuman age, the more the contemporary liberal vs. conservative debate will probably wane to the point of silence...not owing to apathy, but rather, owing to a lack of mutual common identity. Issues that appear pertinent today including economic policy, abortion, capital punishment, illegal immigration, and drug legalization will probably become irrelevant as human knowledge expands and human behavior evolves. Just as we look upon social issues like witchcraft, adultery, absinthe, and alchemy differently today than our ancestors in the past, it is reasonably foreseeable that in the advent of posthumanism, many of our most hotly-contested political issues will appear irrelevant.

A useful analogy in this respect is that of kindergarteners and college students: Posthumans and humans may not be able to engage in a common political dialogue just as how kindergarteners and college students cannot engage in a common political dialogue.

Where medical advancements and technological development are to be commended for the viability of humanity, there is another side to posthumanism: social stratification. As the wealthy are more able to gain access to cutting edge medical technology, the species may find itself in a stratified position as the upper class is able to progress in the spirit of transhumanism while the rest of humanity remains at the bottom. This stratification could ultimately result in the human species being divided into two sub-species.

In such a case, it is likely that socio-economic and political issues between the two sub-species will be quite different. Between regular humans and posthumans divided by class, the political questions at stake and possible solutions will be radically different. Given enough time over the course of history, the two sub-species of humans may become incohesive to the point that they are incapable of having an intelligible conversation or incapable of relating to each other in terms of a common intellectual identity. Normal humans who have not made it to the point of posthumanism may be left being seen as ants compared to posthumans. In the prism of posthumanism, if the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer, respective political debates between the two sides may become unintelligible from the other side's perspective leaving mutual political dialogue nearly impossible. Ergo, the end of the liberal vs. conservative debate.

Such social divisions could give rise to world conflicts. Even so, human development (whether that be technological, educational, or medical) through history goes on despite fears & realities of stratification and division. One could contend that posthumans and humans could exist side-by-side with no violation of individuals' rights just as the various economic classes are able to co-exist in a unified society. However, the differentiation between posthumans and regular humans may reveal pertinent political issues related to the human experience that posthumans may be able to see while regular humans cannot. Such a lack of political incohesion within a given territory runs deeper than mere economic class.

I believe that there is a good chance that if mankind evolves to the point of posthumanism in the near future, the contemporary phenomenon of "political ideology" will be shed like a young child's security blanket. As questions of the ongoing survival of the planet become apparent, political issues of freedom, security, and welfare will have to be viewed from a long-term global perspective. Posthumans may not want their ongoing welfare to be disturbed by the dysfunctional, violent behavior and warfare of less intelligent "normal" humans. While environmental damage and nuclear warfare may disturb posthumans' long-term goals, posthumans may have to find ways of effectively controlling less intelligent "normal" humans and ensuring long-term survival of the human species. In short, the modern-day phenomenon of ideology may one day be replaced by a sense of posthuman "extropian positivism" whereby the survival of humanity is the principal remaining "political issue" from a previous age. In a way, this would effectively mean that today's division of liberal and conservative would converge into a common philosophy of humanism.

You may never hear this in an American political debate, but deep down, I think the contemporary liberal-conservative dichotomy is a way for humanity in this time period to seek out a humanistic balance for the human experience. This interplay of liberal and conservative works to achieve a sense of balance towards societal humanism, i.e. both sides claim to be representing a society's best interests and are more or less working in their own way to better humanity's situation. On the other hand, authoritarianism, whether from the right (fascism) or left (communism), takes a more cynical view in that democracy is inefficient, but authoritarianism has proven itself to historically be a bit counterproductive and awkward in controlling humanity and the markets. On the other side of the political spectrum, the prospect of libertarianism may be left appearing impractical and dangerous given the substantial risks of harmful behavior in a given community.

The crux of the posthuman scenario is the conatus of a being's drive to perpetuate itself. With hope, posthumans will realize that in order to ensure survival, it will be necessary to bring threats of global extinction under control. In this way, if it is true as Stephen Hawking says that "our future is in space" and posthumans see this apparent reality necessary for the long-term survival of humanity going forward, then I believe with the emergence of posthumans, extropian positivism will gradually replace contemporary political ideologies thereby rendering the liberal-conservative interplay moot in the near future. The closer we get to posthumanism, the closer we get to the end of the liberal-conservative debate.

As we approach the 2012 elections, it helps to look at the big picture. Of course, this discussion hinges on the question of what the human journey is all about, but that is a topic for another day.