.
That Erickson versus Gillis fiasco certainly has generated a lot of talk, none more heated than from artists, and understandably so. I’ve read much of what was said, including many impassioned pleas that point towards what is a false logic: economical impacts or footprints.

Don’t get me wrong, I was livid upon seeing that video, but I do think that artists have to modify their point of view and attack this from a different angle. Getting right down to pure math, any attempts to rationalize artistic and cultural grants with economics is suicide; it’s a no win situation no matter how one phrases his arguments, the numbers speak. And that's why right-wing conservative asses want to see cuts in the arts and cultural programs. 

The view that an $8 billion investment in the arts and cultural programs was able to generate $85 billion is looking at this all wrong, and using this as an argument for the arts is, in a way, a form of self-delusion, as this calculation converts expenditures to revenues, adding what is in reality costs as returns on returns, while also not taking into account any opportunity-costs and missed ROI’s. The Conference Board numbers and calculations are highly debated by impartial economists precisely for the abated reality they present if improperly viewed. Economic Impact is merely the sum of all the revenues that were generated by a given activity; this calculation DOES NOT consider the source of any of the funds, and for such aspects as indirect and induced spending, these revenue flows would still exist without many subsidized activities—for example, people still have to eat and drink—the main difference being that these initial funds wouldn’t originate out of tax dollars for which taxes are being re-charged on tax dollars; this is highly circular spending, not wholly generative. Higher revenues would actually be generated (rather than re-distributed) out of private funds (one of the arguments for privatising the arts, so careful, those same numbers are actually playing against the very argument that's being used), especially since the initial seed isn’t an expenditure (yet the impassioned pleas I've read are falsely choosing to see these as actual revenues). Further, an artist without funding would otherwise be employed within the private sector and thus contributing much more to the pure dollar economic wealth of a nation than by trickling down public funds.

Sure, a subsidized troupe that pays rent to occupy a subsidized theatre with subsidized utility bills is generating revenue, but those are all in fact costs, made more evident when contrasted with what the same space generates if that theatre is torn down and high-priced, heavily taxed condos are built in its stead...

Furthermore, that $85 billion also includes whatever x-dollar amount is spent on, let's say, things like beers at events. Besides the fact that there is no real way of dealing with precise or actual numbers, just speculations and projections, well, reality is, people spend more money on beers and food and paraphernalia at major sporting events than at most cultural events, so by that logic alone, if we were to break down the many areas that comprise that economic impact figure, we're actually looking at a reduced return and loss by holding these types of artistic or cultural events rather than sporting ones... or most privately funded popular event for that matter.   

My point: if artists start dragging in numbers and want to use intangible economic arguments to justify funding, then they also have to accept that that’s precisely what the government is doing—but by using very tangible indices, ratios and calculations—and none more so than the Tories. This is in fact the attitude that justifies all the cuts in the arts and cultural funds, and in a dead-on fight, the really real reality is that it’s a losing battle for all artists... and society, too.  

Both sides have to be honest, however. Wealthy conservatives may call the arts a “waste” because they do not in fact generate as much as private sector areas, but truth is, the arts as a whole are not a deficit-creating activity. However small, there is a positive dollar return on those federal, provincial, and local investments.

Nonetheless, despite the impression you may have gotten up to this point, I firmly believe that we should protect funding for the arts and culture—even increase the pool—but I also believe that we need to be honest about the reasons why. We need to focus on the “wealth”, not the revenues. The proper outlook has nothing to do with price and dollars, but with genuine value, that intangible quality which cannot be measured directly, though it has clear, highly visible positive impacts. A society that fosters a rich and vibrant, creative and innovative culture benefits at all levels, and this, equally in the scientific and technological sectors. If anything, it is these long-term impacts that are primordial, not the immediate economic ones, as this actually warrants seeing this type of funding as a “waste”, a viewpoint that turns everything into dollar amounts and motivates a life I wouldn’t want to live, one where modes of production and material goods hold more value than any real celebration of humankind.

Balance is not only possible, it's also necessary.  

Sun News is in full swing, fully confirming what many Canadians feared, proving itself to be a right-wing propaganda machine to push forward the interests of big business and the military.  

Dubbed “Fox News North” by critics, the highly debated news network—despite strong opposition—was officially launched on April 18, 2011. Sun Media Inc., now a division of the goliath, Quebecor Inc., is the right-wing anglophone media giant that also runs several mostly yellow journalism/tabloid-style newspapers and magazines across Canada. Unfortunately, due to their aim-to-please-to-the-lowest-common-denominator slant, they’ve established themselves as a high-volume, wide and far-reaching entity. Matters have gotten worse now that they’re fully backed by the insidious Quebecor mentality and machine.  

Even  more upsetting are the ties that exist between this news medium and the Harper government.  A primary force behind this network’s agenda is Kory Teneycke, the former communications director for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And let’s not forget the Harper government’s involvement with the recent attempt to alter CRTC truth standards for reporters; it’s no coincidence that this came about a few months before the launch of Sun News. Like Fox News, Harper and his business-minded cronies seem to believe that the media has only one real role, and that that role has nothing to do with reporting verified facts—it’s all about selling a point of view and product placement while truth is for annoying bleeding-hearts.

Click on the link and have a look at the video and you’ll see what I mean:

I find Krista Erickson’s views sickening. The attitude that’s being promoted towards the arts fits entirely with Harper’s own attitudes (I have a hard time calling him Prime Minister as I do not consider that he represents me or my real interests as a Canadian in any way whatsoever), paralleling his government’s deep cuts in arts funding and public programs, moving us further away from all that made me a proud Canadian, taking us closer towards the elitist mindset that’s been immorally plundering the American public since Reagan.

What’s next? Our healthcare?    

Margie Gillis, the only high-profile professional artist who was willing to appear on the program, deserves our applause for allowing herself to be subjected to such abuse in order to (gracefully) defend what I honestly believe should be the attitude of all Canadians as I have a real hard time believing that we would actually support Erickson’s belief: “Why should tax-payers be in the business of subsidizing something that’s not profitable?”

Is our culture and the arts really dependent on profit-value? The long-term ramifications of such an opinion are nauseating. Are we really, as Canadians, willing to let Lolz Cats and Canadian Idol be the only vehicles of our culture?

Are we to believe that Canadians are only interested in subsidizing corporations and certain entities that generate massive profits for a few? Instead of paying insanely large bonuses to the heads of crown corporations like Hydro-Quebec, I’m certain nearly all Canadians would prefer seeing that money being invested in the arts.

      

Going back to that video: it terrifies me that someone who is able to reach and sway so many considers concepts like plasticity and hunter-gatherer mindset as "high falutin"; I learned about those things in high school! Though I’m certain that, in the context of fake boobs and noses, Krista Erickson has much to teach us about plasticity. I’m equally convinced that she can teach us all new ways of looking at terms like “profit margin”.   

And didn’t anyone teach her that Quebec is in Canada, not France? Couldn’t anyone teach her how to properly pronounce “province”? Provence is on the other side of the Atlantic, lady. It's slight, but it's a question of professionalism and respect, although I shouldn't be surprised given the people and attitudes she represents, not to mention that the results of the last election certainly place us outside of Harper’s good graces, but she should nonetheless remember that her ultimate boss is Pierre Karl Péladeau, whose entire empire was built on Quebecois kitsch.      

Even more shocking is the closing comment made by Erickson who, no doubt, is promoting Harper’s point of view when she states that world peace would also be great, but tax payers shouldn’t have to pay for that too.  

Then why on earth should tax payers pay for those shiny new F-35 fighter jets? Can you please explain that, Erickson?

I didn’t think so. 

Essentially, the main focus of this post is the question: can posthuman goals truly enable us to surpass our natural limitations, or will they simply prevent us from achieving greater wonders than any posthuman we, as humans, can possibly cook up? The best way to see that there are no clear answers is by looking at Autism. 

And, some of you may be wondering why all this talk of transhumans instead of simply getting down to that definition of “technology” that I promised in the first instalment of this series. Two real reasons: I don’t like doing things the normal way, and no other subject helps put things—especially technology—in perspective like Transhumanism and Artificial Intelligence. 

Here it’s important to note that my goal throughout this series is merely to outline the key Futurist concepts and arguments; the slew of irresolvable questions (as seen in the previous posts), as well as the complexity of the sciences involved and their possible, yet-to-be-discerned applications and implications offer multitude views and interpretations and, consequently, not only is there strong opposition to Transhumanistic ideals, but not all transhumanists agree on what steps we should take to become posthumans. The views multiply further when those of other Futurist branches like Neo-Futurists are thrown into the mix.  How human.      

However, it can be said that all posthumanists believe themselves to be optimistic, progressive, forward-thinking visionaries, and although that’s true if the sole criterion is one’s attachment to the current state of the human race minus its shortcomings—all this being highly subjective—then I have to question just how accurate that label is, and not obtuse, limited, linear-thinking from self-important, socially maladjusted pessimists and whiners?  No offense to Transhumanists intended; I’m just calling ‘em as I see them, and that is one side of the possibility coin.

There’s an aspect of the Transhumanist (TH) mindset that presents a condescending and bleak judgement on humankind which may in fact prove to be highly limiting and recursive rather than progressive.  This is especially true in regards to any giddy impatience for the Singularity, that moment when the first machine self-actualizes—what qualifies / characterizes that moment is the subject of passionate debate, more on this in a later post.  Nonetheless, people who genuinely anticipate the Singularity have yet to provide a human-flattering reason as to why they should want to put their own species at risk of extinction.  And any argument to the contrary is, ironically, faith-based. No-one can realistically predict with any precision how, if at all possible, a higher-thinking “race” will act towards us. If we’re the model, this can’t bode well.

So, back to Autism.

Now, I ask you, which is a more progressive way of thinking?

Autism:
1. It’s a disorder! Modern techniques will allow us to eradicate it.

2. God did it.

3. Wow! Could we be watching evolution and a speciation event at work?

4. Autism. Is that some kind of sick pervert who enjoys making love to cars?

 

In the interest of individual freedom, all answers are valid, but in case you’re wondering, the right answer is 3.

1 arises out of that restrictive, all-too-human kill-and-dominate attitude we know full well.

2 doesn’t preclude 3 nor, in a way, 1, although it may very well explain why someone would say 4. But then, if one believes 2 to be true, why even read this or ask any questions when all you need is the answer?  

Although it would be unreasonable to claim with any degree of certainty whatsoever that we are looking at 3, evolution, the undeniable plausibility of such a proposal may not push people away from 2, but it should at least force a re-assessment of 1, however brief. This is key. 

Autism presents a particularly interesting case due to its neurodevelopmental symptoms, genetic underlying causes, and frequency of cases.  Many aspects of Autism are still unknown, but nearly all specialists agree that Autistics do not perceive and understand the world the same way as non-Autistics; this is the important point I want to drive. True, this can also be said in regards to other disorders, but again, Autism presents a special case. I'm hoping this will suffice in the context of what should be a short blog post and not a scientific paper. For further details, there's tons of information already available on the Web. If readers want me to defend this view, leave a comment and I'll be happy to delve further into this subject in a later post. 

So, taking into account that Autistics perceive and interpret the world differently, rather than shift our focus away from us, we try to bend their reality to ours through various forms of treatments that will hopefully enable them to adapt to our standards of normalcy, but what if the real problems lies in our inability to understand them, not through investigation, but at a purely linguistic level and our stubborn belief that ours is a better world to which they should adapt? Could Autism be nature’s way of reshaping and rewiring our brains so our species is eventually better equipped to adapt and efficiently deal with the information explosion we’ve snowballed towards for the past 200,000 years?
Aren't we all, in a way, willfully imposing on ourselves, and thus gaining, Autistic-like qualities through our obsession with technological interfaces that shift and change human interaction as well as our ways of perceiving the world?
Is ADHD another example, the result of our fast-paced lifestyles, gadgets, video games, and media outlets of all sorts that bombard our kids before they are fully conscious, all of which do not reward or help in the development of concentration and attentiveness and which, rather than adapt our teaching practices and the likes to the growing number of cases, we'd rather kill off with Ritalin and other drugs?

Palaeontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould has clearly indicated that, throughout all of our known history, there have always been long periods of stability before speciation events.  Are we at the beginning of such an event?

Or is Autism an undesirable result of TV waves and Monsanto products? And even then, isn’t this form of mutation (using the term loosely) equally important to evolution?  If Monsanto ever rules the world—what is a frightening possibility given the current regulatory trends—would Autistics be better suited to survive than transhumanists?

Autism may be unwelcomed, representing failings rather than nature’s glories, but this view is both limited and driven by raciocentric thinking and survival instincts.  

If our current mental prowess imposes limits on our current modes of conceptualisation, can we possibly conceive a future version of humans that is entirely free of all our trappings and current confines? Is this form of re-modeling actually a way of forever restricting us to our understanding of what is human nature and is therefore far less progressive than it purports, as this may push us further away from new, miraculous wonders? Will a new, guided-yet-uncontrollable tranhumanist stage lead to a compounded result of typical human blunders and short-sightedness, taking us down an irreversibly detrimental route and our eventual doom?  No-one, not even any computer model, can answer this at the moment.       

So what is it that Transhumanists are hoping to circumvent with technology? How do we differentiate between ‘undesirable’, ‘adaptive’, and ‘speciation events’ without basing any of our assumptions on concept-limited, ideal-human biases which are in themselves wholly restricted by our own current mental and physical capabilities?

Given our inability to fully envision the long term consequences of our actions (we’ve got a hard time getting near-term projections right), how can some Transhumanists be so arrogant as to claim that transcending human limitations through transhumanist means is the only meaningful and logical direction for the human race?

This smells a lot like religion to me.