![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Charlie Stross tends to be more pessimistic about the future than I do, but when he says "For most of the duration of the human species, change has not been an overriding influence on our lives" I have to agree with him. For much of human history, the rate of change of technology has been slow, and as a consequence, so has the rate of social change.
Technology drives social change! I've talked before about the 1900 House - a group of modern people put in a house with all (and only) the comforts of houses of 1900. Simply put, in 1900, the social model of "women stay at home" made sense (at least economically), because running a household was an 80-hour-a-week job. Somebody had to do it. What enabled "women's lib" was things like the washing machine. Similarly, what enabled the 40-hour work week we all know and love was technology. Back in Ye Olde Dayes, most people worked from can to can't because that was the only way to get enough stuff produced to support themselves. There are a slew of other social changes, but I think you get my point.
Stross's concern is that the current idea of democratic (note small "d") government, consisting of "one person, one vote" is endangered by a technological slowdown. This is really a revolutionary idea - for most of human history, leaders were born, not elected. His idea is that technological change forces upheavals among the elite, and these upheavals support democracy. See, for example, the ongoing impact of the Internet and computer billionaires.
Thus the tie-in to libertarian thought. In an industrial libertarian society, much effort is expended by elites to suppress competition. The Gilded Age monopolists were running around buying up the competition because it was easier to suppress a competitor than compete with them. Companies were suppressing unions because they were a threat to making money. A number of things prevented this suppression from succeeding long-term, but among them were technological innovations that forced everybody to adapt or die.
I've talked about how space colonies might come to be led by aristocrats. Stross sees a path for all of us to be led by aristocrats.
Technology drives social change! I've talked before about the 1900 House - a group of modern people put in a house with all (and only) the comforts of houses of 1900. Simply put, in 1900, the social model of "women stay at home" made sense (at least economically), because running a household was an 80-hour-a-week job. Somebody had to do it. What enabled "women's lib" was things like the washing machine. Similarly, what enabled the 40-hour work week we all know and love was technology. Back in Ye Olde Dayes, most people worked from can to can't because that was the only way to get enough stuff produced to support themselves. There are a slew of other social changes, but I think you get my point.
Stross's concern is that the current idea of democratic (note small "d") government, consisting of "one person, one vote" is endangered by a technological slowdown. This is really a revolutionary idea - for most of human history, leaders were born, not elected. His idea is that technological change forces upheavals among the elite, and these upheavals support democracy. See, for example, the ongoing impact of the Internet and computer billionaires.
Thus the tie-in to libertarian thought. In an industrial libertarian society, much effort is expended by elites to suppress competition. The Gilded Age monopolists were running around buying up the competition because it was easier to suppress a competitor than compete with them. Companies were suppressing unions because they were a threat to making money. A number of things prevented this suppression from succeeding long-term, but among them were technological innovations that forced everybody to adapt or die.
I've talked about how space colonies might come to be led by aristocrats. Stross sees a path for all of us to be led by aristocrats.
