(https://en.wikipedia.org/…/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spi…) Belief transcends economic rationality; [religion] is a domain of human cognition that governs behavior systematically [a sociological view]. This effects what economic systems are viable under a shared set of beliefs. This is the reason wars are fought over religion: since the control of a society, through an economy, is based upon morals set forth by the [religion]. Religion herein is not a discrete set of rules written in a holy book, it is functional development of human cognition, manifest in the homeostasis of a tribal society; e.g., a set of social behaviors that delineate “us” and “them”. This goes to say: atheism, agnosticism, new-ageism, protestantism, catholicism, jihadism, etc, constitute competing morals, and in effect competing economies. We are currently under the mass influence of Protestant capitalism, which has shifted to an Atheistic capitalism; further, in an existential turn we find truth in the individual: a new-ageism, which enables the idea of technological transcendence; viz., transhumanist mormonism, and generally transhumanism with a belief in a singularity of consciousness. We are blindly building a future of machine automation, spending years of our lives connected to devices wholeheartedly, not because it is rational, but it is the course of action that most aligns with our society’s shared moral code.
All this goes to say: we must first assess the morals of our self and our society, instead of turning in a circular manner towards theories of capital, when determining the swiftest course of action towards a Just and flourishing world.
Furthermore, any such progress is due to the aggregate convictions of individuals who place their moral code before social gains. It is not ‘earn now and contribute later’, because it is the moral basis of action right now that has an exponential effect on the determination of the future society. We progress at any rate because regardless of natural social forces, groups of individuals commit themselves to the ideals of beauty and compassion, to cultivate seeds of a paradigm that will be able to flourish in the future. This is in effect how I personally have ever been able to grow into new ways of understanding the world, sharing ideas and actions with others. It is a new kind of [neo] communism, like the ethics of old Russian farming communities (akin to that of Alyosha Karamazovhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyosha_Karamazov), except compelled on an anthropocene scale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene), with the motives of capital production in full swing.
The question remains: what is the moral basis of our collective actions? How can we ‘engineer’ our religious brain to enable the economic solutions of a diverse neocommune-capital socio-scientific-idealism based in the impetus of beauty and compassion? Maybe the Common Good is enough of a starting point. Clearly, it starts with open science publishing, open source software development (luckily we are in the start of a golden age), conversely: an open internet, sustenance of our biosphere–all the way to ensuring that children are fed and educated (they are the keys to the future! This is the fundamental component, caring for children means caring for the future, not just ourselves.), and existing cultures can thrive with technologies of their choice (E.g., Amistics, as in the Amish: via, Neal Stephenson’s novel “Seveneves”).
If we don’t figure that out, maybe our elite-controlled-machine-overlords will finish the job of imperial colonial globalism, and in the process possibly rid of the world America, or at least our sovereignty, and any other free nation in a repeat of the systematic eradication of the tribes that came before us. We are part of a system that does not know how to stop killing, and it will subdue parts of itself to achieve an end by any means necessary, as it coerces its moral basis: in this case, it is a social-darwinism teetering towards a transhuman-darwinism: “if you don’t keep up with the developments of technology, you will be left behind, and it will be painful” is the moral code here. Perhaps as evidenced by drone warfare, our hyper-intelligence agencies will algorithmically subvert or destroy, according to the latest coordinates output by artificial intelligences. Perhaps a homogenized and systematically controlled world is better: there is less conflict, we can engineer animals into biologically alive food units, build agro-skyscrapers, go for a swim in virtual reality, before taking a shuttle to the moon to witness the ice-age on a grand scale. Of course, what use are humans, then? It’s a valid question for transhuman-darwinism. In fact, I’m sure there’s an economically rational position for human capability outside of factory production of objects, a bit like factory production of human abilities for machines to automate. There is a cubicle, where you can eat living cubes, and produce cube-like thoughts, for a grand cube-terraforming of planet earth, into a giant cube-computer that can perceive the cube nature of reality. That’s quite dull. We should all read Hermann Weyl’s “The Open World”https://www.amazon.com/Open-World-Hermann-Weyl/…/0918024706… . Because the world is meant to be diverse, we can have cubes and mysterious spiral knots of mind-spacetime continuum, and in fact they compliment each other. What I mean to say is, technology is a product of our [religion] as is our economy, and with a proper outlook, we can build with nature instead of paving right over it, and that includes the nature of humanity.