It's good to see these "ists and isms" and various X-punk movements, because that means we are _thinking_ about this stuff and that popular philosophy of scienc

It's good to see these "ists and isms" and various X-punk movements, because that means we are _thinking_ about this stuff and that popular philosophy of science is alive. "Futur-ism" has it's origins in 1920s/30s European design aesthetics. It's a strange projection of the values of the wealthier classes, mixed with some early fascist-industrial values, but also influenced by the Grand Exhibitions (for example Crystal Palace, or the World's Fair (Exposition Universelle where the Eiffel Tower was built)). For America this kind of thing had enormous cultural influence, for example [1] how General Motors/Chrysler projected a future to the growth-hungry 1950s USA. To a large degree this works. We imagine things we desire through science-fiction and go on to create them. But Futurism has gotten conflated with Futurology, by the likes of Kurzweil - the idea of technological singularity - and the modern Cosmists for whom quasi-religious ideas like "uploading your brain into the cloud" hold huge appeal. This movement seems qualitatively different in its departure from desirable "Earthly" goals, toward technological determinism, cybernetic governance, a sense of "inevitability" and "uniquity" to everything, and as Neil Postman put it, "abject surrender to technology". The counter-movement today is Humane Technology, see for example [2] which resonates somewhat with the "cozy-punk" theme of the article. Space travel is at the intersection. It's simultaneously useful and useless at present - a Kierkegaardian state of man whose feet are in the mud but head in the stars. We can integrate a very optimistic view of space technology for peaceful purposes. However, remember "the future" isn't cozy (by definition), because it's an unknown we should rightfully have a respectful fear of. Every technology will bring its benefits and dangers, pleasures and pains. Leftists will project egalitarian values on to what we can technologically achieve. Libertarians will uphold the (established in the West/North) values of freedom, speed, individualism in their technological vision. Some (evolutionary psychologists like Peterson) will insist that a-priori we cannot escape the limitations of Pareto dominance hierarchies, perhaps missing that all technologies are means by which we escape limitations. However, the limits to growth (see Meadows etc) will definitely put hard brakes on, because even with fusion we are unlikely to become alchemists in this century or the next. The best we can hope for is to retain _human_ control of our direction in science and technology. That's what seriously worries me today. For all the talk of "Society's Will" we are teetering on the brink of abdication of all human will, at least with respect to the digital technologies before which we bow. [1] https://www.formtrends.com/when-the-future-had-fins/ https://www.formtrends.com/when-the-future-had-fins/ [2] https://www.humanetech.com/ https://www.humanetech.com/