[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/65372682" params="color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /]

Micah Saul: This project is built on a hypoth­e­sis. There are moments in his­to­ry when the sta­tus quo fails. Political sys­tems prove insuf­fi­cient, reli­gious ideas unsat­is­fac­to­ry, social struc­tures intol­er­a­ble. These are moments of crisis. 

Aengus Anderson: During some of these moments, great minds have entered into con­ver­sa­tion and torn apart inher­it­ed ideas, dethron­ing truths, com­bin­ing old thoughts, and cre­at­ing new ideas. They’ve shaped the norms of future generations.

Saul: Every era has its issues, but do ours war­rant The Conversation? If they do, is it happening?

Anderson: We’ll be explor­ing these sorts of ques­tions through con­ver­sa­tions with a cross-section of American thinkers, peo­ple who are cri­tiquing some aspect of nor­mal­i­ty and offer­ing an alter­na­tive vision of the future. People who might be hav­ing The Conversation.

Saul: Like a real con­ver­sa­tion, this project is going to be sub­jec­tive. It will fre­quent­ly change direc­tions, con­nect unex­pect­ed ideas, and wan­der between the tan­gi­ble and the abstract. It will leave us with far more ques­tions than answers because after all, nobody has a monop­oly on dream­ing about the future.

Anderson: I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul. And you’re lis­ten­ing to The Conversation.

Aengus Anderson: We’ve got a rock star.

Micah Saul: Yes, yes we do.

Anderson: How cool is that? We get to talk to a rock star, or I got to talk to a rock star. You didn’t.

Saul: I did not. And a real rock­star, not an intel­lec­tu­al rock­star, who we’ve cer­tain­ly had. But no, no, this is this is a rock star. I mean, Claire from YACHT. You met up with her right after a shoot for Vice magazine.

Anderson: Yeah, I mean, as you the lis­ten­ers are are won­der­ing, What is this band that fits into The Conversation?” YACHT is real­ly some­thing else. I mean, they call them­selves a band, a busi­ness, and a belief sys­tem. There’s a lot more going on here.

Saul: Yeah. How many bands do you know that have a clearly-crafted…manifesto is the wrong word, but real­ly it lays out a philo­soph­i­cal belief sys­tem that they base their band on, and every­thing they do around.

Anderson: And it’s a real­ly well-developed one. And as Claire will men­tion lat­er in this inter­view, prob­a­bly a lot of bands have atti­tudes like that, but YACHT is real­ly delib­er­ate about putting them out in the open, which is one of the rea­sons we found them. And they talk about a lot of ideas regard­ing the future. They explore ideas of utopia and dystopia. I’m real­ly glad that we have a musi­cian in this project now.

Saul: Yeah. You know, I feel like the arts have been rel­a­tive­ly poorly-represented. But yeah, we’re get­ting there. Art is show­ing up again.

Anderson: And we talk a lit­tle bit about art in this con­ver­sa­tion, but we also just talk about a lot of oth­er themes that have popped up in the project. So, let’s just jump into it shall we?

Saul: Sounds good.

Claire Evans: Well, YACHT is a now ten year-old band, mul­ti­me­dia con­cep­tu­al pop group. The name YACHT stands for Young Americans Challenging High Technology. It’s tak­en many forms of the last ten years. It began as a solo project of my band mate and col­lab­o­ra­tor Jona Bechtolt, who’s is not with us at this moment in time, but… I mean, he’s alive, but he’s just not hav­ing this con­ver­sa­tion with us. He start­ed it in 2002 as a way of exper­i­ment­ing with com­put­ers to inject some kind of punk rock ethos into elec­tron­ic music. I joined in 2008. We trav­eled all around the world, and were a two-piece band for many years, made a record called See Mystery Lights that is sort of the first record of YACHT’s cur­rent incar­na­tion, even though there were many records before.

A cou­ple years ago, we added a band. So now we tour with a rock and roll band of two oth­er peo­ple as our live band. And we make records and we make a lot of oth­er things. We make a lot of phys­i­cal objects. We make texts, we make all our own music videos, do all our own design. We have a kind of per­son­al phi­los­o­phy that we share with fans in the form of sev­er­al books that we’ve writ­ten, as well as just kind of a larg­er con­ver­sa­tion­al tone that is imbued into every­thing that we do.

Anderson: And that’s what obvi­ous­ly drew me to you guys.

Evans: I would imagine.

Anderson: There’s a lot going on. Tell me a lit­tle bit about the phi­los­o­phy, because most bands don’t get— I mean, you have like, ontolo­gies and semi­otics and things like that. And like, I don’t see that when I go to the Grand Funk Railroad web site.

Evans: Well, maybe the Grand Funk Railroad have their own— I mean, I think every musi­cian has a kind of phi­los­o­phy, it’s just not always artic­u­lat­ed as direct­ly as we do it? For us, it’s just a big part of our approach to music. We treat art-making as though it was some­thing of a spir­i­tu­al prac­tice. It’s like the inher­ent mir­a­cle of mak­ing some­thing out of noth­ing for us is not just a fun way to pass the time and make a liv­ing, but it’s also just a kind of basic mag­ic that is appeal­ing to us. And we always are try­ing to walk around that ques­tion and artic­u­late why it’s pos­si­ble, and how it’s pos­si­ble, and how we approach it.

We sort of began as a philo­soph­i­cal band. In 2008 we were liv­ing in a small town in West Texas called Marfa, which is known among oth­er things for hav­ing an opti­cal para­nor­mal phe­nom­e­na called the Mystery Lights of Marfa, Texas, The Marfa Mystery Lights, hence the name of our album, See Mystery Lights. Which we sort of thought was a lark, and then we went and saw it for our­selves and real­ized that we were just a cou­ple of 21st cen­tu­ry kids with this very sim­plis­tic approach to infor­ma­tion. We always thought that the answers were at our fin­ger­tips. We both grew up as com­put­er nerds. We both had the sense that there was no real mys­tery left in the world, or some­thing. Neither of us were very spir­i­tu­al people.

Then we saw this thing which was objec­tive­ly para­nor­mal. I mean, it’s para­nor­mal in the sense of being out­side of the nor­mal expe­ri­ence. There are peo­ple that believe it’s aliens and go— I mean, there’s no con­clu­sive facts about what it is. But for us com­ing face to face with some­thing that was actu­al­ly and com­plete­ly objec­tive­ly mys­te­ri­ous, real­ly rearranged the way that we thought about every­thing, about our work and what we were doing. 

We real­ized that most of human art and cul­ture for most of my his­to­ry came out of this, a reac­tion to the mys­te­ri­ous or the numi­nous. You know like, there was a time not long ago, per­haps before the Industrial Revolution if you want to define it, but maybe more recent­ly than that, when we were sur­round­ed by mys­ter­ies. Before the occult became a kind of sci­ence. Before astrol­o­gy became astron­o­my. Before mys­tery became med­i­cine, and knowl­edge became cod­i­fied with the sci­en­tif­ic method. We lived in a world of pure chaos, where the fun­da­men­tal work­ings of the uni­verse we just thought of as being these capri­cious whims of gods and demons. And that has defined a big part of what the art-making expe­ri­ence has been for most of time. And we’ve lost touch with that, I think, a lit­tle bit.

So we became real­ly fas­ci­nat­ed with with mys­tery or with the unknown, and then that sort of fed into a big­ger obses­sion with the human rela­tion­ship to the uni­verse, and rit­u­al, the way that we cod­i­fied that rela­tion­ship through sci­ence, and through phi­los­o­phy, and through spir­i­tu­al­i­ty, and through art, and all the dif­fer­ent pur­suits that aim to answer the same ques­tions, which are you know, what is life? How can you make some­thing out of noth­ing? And where do we come from?

And then from then on we’ve just sort of built a kind of per­son­al phi­los­o­phy that includes what I’ve been talk­ing about and some oth­er things. And we use it as a spring­board to have con­ver­sa­tions with peo­ple that are inter­est­ed in hav­ing those kinds of conversations.

Anderson: That’s what I was going to ask, yeah. Why be so open about it?

Evans: Well, I don’t know. I think for us, if we came across artists that we admired and liked and we want­ed to know what drove them, we would want access to that. It’s just a ques­tion of trans­paren­cy, I sup­pose. If we can pro­vide that in a sim­ple way, then maybe peo­ple might be inter­est­ed. It’s real­ly as sim­ple as that.

It’s also a way of engag­ing peo­ple direct­ly. I think if you walk into a room and say, Hey, I’m mak­ing music,” you know, Let’s talk about it!” there’s not a lot of con­ver­sa­tion can hap­pen. But if you walk into a room and say, I believe in extrater­res­tri­al life and free infor­ma­tion, and I believe that we live in a chaot­ic and cen­ter­less uni­verse where every­one is as empow­ered to be a god as the next guy,” then there’s a con­ver­sa­tion there.

Anderson: Is there ever.

Evans: Yeah! Then peo­ple can say, What? No!” Or, What? Yes!” And then dia­logue hap­pens. And for us that’s all it real­ly is. And it’s a very muta­ble thing. I mean, our our belief sys­tem is some­thing that changes as we dis­cuss with peo­ple what they think about it. And it’s some­thing that is kind of community-built, a lit­tle bit.

Anderson: You guys talk a lot about self-empowerment. What is the mes­sage you want to con­vey by talk­ing about that? Because pre­sum­ably there’s an idea that shar­ing that is good, or you would­n’t be doing it, right?

Evans: Yeah. I sup­pose. Um…it comes from the sense that if we live in an infinitely-expanding uni­verse, then no indi­vid­ual per­son or nation or idea or plan­et is in the cen­ter of it. We are all the cen­ter of the uni­verse, to our­selves. And that means that our real­i­ties are as valid as the next per­son­’s real­i­ty. What Robert Anton Wilson called the real­i­ty tun­nel. You know, every indi­vid­ual has their own real­i­ty tun­nel, and that we have as indi­vid­u­als the capac­i­ty to dec­o­rate those real­i­ty tun­nels how­ev­er we see fit. We can live an utter­ly sub­jec­tive real­i­ty that pleas­es us, and we can design that real­i­ty, and we can choose what we believe. And that’s a big part of being human, is the fact of that free­dom of choice. 

Of course, that means that you can choose to become some kind of insane big­ot. But it also means you can be a…however you define a good per­son. The idea sim­ply is that every­one can write their own holy book if they want to. Everyone can define the world as they see fit and live in that def­i­n­i­tion of the world, and it can be as valid as the next guy’s experience. 

That’s most­ly just designed to make peo­ple feel like they can do what­ev­er they want, and on a sort of small kind of cul­tur­al scale. People can start start bands, or become artists, or take non-traditional career paths and they don’t have to feel like they’re doing some­thing wrong, or they’re step­ping out­side of what is expect­ed of them. That they are liv­ing a finite expe­ri­ence, that it’s com­plete­ly with­in their right to define, and that their minds are the lab­o­ra­to­ry that they are the chief sci­en­tist of But I rec­og­nize that’s kind of a flawed, you know—that there are holes in that.

Anderson: I was going to ask if that was moral relativism.

Evans: I sup­pose it is. I mean, yeah. I mean, for us it’s like, every­body is free to design their own world as long as they don’t hurt any­body else. And as long as they are con­sis­tent­ly able to peer out­side the edges and ask ques­tions of oth­er peo­ple and be curi­ous. It’s about…yeah it’s about sort of an end­less seek­ing, an end­less curios­i­ty, and an end­less sort of remod­el­ing of your own point of view, based on what peo­ple around you are saying.

Anderson: Okay.

Evans: I don’t think that’s like…a for­mu­la, a func­tion­al for­mu­la, for the human race. But I think it’s a func­tion­al approach for par­tic­i­pat­ing in cul­ture and feel­ing empow­ered to make art, which is real­ly our pri­ma­ry focus.

As a rock and roll band, we reach a lot of young kids, teenagers, and stuff. And we have a lot of dis­course with them. And we get a lot of emails from kids who, you know, who live in small towns, or have super-religious fam­i­lies, or feel alien­at­ed for some rea­son or anoth­er. And for them, real­iz­ing that they have access to their own futures and that they can define how they want to live if it’s some­thing they believe in strong­ly, that they’re not alone in that. That’s real­ly a pos­i­tive thing, I think, for the world, you know. These kids can step out from the shad­ows of the com­mu­ni­ties and the sort of ideas that they are raised in.

Of course, I mean, that is maybe the most fun­da­men­tal thing about ado­les­cents. But it can be empow­er­ing for kids that don’t real­ize that they can do that. So there’s that, you know. And I think that that’s good for the world in a small way, because peo­ple who are engaged with the things that they love and who are liv­ing a life of their choice, those peo­ple are bring­ing a pos­i­tive ener­gy to the world. Just to get a lit­tle bit…juju‑y There’s such a thing as a pos­i­tive ener­gy, I think. Yeah.

Anderson: What is the cri­sis of the present? And of course, that’s imply­ing that there is one.

Evans: Right.

Anderson: And there may not be.

Evans: Individually, I think the world is becom­ing so com­plex, the chan­nels of com­mu­ni­ca­tion are becom­ing so diverse, the more we find out about the uni­verse the more abstract and strange the ques­tions become, and then no one is suit­ably equipped to answer them. But I think that that’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly a bad thing. I don’t see it as a cri­sis, nec­es­sar­i­ly. I think it can be con­ceived of as a cri­sis if peo­ple are too stuck in their own worldviews. 

But I think if there are peo­ple who are able to take a step back­wards, take that prover­bial zoom out, and real­ize that every­body’s kind of doing the same thing in dif­fer­ent ways, and be able to step from one per­spec­tive to the oth­er and ask dif­fer­ent kinds of ques­tions based on where they are at any giv­en moment time, then it just becomes a game. I think it becomes joy­ful and engag­ing. I don’t think… I sup­pose it depends what your goals are. I mean, I’m not inter­est­ed in find­ing the answer to any­thing. I don’t think there is the answer to any­thing. I think real­i­ty is so fun­da­men­tal­ly sub­jec­tive that the best we can do is just have fun ask­ing ques­tions. And if we have the tools now to sort of step from one cul­ture to anoth­er eas­i­ly and engage with peo­ple direct­ly, then we have…there are more fun ques­tions to ask. 

Anderson: Do we live in a moment where old ways of explain­ing the world aren’t ade­quate anymore?

Evans: That’s a great ques­tion. I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s dif­fi­cult. I think we live in a time now where we have this con­stant dig­i­tal simul­tane­ity around us. It does­n’t seem to be just one con­ver­sa­tion or one cli­mate, you know. There are infi­nite frag­ment­ed cli­mates, where in some sub-cultural real­i­ties we are on them at the cusp of a sea change, cul­tur­al­ly, where every­one is becom­ing more accept­ing, or becom­ing more engaged polit­i­cal­ly, or less engaged. I mean, there are many dif­fer­ent ways of expe­ri­enc­ing the real­i­ty. You know what I mean?

I feel like, when you’re talk­ing about his­tor­i­cal time, the way that infor­ma­tion was dis­sem­i­nat­ed in the 19th cen­tu­ry meant that there could be these kinds of sea changes, I think. Like, books were writ­ten, peo­ple read the books, and that’s it. That’s what hap­pened, you know. 

Anderson: Right, and there was a very lim­it­ed num­ber of books.

Evans: Yeah, and there’s a very lim­it­ed amount of sources of author­i­ty, or sources of dis­course. Whereas now, every­body’s in charge of their own con­ver­sa­tion. So, if there is a sea change would we even notice it, because are we too sub­sumed into our own sort of com­plete­ly medi­at­ed indi­vid­ual realities? 

Anderson: Right.

Evans: Or is that the sea change? Is that what it is? 

Anderson: And in that case, that seems like a sea change that was brought about with­out con­ver­sa­tion, you know, in the same way that so much of the Industrial Revolution changes every­thing, but isn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly some­thing that was reflect­ed on in the same way a polit­i­cal change was.

Evans: Yeah.

Anderson: It just sort of…flowed.

Evans: Yeah.

Anderson: Yeah, do you think this is a unique his­tor­i­cal moment? I mean, every­one says you know, Every momen­t’s unique!” But of course there are some dif­fer­ences, right. Technology’s legit­i­mate­ly real­ly chang­ing thing.

Evans: It may be just an act of tem­po­ral chau­vin­ism, but I do think we live in a unique moment. I think that we’re liv­ing in a moment where the means of dis­cus­sion are shap­ing the dis­cus­sion itself, which, I mean that is how these things hap­pen. I mean, the print­ed word, I think, changed the way dis­cus­sions happened.

Anderson: Yeah.

Evans: You know, one-way media, tele­vi­sion and radio, changed the way that dis­cus­sions hap­pened. Now we’re in a world of two-way media, and three-way media, or infinite-way media, depend­ing on the way that you look at it.

So yes, it’s new. Where do we go from here, you know? Is there going to be a new method of com­mu­ni­ca­tion that comes along and is more rad­i­cal than what’s hap­pen­ing right now? It’s hard to imag­ine. It’s pos­si­ble, though.

Anderson: Does it gen­er­ate mul­ti­ple realities?

Evans: Subjec­tive­ly, yeah, I think so. There’s a mil­lion Americas inside of America because of this. There’s a mil­lion glob­al com­mu­ni­ties inside of a sin­gle glob­al com­mu­ni­ty. It just depends how far out you zoom, I guess. Like, if you’re zoomed in all the way, then the only real­i­ty is the real­i­ty that you’re par­tic­i­pat­ing in in your par­tic­u­lar medi­at­ed tun­nel of com­mu­ni­ca­tion and truth. If you zoom out a lit­tle bit, then you’re look­ing at like, sub-cultural trends across the social web. And you zoom out a lit­tle fur­ther, and you’re look­ing at the actu­al struc­ture of the Web and how infor­ma­tion moves across the plan­et. You zoom out even fur­ther, and it’s just like, one giant beep­ing light in mid­dle of the uni­verse, and who knows what that means?

Anderson: I’m real­ly glad you brought up the idea of infor­ma­tion and the pro­lif­er­a­tion of infor­ma­tion. It kind of bub­bles up in a lot of dif­fer­ent con­ver­sa­tions but nev­er real­ly gets explored in detail because usu­al­ly peo­ple are going after oth­er things, and it’s sort of tan­gen­tial. And there’s a lot of stuff to talk about. And that’s the whole point of that idea.

Evans: Right.

Anderson: And so we were talk­ing about you know, maybe this pro­fu­sion of infor­ma­tion isn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly a bad thing. I mean, maybe you real­ize you can’t know the world. And actu­al­ly I talked to a philoso­pher named Timothy Morton. When asked him about the cri­sis of the present, he said, Basically, the cri­sis of the present is our under­stand­ing that we can’t know.” It was the break where sci­ence gets you to this point of under­stand­ing that it can’t get you to the end point.

Evans: Yeah. No, I think that’s very true. I think that’s very true. But did­n’t the wise already know that? I mean, did­n’t like, Plato, say that about like, the fun­da­men­tal humil­i­ty of the smart person.

Yeah, I mean I think that the world is fun­da­men­tal­ly unknow­able. It’s valiant to con­tin­ue to try to break the atoms even small­er into small­er and small­er pieces. But then you just it’s just like, you just keep going…it’s tur­tles all the way down.

Anderson: But there is a prac­ti­cal side of that, too.

Evans: Yeah.

Anderson: And so there’s a big divide in this project between peo­ple who con­cep­tu­al­ize the future as hav­ing a cri­sis or a col­lapse, and peo­ple who think that’s pre­pos­ter­ous and things are get­ting steadi­ly bet­ter and so let’s toss the idea of cri­sis or col­lapse under the table because it’s so dra­mat­ic and so much fun to talk about. You know, for a lot of peo­ple, the cri­sis idea merges with the infor­ma­tion idea, where we run into this point where my god the world is now so com­pli­cat­ed and we can­not know.

Evans: Okay.

Anderson: So, you end up with this prag­mat­ic prob­lem where you can’t man­age, because the sys­tem’s are so com­pli­cat­ed. Effectively we build social and eco­nom­ic sys­tems to the point at which they col­lapse due to our own of bio­log­i­cal lim­its as people.

Evans: I don’t know. I read a lot of sci­ence fic­tion. And I have, because of that, I think, kind of this… One, like, sort of inher­ent ter­ror of all sort of cur­rent events. It’s like I read every­thing as the premise to a dystopi­an sci­ence fic­tion nov­el that is just begin­ning. You know, like any giv­en thing could be extrap­o­lat­ed into a crisis? 

But at the same time I think it also gives me a sense of the fact that I think a cri­sis is some­thing that is a reck­on­ing for peo­ple, you know. I think if we have an ener­gy cri­sis it will be awful, and I con­ceive of that as being a pos­si­bil­i­ty for my gen­er­a­tion, some kind of peak oil cri­sis or resources man­age­ment cri­sis where we have to fun­da­men­tal­ly reeval­u­ate how we live.

But I don’t see that as nec­es­sar­i­ly being a bad thing. It kind of excites me, on some lev­el. I think that it would be nice to avoid those things, but I think that the human race tends to learn more by dis­as­ter than it does by fore­cast­ing. Maybe if we are dri­ven to a point of cri­sis, then we can invent a dif­fer­ent mode of liv­ing and then we can move for­ward. I think even­tu­al­ly things always bal­ance out. I hope that I sur­vive the cri­sis, what­ev­er it is. But I also hope that I become a mem­ber of a func­tion­ing new soci­ety that takes place afterwards.

I’m inter­est­ed in change, you know. I think any kind of mas­sive change is pos­i­tive, even if it may seem like it’s fun­da­men­tal­ly neg­a­tive at first. There’s a real­ly good sci­ence fic­tion nov­el called Last and First Men by Olaf Stapledon. It’s like a 19th cen­tu­ry British sci­ence fic­tion writer. It’s a future his­to­ry, essen­tial­ly, of the human race. And it doc­u­ments the rise and fall of I think thir­teen or four­teen dis­tinct dif­fer­ent ver­sions of the human race. He imag­ines the sort of demise of the human race, but then it comes back, and we revolve com­plete­ly as a dif­fer­ent species from a few sur­vivors, and then they die off for a dif­fer­ent rea­son. And then by the end of the nov­el we’re like, birds liv­ing on Venus, but we’re still, you know…the thread is unbro­ken. And I see that as being a kind of pos­i­tive and hope­ful way of look­ing at the future, you know. Like what­ev­er hap­pens, we will just change form.

Anderson: That’s an inter­est­ing idea.

Evans: That’s com­plete­ly I think a lit­tle bit of an eva­sive way of approach­ing your ques­tion, but I think that’s how I think—

Anderson: Yeah, I would­n’t… I don’t see that as eva­sive at all. It just makes me jump over to transhumanism.

Evans: Yeah, sure, we can go there. 

Anderson: Let’s do that in a moment. let’s talk about, though, the idea of cri­sis and sort of link that back to some­thing we were talk­ing about ear­li­er, the idea of a dif­fer­ent future or a bet­ter future. What does that look like? I mean, oth­er than not col­laps­ing, which would be nice. Or maybe col­laps­ing and form­ing into some­thing else. But, what are the…I’ve got to be care­ful with words here…say, val­ues or qual­i­ties that make that future better?

Evans: It’s hard to say. Open-mindedness, I sup­pose. I mean, a lack of dog­mat­ic sep­a­ra­tion between peo­ple. A lack of… I think any future in which peo­ple do not feel like they have the moral high ground on oth­er peo­ple is a bet­ter future. Of open aware­ness of the fact that we are all fun­da­men­tal­ly the same, and that there’s no objec­tive­ly cor­rect way to exist in the world. 

The way that we con­ceive of utopia, in the West I sup­pose, is of an island. I mean, Thomas More’s Utopia was an island. As earnest and sin­cere as that pur­suit is, I think at the same time if you iso­late your­self from oth­er peo­ple, from the con­ver­sa­tion, from dif­fer­ence and from chal­leng­ing view­points and from con­flict, then you end up becom­ing myopic, and that seems to always end in dis­so­lu­tion or fas­cism of some form. I mean every­thing from the Soviet Union, to the tran­scen­den­tal­ist com­mu­ni­ties of the 19th cen­tu­ry in the US, to you know, Jonestown, it’s like it all falls apart in one way or anoth­er. And I think the iso­la­tion is the prob­lem, and build­ing those walls, sort of dog­mat­ic walls around your ideas. 

A bet­ter future is one in which peo­ple are break­ing down those walls, uniso­lat­ing them­selves, and con­nect­ing with oth­er peo­ple. I think it’s dif­fi­cult to do on a large scale and I kind of can’t con­ceive of it [crosstalk] hap­pen­ing on a large

Anderson: That’s what I was going to ask. Are we bio­log­i­cal­ly capa­ble of that?

Evans: I don’t think we are, you know. I don’t think we are. I think a bet­ter future is a future in which we’ve either evolved past our lim­i­ta­tions and our inabil­i­ty to func­tion in large groups with­out pow­er strug­gle and with­out con­flict and with­out unequal dis­tri­b­u­tion of resources.

I don’t know how we can get past that point. It has to be a hard­ware thing, I think, at some point. We have to just either pro­gram our­selves dif­fer­ent­ly through some jump in bio­log­i­cal evo­lu­tion, or some jumpstart in hard­ware that we implant in our­selves or begin to con­ceive of.

Anderson: So there’s almost a notion there that any improve­ment that hap­pens has to be self-directed [crosstalk] and evolutionary?

Evans: Yeah, I think so. I think it has to— Yeah. I think it has to be jump­start­ed in some way. I mean, I’m not like a big Singularity dream­er. I don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly believe that we’re going to reach a point where the human race becomes fun­da­men­tal­ly tech­no­log­i­cal and that makes us into super­men. I think that’s kind of like a weird… I don’t know, like very mas­cu­line point of view. But I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t see how it would work. But I can imag­ine that there must be some we where either by cri­sis and by neces­si­ty we refor­mat our mores and expec­ta­tions, or we some­how become a bet­ter species. But I think the human race is fun­da­men­tal­ly bound towards con­flict. The prob­lem is in the hard­ware. If we can some­how hack it, I’m open to it.

Anderson: Say we do get to a point where we feel that God, we’re in so over our heads with this world that we’ve cre­at­ed, the only way to do it is to be smarter, is to some­how actu­al­ly change what we phys­i­cal­ly are. I’m sort of inter­est­ed in what makes us human.

Evans: Yeah. Well, I don’t know, you know. I think ask­ing our­selves these very ques­tions is what makes us human. you know. Like, car­ing about this is what makes us human. Being con­cerned with being in over our heads is what makes us human. I guess that that lev­el of self-awareness and you know, self-doubt also. I don’t know if ani­mals doubt them­selves as much as humans do. 

Anderson: I hope not, for their sake. So that kind of gets us to the idea that I ask a lot of peo­ple about. Do you think there is any con­ver­sa­tion hap­pen­ing now? You know, we talked ear­li­er about do we need to have it? Is this moment unique? But, is it going on?

Evans: I think per­haps the most fun­da­men­tal zeit­geist about the future that’s hap­pen­ing, at least in the devel­oped world, or the world that we’re talk­ing about right now and that we’re in, is aware­ness of and con­cern for the future. That seems to be a fair­ly new phe­nom­e­non in the human race.

Anderson: Ah, so you think peo­ple are talk­ing about the future.

Evans: I think peo­ple are con­sumed with thoughts and con­ver­sa­tions of the future. We’re con­stant­ly try­ing to fig­ure out what the future will bring, on an eco­nom­ics spec­trum, on a social spec­trum… When will civ­il rights be ful­ly insti­gat­ed for every­body? When will the econ­o­my fall apart? When will the Singularity occur? Like, what year will we have arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence? You know, and pro­ject­ing the future. Trying to under­stand tech­no­log­i­cal and cul­tur­al trends in order to make mon­ey or in order to be pre­scient. That was­n’t always the case, I think. I think for most of human his­to­ry it was just the present, was all that real­ly mat­tered. And per­haps a con­cern with one’s ances­tors. But most­ly just not dying has been the human imper­a­tive. Whereas now it’s like, how can we live longer? That’s the con­ver­sa­tion. Where will we be ten years, twen­ty years from now. 

And I think the fact that we live in this crazy tech­no­log­i­cal age has­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly made interdis­ci­pli­nary con­ver­sa­tions hap­pen. I think that peo­ple who desire those kinds of con­ver­sa­tions can now seek them out effec­tive­ly, but it also allows peo­ple to con­nect more exclu­sive­ly with peo­ple that think exact­ly like them. And that has been per­haps dam­ag­ing. Maybe more dam­ag­ing than we think.

Anderson: Do you think con­ver­sa­tion actu­al­ly mat­ters? Is that what ends up mak­ing these big changes happen?

Evans: I don’t know how much con­ver­sa­tion per­haps mat­ters on a glob­al scale. I think con­ver­sa­tion mat­ters because it’s one of the only things we can do for fun in life. You know what I mean? Like, if noth­ing else, then dis­course is stim­u­lat­ing and engag­ing and fun, and there is a sense of dis­cov­ery and curios­i­ty and play in a con­ver­sa­tion. In my mind, you know, that makes the indi­vid­ual expe­ri­ence worth­while. And I can’t say if that projects out­wards to the race. I hope that it does. I hope that that’s some­thing that scales up and is ben­e­fi­cial, but I don’t know. I think being in con­tact with lots of dif­fer­ent kinds of thinkers and lots of dif­fer­ent kinds of peo­ple who live their lives dif­fer­ent­ly from you and have dif­fer­ent points of view makes you as an indi­vid­ual more cre­ative. And per­haps more excit­ed about day-to-day exis­tence. But if it strength­ens a com­mu­ni­ty and bet­ters the world? One can only hope.

Anderson: Are you opti­mistic about the future?

Evans: I think I am, you know. I think I real­ly. I’m para­noid about a lot of things, but I’m also opti­mistic, fundamentally.

Anderson: Huh. Explain that to me.

Evans: I mean, I rec­og­nize the pos­si­bil­i­ty that there are a lot of things can go wrong. It depends on my mood, you know. Sometimes I believe in some kind of hor­rif­ic techno-rapture that will destroy us all. And some­times I think that the more human beings are born on this Earth, the more solu­tions there are to our problems.

Aengus Anderson: So this was a very dif­fer­ent sort of conversation.

Micah Saul: It was. It was refresh­ing in some ways.

Anderson: With some of the oth­er ones, when I’ve gone in I’ve kind of known like, okay, this thinker pur­sues this idea, and they’ve devel­oped a the­sis about it, and we’ll explore that. And I can kind of go through all the motions in advance and real­ly know a lot of the con­tours that the con­ver­sa­tion­al will take. Whereas with Claire, I did­n’t know quite as much, and it was excit­ing to sort of jump into this con­ver­sa­tion, go, Okay, where is it going to go?” and then dis­cov­er that she’s just real­ly inter­est­ed in con­ver­sa­tion and is real­ly open-minded. And it felt like we were able to talk through a lot of ideas. And so let’s jump in with YACHT’s ideas, and then we’ll talk more about oth­er things that Claire and I discussed.

Saul: Yeah, that sounds good. So, I think the most impor­tant thing I real­ly got was their idea of self-empowerment. Like, every­body sort of makes their own life, makes their own uni­verse. Everybody is the cen­ter of the uni­verse. Yeah, it’s very much a do your own thing philosophy. 

Anderson: Now, what do you think Torcello would think of that? On one hand, I can see YACHT work­ing with­in our cur­rent cul­tur­al con­text and send­ing these mes­sages of be who you want to be” to peo­ple who real­ly need that mes­sage. In that way it made me think of Colin Camerer talk­ing about what’s good about tech­nol­o­gy? Well, the gay teen in the small town in Oklahoma has a ray of hope.

Saul: Right, right.

Anderson: And so I see YACHT in a way being that ray of hope. But what would Torcello say? That’s going to be my new bracelet.

Saul: Well I mean, you you men­tion it briefly in your con­ver­sa­tion with her when you ask her, is is this cul­tur­al rel­a­tivism. The answer to that, it’s not cut and dry. So, they are first and fore­most espous­ing an artis­tic phi­los­o­phy. This phi­los­o­phy is meant to be applied to music or art. 

Anderson: I think that’s a real­ly impor­tant dis­tinc­tion we need to make.

Saul: Right. The prob­lem, though, becomes when you’re putting a phi­los­o­phy out in the world, it’s…hell, it’s not even all that clear how you apply that phi­los­o­phy. Once you you’ve cre­at­ed an artis­tic phi­los­o­phy, it’s real­ly easy to then use that phi­los­o­phy in non-artistic pur­suits or just in your day-to-day life. And that’s when that sort of phi­los­o­phy starts to get scary. One imme­di­ate exam­ple that pops into my head (and she’s going to hate this, I’m sure), is The Fountainhead. It turns out Objectivism as an artis­tic phi­los­o­phy, actu­al­ly ain’t so bad. Kinda works. It’s when Atlas Shrugs hap­pens and Objectivism gets applied to the econ­o­my and pol­i­tics and every­thing else in the world that I Ayn Rand becomes, well, a demon.

Anderson: A lit­tle bit of us enjoy­ing our sub­jec­tiv­i­ty dis­claimer here. I know there are a lot of peo­ple in the series who would dis­agree with that notion vehemently. 

Saul: Yeah.

Anderson: But, they’ll dis­agree with you later.

Saul: Another one actu­al­ly just popped into my head was the Futurists in Italy in the 30s. Again, an artis­tic phi­los­o­phy that the Fascists in Europe real­ly latched onto and includ­ed much of that phi­los­o­phy, much of that belief sys­tem in their larg­er social and polit­i­cal goals.

Anderson: There’s some­thing real­ly intrigu­ing about that that I want to get into more in anoth­er con­ver­sa­tion, now that you’re bring­ing it up. Thinking about ideas being applied in very strange ways across dis­ci­plines. I’m think­ing one that we do all the time, we talk about par­a­digm shifts. And this is some­thing a lot of peo­ple do, but that’s from Thomas Kuhn’s sci­en­tif­ic phi­los­o­phy. And of course when you start apply­ing that to the human­i­ties and social sci­ences, you’re doing a dis­ser­vice to the orig­i­nal philosophy…maybe. It’s not always clear how well it applies. 

Yeah, let’s def­i­nite­ly bring that back in anoth­er episode, if we can. And to think about that here with YACHT’s artis­tic phi­los­o­phy and what does that turn into? Claire her­self says that it can jus­ti­fy you being a real­ly open-minded, accept­ing, empa­thet­ic per­son who knows that every­one has a dif­fer­ent per­spec­tive. It can also lead you to being com­plete­ly with­in your own head and sort of dis­count­ing the exis­tence or feel­ings of oth­er perspectives.

Saul: Right.

Anderson: And with­out a clear divide between them, I think you real­ly do you end up with exact­ly the prob­lem that Torcello is try­ing to get out of. How do you accept plu­ral­ism with­out get­ting into rel­a­tivism? How do you still con­demn neg­a­tive behavior?

Saul: She does give some answer to that, actu­al­ly. It’s the the fun­da­men­tal tenet of Wiccanism, An it hurt none do what thou wilt.” I mean, she says that. As long as you’re doing no harm to oth­ers, do what you want. That’s sort of the cen­tral tenet in…well, at least her phi­los­o­phy, I think.

Anderson: That’s the tran­scen­den­tal assump­tion, huh?

Saul: Right.

Anderson: Which again runs you into the same dilem­ma we’ve already talked about in Torcello’s conversation.

Saul: Exactly.

Anderson: Speaking of under­ly­ing assump­tions, I was real­ly intrigued by the way Claire talks about mys­tery and kind of the knowa­bil­i­ty of the uni­verse, and her dis­cus­sion of when she and Jona saw the mys­tery lights in Marfa, Texas. The theme of mys­tery, I think, is some­thing that going back and lis­ten­ing to this again I kind of wish we’d got­ten into more. I always have these moments lis­ten­ing back to tape where I’m like, Gosh, I sure should have fol­lowed up on this and this and this,” and mys­tery was one where that was a big, new idea, at least explic­it­ly in that way.

Saul: Right.

Anderson: And I hope we get that again.

Saul: I’d be sur­prised if we did­n’t, actu­al­ly. Speaking of con­nec­tions, I think there’s one oth­er thing we should bring up here, and that’s her con­nec­tion with the tran­shu­man­ists and posthu­man­ists we’ve talked with. It seemed to me that her inter­est in the tran­shu­man­ist school of thought has to do with her ideas of soci­ety is not per­fectible.” Possibly, that’s due to bio­log­i­cal limitations.

Anderson: I like that she’s very open-minded and sort of takes all of these ideas seri­ous­ly, and does­n’t seem to have a kind of knee-jerk reac­tion to any of them. You know, that she’s will­ing to say, Well, you know, maybe maybe we are bio­log­i­cal­ly lim­it­ed. Maybe we could improve some­thing.” But also at the same time will­ing to say, Okay, here’s look­ing at this sort of tran­shu­man­ist idea and the idea of chang­ing what we are, and that real­ly seems like a total dude fantasy.” 

Saul: [laugh­ing] Yes. I loved that.

Anderson: It was a cri­tique that I think we’ve been over­due to have in here. And one that hon­est­ly you or I might not have made.

Saul: No. No, cer­tain­ly. I mean, I think, I don’t know that I would have seen it had she not said it.

Anderson: No, and it total­ly res­onat­ed the moment she did.

Saul: Yeah. Which is anoth­er rea­son that I think it’s vital­ly impor­tant that we we get more voic­es in here than just middle-aged white dudes. It’s some­thing that we’ve been strug­gling with. I don’t think we’ve talked about it much on tape, but it’s some­thing we talk about fair­ly often. That this project real­ly is pre­dom­i­nant­ly white and pre­dom­i­nant­ly male. And try­ing to get in those oth­er voic­es is so impor­tant, because I mean, hell as as we say in our descrip­tion of the project, nobody has a monop­oly on the future.

Anderson: And what’s wor­ri­some is that we do our search­ing through the Internet, and there is sort of a cer­tain source bias you get there. And judg­ing by what we’ve been find­ing, actu­al­ly a cer­tain group of peo­ple does have a monop­oly on dream­ing about the future. At least in what the Internet is pre­sent­ing to us as the pub­lic sphere. 

Saul: Which is just a really…well, it’s dis­heart­en­ing. So maybe now is anoth­er good time to put out a plea to our lis­ten­ers. Let us know, who are we miss­ing? What voic­es are we miss­ing? Please send us suggestions.

Anderson: Especially if you’re in the South, because I’ve pret­ty much wrapped up my Northeastern con­ver­sa­tions at this point, and I will be start­ing in to Washington DC and fur­ther on south going through pos­si­bly Northern Florida, def­i­nite­ly through Louisiana, absolute­ly Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma. So those are states we’re still look­ing for peo­ple and we still have plen­ty of open­ings left to bring peo­ple into the conversation. 

Yeah, if any of you have ideas, jump on the site, shoot us a note. We’ve had some real­ly good sug­ges­tions late­ly. But they haven’t nec­es­sar­i­ly been on the route that I’m on right now.

Saul: So I think that’s prob­a­bly it. Just one last thing I want­ed to men­tion is I real­ly enjoyed lis­ten­ing to this one. It real­ly does sound like two old friends just hav­ing a chat. She’s not dog­mat­ic, she points out where her ideas aren’t quite ful­ly devel­oped. I mean, I felt bad pin­ning her on the cul­tur­al rel­a­tivism thing because I think she points out that she’s not entire­ly sure where that goes. It was real­ly refresh­ing. Claire does not feel elit­ist at all.

Anderson: Which is kind of awe­some giv­en that she’s the only legit rock­star we’ve spo­ken to. 

That was Claire Evans of YACHT, record­ed August 31, 2012 in Brooklyn, New York.

Saul: This is The Conversation. You can find us on Twitter at @aengusanderson and on the web at find​the​con​ver​sa​tion​.com

Anderson: So thanks for lis­ten­ing. I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul.

Further Reference

This inter­view at the Conversation web site, with project notes, com­ments, and tax­o­nom­ic orga­ni­za­tion spe­cif­ic to The Conversation.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.