NOTE: This is another essay from the vault. I originally wrote it in 1997, and updated it in 2002, when I lived in San Diego. The thoughts are still fresh, and timely. Please enjoy.
What Would ‘FM’ Say Today?
By Adam Abraham
SAN DIEGO — I happen to be an ardent listener of that popular communications genre known as “talk radio.” When I lived in Los Angeles, my radio dial was generally tuned to the entire lineup on station KFI (AM 640). From Rush Limbaugh in the morning to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, to the duo of John and Ken in the afternoon, I heard a wide range of ideas, opinions, advice, judgment, genuine help, and occasional idiocy. I sometimes listened to the main talk rival in the LA market, KABC (AM 790), particularly enjoying the reasoned ethics of Dennis Prager (now gone) and the in your face, stereotype-busting directness of Larry Elder (absolutely no “s”). KFI received the bulk of my listening attention because (a), it had a stronger, clearer signal, and (b) my clear preference for Limbaugh in the morning tended to cause the radio to stay where it is throughout the day.
Having said all that, it was on the John and Ken Show one day a few years ago that a very interesting interview was conducted with a futurist who had legally changed his name to FM2030. It wasn’t clear what “FM” stood for, but the number referred to the year 2030. Born F.M. Esfandiary in 1930, a former UCLA professor and on the faculty at Florida International University at the time of the radio interview, FM2030 (who said they could call him “FM” or simply “F” for short), offered some provocative thoughts about the future, and particularly about human dynamics as we currently know and practice it.
“The future”, according to “FM”—who spoke with what could only be described as a continental accent—looks very bright, and will see a continuation (if not acceleration) of the rapid changes with which we have all become familiar. His “view” was generally constrained to a time window that is five to ten years out, as he said that beyond twenty or thirty years, the “resolution gets somewhat blurred”. (I liked the way he put that.) He observed current trends and extrapolated them—without judgment—into the future. It’s very important to emphasize the absence of judgment in FM’s futuristic projections, as they were free of religious, political, or any kind of fearful dogma. This is refreshing because it allows the listener to process the information without having to process someone’s personal (or adopted) opinion about what it means.
“FM” saw a continuing “deconstruction” of the “Nuclear Family”, a trend that has many people worried. Relationships today are becoming as “binary” as the digital age itself. They are swiftly “on”, and then “off”. They are often non-linear, and location-independent. Relationships today are just as likely to involve someone from a very different racial, ethnic, or cultural background that one’s own. Families are being formed and reformed in this very dynamic milieu. Thinking that this marks the end of humankind and the beginning of “the end”, some people are having trouble coping. It seems almost daily we hear of murder/suicides involving distraught fathers (or mothers) who—seeing no solutions to their complex problems—seek “greener pastures” through homicide. Others, however, are going with the flow.
Specifically, “FM” suggested that people whose heads aren’t stuck in the past will find that opportunities are abundant. I am in full agreement here. Anyone who has a historical “axe” to grind will be too distracted by their cause to see, and take full advantage of the wonderful range of possibilities that are opening right now. The Internet itself is one such example. Some people will use the Internet as a way to proselytize about what is wrong with the world, including anyone who doesn’t agree with their point of view, or who simply isn’t in their particular “group”. But in my opinion, the real advantages and benefits of the medium will go to those who use it to bridge gulfs of ignorance and misunderstanding, quell cultural resentments, and heal the wounds of history. To do so it is of utmost importance that we concern ourselves with looking ahead, not from the past, but from the here and now.
While I agreed with “FM’s” view of the social changes that are unfolding, I did take umbrage in one area, and that is his assertion that a “cure” for death would eventually be found. In spite of our historical, ingrained, abject fear of death, it is as natural and necessary a process to “life” as is birth. The professor suggested that through such developments as cloning, cybernetics, androids, and others, a way of “transmigrating” one’s being from our current corporeal “vehicles” will emerge. I don’t doubt that some success in this area won’t actually occur, but I do believe this misses a major point. In my humble opinion, our earthly journey is implicitly designed to be a visit. It is not an end unto itself, nor is what we believe to be death.
Death is a change, as is birth. It would be far more useful for us to come to individual and collective understandings about our “visit” to earth, rather than devising ways to prolong our stay beyond creative, productive, and moral viability, which is always a risk when fear and ignorance are our guides.
Such were my thoughts when I wrote the bulk of this essay in 1997 and subsequently put it away. Little did I know that it would be five years before these thoughts would see the “light” of video monitor again. It is also with some surprise and a bit of sadness that I learned, upon visiting FM2030’s web site, that he departed this world on July 8, 2000. True to his beliefs, his body was cryogenically frozen—put in suspension—with the intent to re-animate it when a cure for pancreatic cancer is found.
A smidgeon of regret tiptoes through the recesses of my mind when I think of this brilliant and hopeful man, who had not come to a place of accepting “death” as a natural part of the life experience. Holding out hope for the “reanimation” of his used, diseased body is, in a way of speaking, the ultimate statement of fear of the unknown, and what might lie beyond our experiential comprehension.
Even if we do not go through the transition under “natural” circumstances—as in disease, injury, or criminal act—death represents a release of our “being” from association and direct interaction with the physical world. It is not a release from existence. I wonder whether FM still wants to return to his old body, or whether he still thinks that reanimation and “trans-humanization” is the way?
Perhaps I shouldn’t fret. Maybe the developments that “FM” foresaw and championed will actually help us come to a greater understanding of our pre-existing role and already-established place in an interplanetary civilization; one that does not need, nor rely on our corporeal forms. That is the future that I envision. And it won’t cost billions of dollars to realize.
You can get more information on FM2030 from his web site www.fm2030.com.
