4 ms·

I'm already extremely pessimistic about these things. Computers were a mistake and represent the greatest threat to freedom in human history. The ability of th

by hnaccy 9y ago

I'm already extremely pessimistic about these things. Computers were a mistake and represent the greatest threat to freedom in human history. The ability of those in power to mass produce perfectly obedient machines that can perform complex tasks without rest allow for a nightmare society. Additionally machine learning asymmetrically benefits those with the resources to fully leverage large amounts of data collection and compute power AKA not you or me. Any state in history would have loved to have been able to watch its citizens at all times and know what they're doing and likely thinking. It just wasn't feasible until now. The big last line we haven't but will inevitably crossed will be the automation of force. At least suicide is always an option.

ashark 9y ago
I'd go farther: I'm unsure that communication technologies past approximately the telegraph have actually improved quality of life more than they've harmed it. At least in developed countries (simply don't know enough about life in un-/under-developed countries to have an opinion).
- westmeal 9y ago
  How so?
leggomylibro 9y ago
But at that point, society would basically be full-on Cyberpunk. Screw suicide, form a gang of runners and start planning heists on manufacturing facilities and factories, lay traps for driverless truck shipments or hijack them electronically, etc. Hide in the margins, among the slums and tenements to which overpopulation and consolidation have relegated vast swarms of people. Heck, I've already gotten transdermal implants set and removed by people who maybe weren't, you know, licensed practitioners. The moral rule of law is already out the window, and financial laws had already may as well not exist. The only practical compulsion that law has left is that many people can still have an acceptable life while complying with it. Enriching yourself by skimming the margins of those with enough capital to print money wouldn't exactly be immoral. Automation of force, or something along those lines, would pretty much cinch it. I think plenty of people would decide it's time to have a chat with a local lathe/mill owner, stick a flamethrower on their quadcopter, and loot the few places where opulence still existed. Get away with a couple decent jobs, and you could pretend you were in that upper echelon of 'people with lots of money' all along. Right now, if you're good at a trade like construction, welding, medicine, engineering, etc, you can probably find stable employment options and at least afford to exist. But when those people of practical means start to get systemically marginalized, I'll bet we'll see a huge resurgence of people trying modern versions of The Italian Job.
- hnaccy 9y ago
  Cyberpunk is a fiction because it peddles the naive fantasy that anarchistic actions would be feasible in such a world. There's not going to be any clever tricks to avoid being picked up the mass physical surveillance network. Hacking is simply infeasible for the vast majority of people given the complexity of systems and how much intelligence and knowledge is required. Action movie heists of high value targets are basically impossible to get away with these days let alone in a decade or two.
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    Well yeah, but if your other consolation idea is 'suicide,' I'd take the million-to-one shot.
  - westmeal 9y ago
    Well sure if we're talking about cyberpunk 'heist' novels/rpgs like Shadowrun & Neuromancer. But it's really interesting to see just how 'cyberpunk' our society has become isn't it? We even have most of the technology in place nowadays. (Well other than the advanced tech they use like cyberdecks and stimsims which aren't really feasible)
gglitch 9y ago
> Computers were a mistake and represent the greatest threat to freedom in human history. The ability of those in power to mass produce perfectly obedient machines that can perform complex tasks without rest allow for a nightmare society. I think about that a lot. It suggests to me that the real problem lies not with technology, but with something unavoidable and self-destructive about human nature.
- FilterSweep 9y ago
  > It suggests to me that the real problem lies not with technology, but with something unavoidable and self-destructive about human nature. Or the people in power not being fully clear about their means.
  - crush-n-spread 9y ago
    Look at the root cause. Humans are driven by the exact forces that caused evolution. Those forces are to gather resources and maintain social dominance. Anything other than that will never be a force that shapes the world. "Not being fully clear about their means" is just a manifestation or symptom of someone's quest to acquire more resources. I repeat that you must look at the root force and not the symptom.
- hsdfusa 9y ago
  > something unavoidable and self-destructive about human nature. What specifically? Wanting power and control?
  - to_bpr 9y ago
    >What specifically? Wanting power and control? What about the fact that we're the only species to hoard way more resources than we'll ever need, to the point where we're quite literally destroying the environment and life around us in order to maintain our over-consumption of resources?
    - hsdfusa 9y ago
voidhorse 9y ago
I like reading your darkly pessimistic perspective on the issue as I think a huge component to the problem is the fact that so many aren't pessimistic enough about technological development. Everyone seems to think that, prima facie, or even de facto: technological progress == good. But there is nothing that guarantees that's the case. A shiny new device or service launches and everyone is gung ho to jump on it--never mind questioning its negative impacts--what is the environmental and economic impact of this service (e.g. cryptocurrencies consuming electricity, a 'material' resource, and producing nothing but a representation--e.g. consumption of material with no production), who does the service marginalize, how does it propagate further cultural and global divisions...the list goes on No one ever stops to ask these questions--or those who do are not nearly loud enough. We seem to follow a policy of progress by all means until we've developed our way into a future in which the continued subsistence of humanity (at least on earth) is untenable.
- hsdfusa 9y ago
  > We seem to follow a policy of progress by all means until we've developed our way into a future in which the continued subsistence of humanity (at least on earth) is untenable. I just don't see how you got to this conclusion. In what way could technological progress make it untenable for humanity to continue?
  - westmeal 9y ago
    Not him but you see this very thing now. Look at pollution and CO2 emissions for an example of how technological progress can directly threaten humanity.
    - hsdfusa 9y ago
      But won't technological progress in electric transportation severely stunt the problem of emissions and pollution?
cortesoft 9y ago
I can understand the fear in the abstract, but it seems like a huge jump to go to suicide as the best option. What are 'they' going to do with the information that makes your life so miserable that not existing is preferable?
hsdfusa 9y ago
How did you come to your conclusion about computers so firmly? Also in what way is this worth taking your life over? Does it really make it impossible to enjoy it?

by hnaccy 9y ago

ashark 9y ago

I'd go farther: I'm unsure that communication technologies past approximately the telegraph have actually improved quality of life more than they've harmed it. At least in developed countries (simply don't know enough about life in un-/under-developed countries to have an opinion).

westmeal 9y ago
How so?

leggomylibro 9y ago

But at that point, society would basically be full-on Cyberpunk. Screw suicide, form a gang of runners and start planning heists on manufacturing facilities and factories, lay traps for driverless truck shipments or hijack them electronically, etc. Hide in the margins, among the slums and tenements to which overpopulation and consolidation have relegated vast swarms of people. Heck, I've already gotten transdermal implants set and removed by people who maybe weren't, you know, licensed practitioners. The moral rule of law is already out the window, and financial laws had already may as well not exist. The only practical compulsion that law has left is that many people can still have an acceptable life while complying with it. Enriching yourself by skimming the margins of those with enough capital to print money wouldn't exactly be immoral. Automation of force, or something along those lines, would pretty much cinch it. I think plenty of people would decide it's time to have a chat with a local lathe/mill owner, stick a flamethrower on their quadcopter, and loot the few places where opulence still existed. Get away with a couple decent jobs, and you could pretend you were in that upper echelon of 'people with lots of money' all along. Right now, if you're good at a trade like construction, welding, medicine, engineering, etc, you can probably find stable employment options and at least afford to exist. But when those people of practical means start to get systemically marginalized, I'll bet we'll see a huge resurgence of people trying modern versions of The Italian Job.

hnaccy 9y ago
Cyberpunk is a fiction because it peddles the naive fantasy that anarchistic actions would be feasible in such a world. There's not going to be any clever tricks to avoid being picked up the mass physical surveillance network. Hacking is simply infeasible for the vast majority of people given the complexity of systems and how much intelligence and knowledge is required. Action movie heists of high value targets are basically impossible to get away with these days let alone in a decade or two.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Well yeah, but if your other consolation idea is 'suicide,' I'd take the million-to-one shot.
- westmeal 9y ago
  Well sure if we're talking about cyberpunk 'heist' novels/rpgs like Shadowrun & Neuromancer. But it's really interesting to see just how 'cyberpunk' our society has become isn't it? We even have most of the technology in place nowadays. (Well other than the advanced tech they use like cyberdecks and stimsims which aren't really feasible)

gglitch 9y ago

> Computers were a mistake and represent the greatest threat to freedom in human history. The ability of those in power to mass produce perfectly obedient machines that can perform complex tasks without rest allow for a nightmare society. I think about that a lot. It suggests to me that the real problem lies not with technology, but with something unavoidable and self-destructive about human nature.

FilterSweep 9y ago
> It suggests to me that the real problem lies not with technology, but with something unavoidable and self-destructive about human nature. Or the people in power not being fully clear about their means.
- crush-n-spread 9y ago
  Look at the root cause. Humans are driven by the exact forces that caused evolution. Those forces are to gather resources and maintain social dominance. Anything other than that will never be a force that shapes the world. "Not being fully clear about their means" is just a manifestation or symptom of someone's quest to acquire more resources. I repeat that you must look at the root force and not the symptom.
hsdfusa 9y ago
> something unavoidable and self-destructive about human nature. What specifically? Wanting power and control?
- to_bpr 9y ago
  >What specifically? Wanting power and control? What about the fact that we're the only species to hoard way more resources than we'll ever need, to the point where we're quite literally destroying the environment and life around us in order to maintain our over-consumption of resources?
  - hsdfusa 9y ago

voidhorse 9y ago

I like reading your darkly pessimistic perspective on the issue as I think a huge component to the problem is the fact that so many aren't pessimistic enough about technological development. Everyone seems to think that, prima facie, or even de facto: technological progress == good. But there is nothing that guarantees that's the case. A shiny new device or service launches and everyone is gung ho to jump on it--never mind questioning its negative impacts--what is the environmental and economic impact of this service (e.g. cryptocurrencies consuming electricity, a 'material' resource, and producing nothing but a representation--e.g. consumption of material with no production), who does the service marginalize, how does it propagate further cultural and global divisions...the list goes on No one ever stops to ask these questions--or those who do are not nearly loud enough. We seem to follow a policy of progress by all means until we've developed our way into a future in which the continued subsistence of humanity (at least on earth) is untenable.

hsdfusa 9y ago
> We seem to follow a policy of progress by all means until we've developed our way into a future in which the continued subsistence of humanity (at least on earth) is untenable. I just don't see how you got to this conclusion. In what way could technological progress make it untenable for humanity to continue?
- westmeal 9y ago
  Not him but you see this very thing now. Look at pollution and CO2 emissions for an example of how technological progress can directly threaten humanity.
  - hsdfusa 9y ago
    But won't technological progress in electric transportation severely stunt the problem of emissions and pollution?

cortesoft 9y ago

I can understand the fear in the abstract, but it seems like a huge jump to go to suicide as the best option. What are 'they' going to do with the information that makes your life so miserable that not existing is preferable?

hsdfusa 9y ago

How did you come to your conclusion about computers so firmly? Also in what way is this worth taking your life over? Does it really make it impossible to enjoy it?