6 ms·

The real problem is that scientists & technologists are not inherently power hungry. This has been true throughout human history. The second that technologists

The real problem is that scientists & technologists are not inherently power hungry. This has been true throughout human history. The second that technologists realize that it serves the human race for us to be power hungry (at the grandest scale -- not the ego-driven "I launched Instagram" scale) ... society will undergo rapid transformation. A unified, noble, technocracy is the future of human government... but it requires a new form of revolutionary indoctrination. EDIT: maybe I should replace "power hungry" with: wanting to be the ones calling the shots. Especially with regards to things like foreign policy etc. Most of us have strong pacifist views but seldom do we actually do anything that enables us to stop constant war. Constant war is culturally ingrained in our governments, which is why it continues to happen. One only needs to look at the history of the CIA, then compare that to what they are doing now to see this.

idlewords 9y ago
Username checks out
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
pault 9y ago
I think there's an important distinction between being power hungry and recognizing the need for active participation in society, taking responsibility for how our work is deployed, and using democratic technology as a counterweight against the influence of despots and corporate oligopolies. The world needs more power hungry people like I need a hole in my head.
oblio 9y ago
A "noble" anything is the future of human government. I'm not betting on it happening during my lifetime. For now I'd prefer us to have better systems for using human flaws for good government (greed, fear, narcissism & pride, etc.).
smacktoward 9y ago
And the problem with that was identified by Lord Acton in 1887 (https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html): "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Your technocrats may be noble, but they are also human. Give them enough power and they will swiftly lose their nobility.
- pqh 9y ago
  Even earlier than that, Plato had somethings to say about philosophers and kings.
- stanfordkid 9y ago
  Of course, we shouldn't dole out arbitrary power to scientists. The founding fathers did a great job several centuries ago at building a balanced system... but who is to say that there isn't something better, that has technology as a foundational layer.
- CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
  > "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." There's a corollary here. I think a probably-more-precise description is that corruption isn't just caused by the presence of power, it's the result of the disparity between power and wisdom. If you increase power without increasing wisdom, you'll see more corruption. If you have absolute power, you probably don't also have absolute wisdom (if such a thing is even conceptually possible). There's a second corollary here: Power doesn't only corrupt the one that wields it. Its mere presence can sour others. (Envy, greed, etc.) In a similar vein, people also love to say that knowledge is power, but I think "information asymmetry" fits better. (Also, power is inherently temporary.)
  - osullivj 9y ago
    It's not simply the holding of power that corrupts. 10 years ago I was a tech Director at an investment bank. The politics were brutal, so I quit. I returned a couple of years later as a contractor, and found some people treated me differently. They were no longer interested in chatting, and didn't laugh at my lame jokes. Other people treated me the same; they were my real friends. When you have power and influence, even if relatively minor, people will suck up to you. You may not be aware of it happening. It's insidious, and it will corrupt you if you're not on your guard. Some people enjoy it; in my experience they're often dangerous.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Here's how I fear it would play out: A good-hearted techie becomes a singular ruler of the country. By some luck they aren't immediately deposed due to their inability/unwillingness to play internal politics. Soon they discover that just keeping that country from getting invaded by neighbours, or economically sabotaged by others, requires getting ready for war and nurturing - or even employing - the ability to project force. Say they think "fuck it" and through smarts and few surgical strikes, they take over the world. We have one government on the planet, with one ruler. But how long will that survive, given that there will be people sowing dissent? How long will it take before the governance either dies, or turns into a dystopian story straight from Black Mirror? What will happen when the Mars colony decides to declare independence (a tech person is in charge, there will be a Mars colony)? Or another scenario - let's say multiple techies take over the world; how fast will the planet turn into a glass desert, forever testifying to the holy war between Emacs and Vim, or JavaScript versus basic sanity? My point is, I don't believe techies are suited to rule humanity. I don't believe anyone is. And I have no idea if a civilization-scale governance that is stable, universally good, and that would survive more than few decades, is even possible.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  >And I have no idea if a civilization-scale governance that is stable, universally good, and that would survive more than few decades, is even possible. I would agree, insofar as the requirements for such a stable (and dare I say peaceful) government will require a letting-go of our basic nature to let Power corrupt us. It might work for a little while though as you say, which would be pretty good considering our track record...
- pow_pp_-1_v 9y ago
  I think the ultimate ideal that humans should strive to is to learn to live without a ruler. If that's impossible then learn to live under the rule of an automaton. I guess what I am trying to say is that we need to move away from our current thinking and consider the possibility of governance without an ultimate authority.
  - Momquist 9y ago
pvg 9y ago
I don't think this really holds up under even very light scrutiny. Most people in general aren't all that interested in calling all the shots but there've been plenty of technically and scientifically trained politicians all over the world in all sorts of political systems. One leads Germany today, among others. Most of us have strong pacifist views but seldom do we actually do anything that enables us to stop constant war. Scientists actively initiated the development of the weapons that define post-ww-2 geopolitics. Subsequently, many were deeply involved in related internal and foreign policy. It doesn't get more 'doing something' than that.
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> This has been true throughout human history. The second that technologists realize that it serves the human race for us to be power hungry (at the grandest scale -- not the ego-driven "I launched Instagram" scale) ... society will undergo rapid transformation. One of the many problems with this idea is that to do science you have to do science and to do politics you have to do politics. Both take an insane amount of work to keep practicing, let alone to be successful at, so it's really hard to combine the two and be equally successful in both. So the power hungry science becomes a power hungry politican, after a while. What did we gain? We have power hungy politicians right now.
svachalek 9y ago
This sounds like the plot of Persepolis Rising... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28335696-persepolis-rising https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28335696-persepolis-risi...
azernik 9y ago
The problems of political relations are shaped by the dynamics of the system, not by the inherent character flaws of the people operating that system.

idlewords 9y ago

Username checks out

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

pault 9y ago

I think there's an important distinction between being power hungry and recognizing the need for active participation in society, taking responsibility for how our work is deployed, and using democratic technology as a counterweight against the influence of despots and corporate oligopolies. The world needs more power hungry people like I need a hole in my head.

oblio 9y ago

A "noble" anything is the future of human government. I'm not betting on it happening during my lifetime. For now I'd prefer us to have better systems for using human flaws for good government (greed, fear, narcissism & pride, etc.).

smacktoward 9y ago

And the problem with that was identified by Lord Acton in 1887 (https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html): "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Your technocrats may be noble, but they are also human. Give them enough power and they will swiftly lose their nobility.

pqh 9y ago
Even earlier than that, Plato had somethings to say about philosophers and kings.
stanfordkid 9y ago
Of course, we shouldn't dole out arbitrary power to scientists. The founding fathers did a great job several centuries ago at building a balanced system... but who is to say that there isn't something better, that has technology as a foundational layer.
CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
> "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." There's a corollary here. I think a probably-more-precise description is that corruption isn't just caused by the presence of power, it's the result of the disparity between power and wisdom. If you increase power without increasing wisdom, you'll see more corruption. If you have absolute power, you probably don't also have absolute wisdom (if such a thing is even conceptually possible). There's a second corollary here: Power doesn't only corrupt the one that wields it. Its mere presence can sour others. (Envy, greed, etc.) In a similar vein, people also love to say that knowledge is power, but I think "information asymmetry" fits better. (Also, power is inherently temporary.)
- osullivj 9y ago
  It's not simply the holding of power that corrupts. 10 years ago I was a tech Director at an investment bank. The politics were brutal, so I quit. I returned a couple of years later as a contractor, and found some people treated me differently. They were no longer interested in chatting, and didn't laugh at my lame jokes. Other people treated me the same; they were my real friends. When you have power and influence, even if relatively minor, people will suck up to you. You may not be aware of it happening. It's insidious, and it will corrupt you if you're not on your guard. Some people enjoy it; in my experience they're often dangerous.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Here's how I fear it would play out: A good-hearted techie becomes a singular ruler of the country. By some luck they aren't immediately deposed due to their inability/unwillingness to play internal politics. Soon they discover that just keeping that country from getting invaded by neighbours, or economically sabotaged by others, requires getting ready for war and nurturing - or even employing - the ability to project force. Say they think "fuck it" and through smarts and few surgical strikes, they take over the world. We have one government on the planet, with one ruler. But how long will that survive, given that there will be people sowing dissent? How long will it take before the governance either dies, or turns into a dystopian story straight from Black Mirror? What will happen when the Mars colony decides to declare independence (a tech person is in charge, there will be a Mars colony)? Or another scenario - let's say multiple techies take over the world; how fast will the planet turn into a glass desert, forever testifying to the holy war between Emacs and Vim, or JavaScript versus basic sanity? My point is, I don't believe techies are suited to rule humanity. I don't believe anyone is. And I have no idea if a civilization-scale governance that is stable, universally good, and that would survive more than few decades, is even possible.

24gttghh 9y ago
>And I have no idea if a civilization-scale governance that is stable, universally good, and that would survive more than few decades, is even possible. I would agree, insofar as the requirements for such a stable (and dare I say peaceful) government will require a letting-go of our basic nature to let Power corrupt us. It might work for a little while though as you say, which would be pretty good considering our track record...
pow_pp_-1_v 9y ago
I think the ultimate ideal that humans should strive to is to learn to live without a ruler. If that's impossible then learn to live under the rule of an automaton. I guess what I am trying to say is that we need to move away from our current thinking and consider the possibility of governance without an ultimate authority.
- Momquist 9y ago

pvg 9y ago

I don't think this really holds up under even very light scrutiny. Most people in general aren't all that interested in calling all the shots but there've been plenty of technically and scientifically trained politicians all over the world in all sorts of political systems. One leads Germany today, among others. Most of us have strong pacifist views but seldom do we actually do anything that enables us to stop constant war. Scientists actively initiated the development of the weapons that define post-ww-2 geopolitics. Subsequently, many were deeply involved in related internal and foreign policy. It doesn't get more 'doing something' than that.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

>> This has been true throughout human history. The second that technologists realize that it serves the human race for us to be power hungry (at the grandest scale -- not the ego-driven "I launched Instagram" scale) ... society will undergo rapid transformation. One of the many problems with this idea is that to do science you have to do science and to do politics you have to do politics. Both take an insane amount of work to keep practicing, let alone to be successful at, so it's really hard to combine the two and be equally successful in both. So the power hungry science becomes a power hungry politican, after a while. What did we gain? We have power hungy politicians right now.

svachalek 9y ago

This sounds like the plot of Persepolis Rising... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28335696-persepolis-rising https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28335696-persepolis-risi...

azernik 9y ago

The problems of political relations are shaped by the dynamics of the system, not by the inherent character flaws of the people operating that system.