4 ms·

I remember reading an intro to Orwell's Animal Farm that discussed Orwell's ability to see the dystopian use of technology, but couldn't see how it could libera

I remember reading an intro to Orwell's Animal Farm that discussed Orwell's ability to see the dystopian use of technology, but couldn't see how it could liberate a citizenry from totalitarianism (like the shortwave, for example). I think the same of this high level tech as well. I could be wrong, but I think individuals do desire freedom and agency, and as long as that desire is there in some, it's going to be hard to squash.

mercer 9y ago
I do hope you're right. One of my 'in the realm of possibility' dystopian fears is that a totalitarian regime figures out how to (chemically?) keep their society docile. Ideally the populace would still be creative, to an extent, but that might not even be necessary, or compensated for by stealing innovation from other places. One could argue that this is already sort of happening in many places, without there being a big conspiracy behind it, I guess.
- natecavanaugh 9y ago
  I do too. Things like CRISPR scare the bejeezus out of me for reasons like you mention. I tend to think that's the killer equation in the US culture, which is incentives that are set up for exposing stuff like this. We don't need our journalists, politicians, scientists or any authority to be looking out for our best interest. As long as there are ways for them to further their own self-interest in ways that go against other authorities, we have some folks watching our backs. But in cases where you fundamentally alter someone's idea of self-interest, you're in a crazy amount of danger. And with the power one can wield, you're in for a lot of unintended consequences. Hopefully Pandora can be restrained just a bit.
  - mercer 9y ago
    See, I'd argue we've already progressed in that direction far more than we realize by reducing so much of our social world to 'transactions'. I grew up in a much more 'traditional' society and the the contrast is quite stark.
    - natecavanaugh 9y ago
      Do you mind expanding on the contrast a bit by explaining the more traditional society part? I was born and raised in southern California, and one thing that I can consistently remember since I was a child was just how transactional southern Californians are in their relationships (as well as generally flaky, and relatively superficial; these are all common stereotypes, but in my experience, they contain a certain amount of truth). So I know that this dynamic has not only existed for my lifetime, but also well known enough to be a stereotype, and I'm not sure how much it contributes to the larger dangers we've discussed.
      - mercer 9y ago
        'Family' would be one thing. I found that 1) the responsibilities/rights were much broader, and 2) they extended beyond just siblings, parents (and perhaps grandparents). If one of my siblings were to have financial trouble, or to start a business, it wouldn't be strange for me to decline helping them, whereas in the more traditional culture this would be considered rather selfish. And on the latter culture, when your parents get older and less useful to society, they move in with one of their kids (and often help out with the child-rearing). Putting them in a home would be unacceptable. Furthermore, many of these things would extend to uncles and aunts and cousins, where in my current culture it's pretty normal to only see those at 'special' family occasions. I also found that the relationship with neighbors and small businesses in the area were a lot more 'familial' in nature: 'watching the shop while owner does x', the shop-owner getting particular products just for you, but also a sense of loyalty. If you need a haircut/pedicure/etc., and a family member offers that service, it would be considered offensive to go to another place. Basically, a lot of the stuff that 'we' would put in the transactional sphere were often much more like how we'd interact or deal with immediate family. A lot consisted of favors you'd do, with the implicit agreement that someone should do something equivalent for you. These intricate 'networks' of favors combined with various social obligations led to ties that were much stronger, obviously, than a purely commercial interaction. I'm rambling a bit; still early here. I suppose a good book on the matter is Debt by David Graeber, but looking at how various immigrant communities operate can also be enlightening. I've experienced similar kinds of quasi-commercial relationships with the Turkish shops in my neighborhood, for example (I would fix their computer, they'd hold on to my house key for a friend to pick up, no shopping without chatting, etc.).

mercer 9y ago

I do hope you're right. One of my 'in the realm of possibility' dystopian fears is that a totalitarian regime figures out how to (chemically?) keep their society docile. Ideally the populace would still be creative, to an extent, but that might not even be necessary, or compensated for by stealing innovation from other places. One could argue that this is already sort of happening in many places, without there being a big conspiracy behind it, I guess.

natecavanaugh 9y ago
I do too. Things like CRISPR scare the bejeezus out of me for reasons like you mention. I tend to think that's the killer equation in the US culture, which is incentives that are set up for exposing stuff like this. We don't need our journalists, politicians, scientists or any authority to be looking out for our best interest. As long as there are ways for them to further their own self-interest in ways that go against other authorities, we have some folks watching our backs. But in cases where you fundamentally alter someone's idea of self-interest, you're in a crazy amount of danger. And with the power one can wield, you're in for a lot of unintended consequences. Hopefully Pandora can be restrained just a bit.
- mercer 9y ago
  See, I'd argue we've already progressed in that direction far more than we realize by reducing so much of our social world to 'transactions'. I grew up in a much more 'traditional' society and the the contrast is quite stark.
  - natecavanaugh 9y ago
    Do you mind expanding on the contrast a bit by explaining the more traditional society part? I was born and raised in southern California, and one thing that I can consistently remember since I was a child was just how transactional southern Californians are in their relationships (as well as generally flaky, and relatively superficial; these are all common stereotypes, but in my experience, they contain a certain amount of truth). So I know that this dynamic has not only existed for my lifetime, but also well known enough to be a stereotype, and I'm not sure how much it contributes to the larger dangers we've discussed.
    - mercer 9y ago
      'Family' would be one thing. I found that 1) the responsibilities/rights were much broader, and 2) they extended beyond just siblings, parents (and perhaps grandparents). If one of my siblings were to have financial trouble, or to start a business, it wouldn't be strange for me to decline helping them, whereas in the more traditional culture this would be considered rather selfish. And on the latter culture, when your parents get older and less useful to society, they move in with one of their kids (and often help out with the child-rearing). Putting them in a home would be unacceptable. Furthermore, many of these things would extend to uncles and aunts and cousins, where in my current culture it's pretty normal to only see those at 'special' family occasions. I also found that the relationship with neighbors and small businesses in the area were a lot more 'familial' in nature: 'watching the shop while owner does x', the shop-owner getting particular products just for you, but also a sense of loyalty. If you need a haircut/pedicure/etc., and a family member offers that service, it would be considered offensive to go to another place. Basically, a lot of the stuff that 'we' would put in the transactional sphere were often much more like how we'd interact or deal with immediate family. A lot consisted of favors you'd do, with the implicit agreement that someone should do something equivalent for you. These intricate 'networks' of favors combined with various social obligations led to ties that were much stronger, obviously, than a purely commercial interaction. I'm rambling a bit; still early here. I suppose a good book on the matter is Debt by David Graeber, but looking at how various immigrant communities operate can also be enlightening. I've experienced similar kinds of quasi-commercial relationships with the Turkish shops in my neighborhood, for example (I would fix their computer, they'd hold on to my house key for a friend to pick up, no shopping without chatting, etc.).