4 ms·

What isn't political and should be political is the nature of change on this planet using technology. It's taken for granted that change is a constant and const

What isn't political and should be political is the nature of change on this planet using technology. It's taken for granted that change is a constant and constantly necessary. That stability is impossible, though this is not factually true -- stability in short time frames like 10,000 years is historically definitely possible at many levels. That infinite competition is necessary and that the people are simply cogs in that system... where that system should serve people. Instead people serve the system. In such a system open to constant change and destruction it is rather difficult to create other systems that survive the destruction of the meta system that contains them.

neural_thing 7y ago
You would like Meditations on Moloch, if you haven't read it already. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
Mirioron 7y ago
I think it is necessary. If you stop improving then it means that anybody that could've benefitted from the improvements that would've happened don't get those benefits. Furthermore, if some part of society ignores your drive for stability and still keeps trying to improve, then over time they'll simply take over, because they'll be more advanced in many ways.
- devoply 7y ago
  That's really the crux of the issue. That it's a global political matter and because we're organized in nation states which are competing against one another it is impossible for anyone to stop or change the terms of the agreement. It's really a constant economic war fought with weapons of technology, which perhaps sorely needs disarmament.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    I don't think it's due to us being divided into nation states. Even inside a nation state you have different groups fighting one another. The side that stops improving disappears. I don't think any kind of "disarmament" could ever work either, because the problem isn't limited to technology proper. We have constant advancements in "social technology" as well. Think about how many "hacks" happen nowadays. It's usually not through vulnerable software or hardware, but theory social engineering instead. If you took a modern smart person and threw them into the 1800s then they could probably get a lot of power, because they could use ideas such as pyramid schemes to amass a lot of wealth. People from that time are unfamiliar with these kinds of "social technologies" and would probably fall prey to it. Even ideas like ponzi schemes are part of that improvement and if you don't keep up then eventually you won't even know how the other group took power. Eg I think that what Trump managed to pull off is probably one of those moves that people in the future will find obvious, but to many of us it was baffling (the idea that he said outrageous things so that the media would constantly keep talking about him, because familiarity often breeds fondness).
    - devoply 7y ago
      Everyone knows how to build and use an a-bomb. Yet no one does. Why? MAD. Similarly any piece of technology you can know how to use it, you can keep doing research on it, you can accumulate more knowledge about it and its uses. You just can be limited from making use of it publicly and even privately through surveillance. And how do you stop people from doing anything if it's known, fines and jail through policing. You can't control nation states as they don't answer to no one except each other. Individuals answer to the state.
      - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
        A-bomb is rather hard to make in your backyard and materials are relatively easy to detect and control. Lots of cooperation and time is needed. Imagine though a technology more lethal and easier to produce, available to everyone. For example bioengineering advanced to the point every script kiddie with a cheap biofabricator from aliexpress can design a contagion on their holodeck. Sure, serious people will have orders of magnitude more advanced techniques to fight it, but could they be deployed fast enough to save half of the megapolis attack was released in? See Nick Bostrom's Vulnerable World Hypothesis for other examples. Summary and link here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Tx6dGzYLtfzzkuGtF/the-vulnerable-world-hypothesis-by-bostrom https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Tx6dGzYLtfzzkuGtF/the-vulner...

neural_thing 7y ago

You would like Meditations on Moloch, if you haven't read it already. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Mirioron 7y ago

I think it is necessary. If you stop improving then it means that anybody that could've benefitted from the improvements that would've happened don't get those benefits. Furthermore, if some part of society ignores your drive for stability and still keeps trying to improve, then over time they'll simply take over, because they'll be more advanced in many ways.

devoply 7y ago
That's really the crux of the issue. That it's a global political matter and because we're organized in nation states which are competing against one another it is impossible for anyone to stop or change the terms of the agreement. It's really a constant economic war fought with weapons of technology, which perhaps sorely needs disarmament.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  I don't think it's due to us being divided into nation states. Even inside a nation state you have different groups fighting one another. The side that stops improving disappears. I don't think any kind of "disarmament" could ever work either, because the problem isn't limited to technology proper. We have constant advancements in "social technology" as well. Think about how many "hacks" happen nowadays. It's usually not through vulnerable software or hardware, but theory social engineering instead. If you took a modern smart person and threw them into the 1800s then they could probably get a lot of power, because they could use ideas such as pyramid schemes to amass a lot of wealth. People from that time are unfamiliar with these kinds of "social technologies" and would probably fall prey to it. Even ideas like ponzi schemes are part of that improvement and if you don't keep up then eventually you won't even know how the other group took power. Eg I think that what Trump managed to pull off is probably one of those moves that people in the future will find obvious, but to many of us it was baffling (the idea that he said outrageous things so that the media would constantly keep talking about him, because familiarity often breeds fondness).
  - devoply 7y ago
    Everyone knows how to build and use an a-bomb. Yet no one does. Why? MAD. Similarly any piece of technology you can know how to use it, you can keep doing research on it, you can accumulate more knowledge about it and its uses. You just can be limited from making use of it publicly and even privately through surveillance. And how do you stop people from doing anything if it's known, fines and jail through policing. You can't control nation states as they don't answer to no one except each other. Individuals answer to the state.
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
      A-bomb is rather hard to make in your backyard and materials are relatively easy to detect and control. Lots of cooperation and time is needed. Imagine though a technology more lethal and easier to produce, available to everyone. For example bioengineering advanced to the point every script kiddie with a cheap biofabricator from aliexpress can design a contagion on their holodeck. Sure, serious people will have orders of magnitude more advanced techniques to fight it, but could they be deployed fast enough to save half of the megapolis attack was released in? See Nick Bostrom's Vulnerable World Hypothesis for other examples. Summary and link here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Tx6dGzYLtfzzkuGtF/the-vulnerable-world-hypothesis-by-bostrom https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Tx6dGzYLtfzzkuGtF/the-vulner...