3 ms·
I came to a realization on this subject while visiting Las Vegas: Pragmatically, a maximally high trust society and a maximally low trust society permit the sam
by User23 7y ago
I came to a realization on this subject while visiting Las Vegas: Pragmatically, a maximally high trust society and a maximally low trust society permit the same behavior patterns. In Las Vegas casinos, which are low trust and have high surveillance, one can comfortably leave tens of thousands of dollars or more on a gaming table while one goes to use the bathroom or whatever. In a hypothetical high trust low surveillance environment one could do the same.
The difference is, we know how to engineer for low trust and high surveillance. We don't really know how to engineer for high trust and low surveillance. So our practical choices are to either live in a low trust low surveillance society and having to constrain ourselves as that requires, or to live in a low trust high surveillance society that simulates a much more pleasant high trust society.
- carapace 7y ago> live in a low trust high surveillance society that simulates a much more pleasant high trust society And in a high surveillance society, whatever the initial conditions, the cost/benefit ratio of cooperation vs. defection is biased towards trust. In other words, the ersatz high trust society would become the real thing, of course only provided the surveillance is trustworthy. For example, China's social credit system might work if it is administered sans corruption. It has to be self-reflexive. As incredible as it seems, Mrs. Grundy will save us.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]