4 ms·

I think this is fiction. We have lived in a creator-based morality ever since behavioural modernity (50-70,000 years ago). Teaching, trading, inventing, etc -

I think this is fiction. We have lived in a creator-based morality ever since behavioural modernity (50-70,000 years ago). Teaching, trading, inventing, etc - because two heads (perspectives) are better than one. Small, isolated societies stagnate. Over time, "societies" have grown larger, more open, more inclusive. Over time, the larger open society beats the small closed one. (even if that larger group isn't recognized as a "society", it need only communicate, share ideas and build on them). So we needn't fear a tiny billionaire society, even with a head start (at least, not in the long term...). > What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? Historically, this is a hard problem (et tu, Brutus?). It's easy to keep the masses in check; just create a "nobility" who also benefit from subjugation, all the way down. Resource them, health, education, training, armoury. Propaganda that they are better (fairy tales, clothes, etc). But hard to be safe in that inner circle... Power is a problem. > if they can’t get a seat on the rocket to Mars. After the worst possible imaginable apocalypse, Earth will still be far more habitable than Mars.

mistermann 7y ago
> Over time, the larger open society beats the small closed one. So we needn't fear a tiny billionaire society, even with a head start (at least, not in the long term...). What happens when all societies have been essentially merged into one, largely run in a coordinated manner by sociopaths and useful idiots who control what facts the bread and circus obsessed citizens are allowed to consume? This is one of my largest concerns with globalization - integration and optimization indeed increase efficiency and material wealth, but in doing so reduces redundancy and diversity. Evaluating these risks and making a calculated decision to proceed is one thing, completely ignoring it is something else entirely.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- hyperpallium 7y ago
  The source of wealth is creativity, which requires diversity (not optimization). Present globalization does not prevent competition between different parts, with competing levels of homogenity. For example, China has had spectacular long-term growth but now that it has caught up, it must instead create, which is a different game, requiring different approaches and institutions. I think China will either open further (which it's been doing) or stagnate. For a dsytopian total globalization that controls everything (like The Matrix)... I think it's literally impossible long term, because (1) people are smart (including every one of the masses); and (2) reality is open and infinitely complex and textured. While specific facts about a society can be hidden, misrepresented, drowned out, not all facts about reality can be. This is perhaps a slim hope in the short term (and has been in totalitarian states throughout human history), but will win out eventually - because reality and intelligence cannot be controlled totally, and they inevitably cause change. The more perfectly optimised the State is for one situation, the less adaptable it is to another.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > The source of wealth is creativity, which requires diversity (not optimization). Creativity requires diversity? Optimization does not create wealth? Could you share where you learned this? > Present globalization does not prevent competition between different parts, with competing levels of homogenity. Well sure, you can literally try to compete with companies paying their employees a few dollars an hour, and operating in environments with little environmental or workplace safety standards if you'd like. You will obviously lose, but you are not technically prevented from competing. > For a dsytopian total globalization that controls everything (like The Matrix)... I think it's literally impossible long term, because (1) people are smart (including every one of the masses); and (2) reality is open and infinitely complex and textured. Of the new wealth created in the world, how is it distributed? From everything I've read, it mostly goes to the top <10% of people. Do the "smart" masses not desire wealth? > not all facts about reality can be There's no need to conceal all facts. > because reality and intelligence cannot be controlled totally, and they inevitably cause change Is that so? What's your sample size? Lots of things have been declared impossible over time, until suddenly they weren't. As the saying goes, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

mistermann 7y ago

> Over time, the larger open society beats the small closed one. So we needn't fear a tiny billionaire society, even with a head start (at least, not in the long term...). What happens when all societies have been essentially merged into one, largely run in a coordinated manner by sociopaths and useful idiots who control what facts the bread and circus obsessed citizens are allowed to consume? This is one of my largest concerns with globalization - integration and optimization indeed increase efficiency and material wealth, but in doing so reduces redundancy and diversity. Evaluating these risks and making a calculated decision to proceed is one thing, completely ignoring it is something else entirely.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hyperpallium 7y ago
The source of wealth is creativity, which requires diversity (not optimization). Present globalization does not prevent competition between different parts, with competing levels of homogenity. For example, China has had spectacular long-term growth but now that it has caught up, it must instead create, which is a different game, requiring different approaches and institutions. I think China will either open further (which it's been doing) or stagnate. For a dsytopian total globalization that controls everything (like The Matrix)... I think it's literally impossible long term, because (1) people are smart (including every one of the masses); and (2) reality is open and infinitely complex and textured. While specific facts about a society can be hidden, misrepresented, drowned out, not all facts about reality can be. This is perhaps a slim hope in the short term (and has been in totalitarian states throughout human history), but will win out eventually - because reality and intelligence cannot be controlled totally, and they inevitably cause change. The more perfectly optimised the State is for one situation, the less adaptable it is to another.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > The source of wealth is creativity, which requires diversity (not optimization). Creativity requires diversity? Optimization does not create wealth? Could you share where you learned this? > Present globalization does not prevent competition between different parts, with competing levels of homogenity. Well sure, you can literally try to compete with companies paying their employees a few dollars an hour, and operating in environments with little environmental or workplace safety standards if you'd like. You will obviously lose, but you are not technically prevented from competing. > For a dsytopian total globalization that controls everything (like The Matrix)... I think it's literally impossible long term, because (1) people are smart (including every one of the masses); and (2) reality is open and infinitely complex and textured. Of the new wealth created in the world, how is it distributed? From everything I've read, it mostly goes to the top <10% of people. Do the "smart" masses not desire wealth? > not all facts about reality can be There's no need to conceal all facts. > because reality and intelligence cannot be controlled totally, and they inevitably cause change Is that so? What's your sample size? Lots of things have been declared impossible over time, until suddenly they weren't. As the saying goes, past performance is no guarantee of future results.