3 ms·

I agree that it is way over-the-top. Counterpoint to your conditioning point: kids tend to rebel against oversight, and will probably include this in the list

by JoBrad 7y ago

I agree that it is way over-the-top. Counterpoint to your conditioning point: kids tend to rebel against oversight, and will probably include this in the list of things they reject.

basilgohar 7y ago
I think this is a gross over-exaggeration. While it is not uncommon for kids to rebel against, for example, their parents at a certain and whatnot, I think this is different than saying that the majority of kids will do it. The public school system functions as a major conditioning environment to get children used to the norms of society, including deference to authority, following rules, and other things that are generally accepted as good. This is the ideal time for those things to happen because of how pliable the young mind still is. However, we must be very careful how constrained we make such environments and the idea that safety is guaranteed by subjecting kids to what is effectively zero privacy means we've traded, yet again, liberty for security, thus relinquishing the effective right to both. This will be as effective at rooting out violence in schools as bombing 3rd world villages has been in rooting out terrorism. Until the underlying issues are addressed (mental health, social disparities, racial divides, etc.) the kettle will continue boiling over and more-and-more unpredictable and chaotic ways.
shadowgovt 7y ago
Or they will observe the world doesn't burn down around them with this level of surveillance in place and will come to find it normal. Which may very well be fine; perhaps it's a useful normal.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  The problem is that it's very difficult to see the far-reaching consequences of policy that affects entire generations. People in the 1800s observed that using fossil fuels in abundance doesn't burn down the world around them, but we know now that that's not really true.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  The world won't burn down, they'll just slowly and quietly lose their freedom over the course of decades. They might not even notice, since it will happen invisibly through self-censorship and implied consequences. The very idea of freedom will seem useless in their own hands and frightening in others'. Control will be centralized liberalism will give way to fear. Everything will keep moving, but the people will not be in control of their own rule.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    The amount of freedom people are allowed is always a question of balance, not binary. If the world you described makes for a better life for the people in it, it's a better world. In the US, we used to consider dueling to be a freedom and a proper behavior for gentlemen to engage in. We changed our minds on account of the unnecessary death. Maybe people in the future may consider "dropping off the grid" to be weird and quirky, or downright dangerous. Maybe that's okay. We've known for millenia that unlimited freedom is more damaging on average than partially-constrained freedom. In the era of these new technologies, I don't think we're sure yet where the constraints should be.
  - asdff 7y ago
    What freedom is being lost that isn't already lost. You go to the grocery store? The mall? The ball park? City hall? Your doctors office? Your college? The package room at your apartment? The airport? The train station? The gas station? All currently under surveillance and have been since the invention of the security camera. No one bats an eye, these are to document crimes that have occurred. Suddenly public schools also use cameras for the same purpose, and this is where the line is drawn? Personally, I feel much more comfortable having a government that represents me and offers me a recourse in charge of security footage than some asshole who runs the gas station and does who knows what with the footage when he gets home.

by JoBrad 7y ago

I agree that it is way over-the-top. Counterpoint to your conditioning point: kids tend to rebel against oversight, and will probably include this in the list of things they reject.

basilgohar 7y ago

I think this is a gross over-exaggeration. While it is not uncommon for kids to rebel against, for example, their parents at a certain and whatnot, I think this is different than saying that the majority of kids will do it. The public school system functions as a major conditioning environment to get children used to the norms of society, including deference to authority, following rules, and other things that are generally accepted as good. This is the ideal time for those things to happen because of how pliable the young mind still is. However, we must be very careful how constrained we make such environments and the idea that safety is guaranteed by subjecting kids to what is effectively zero privacy means we've traded, yet again, liberty for security, thus relinquishing the effective right to both. This will be as effective at rooting out violence in schools as bombing 3rd world villages has been in rooting out terrorism. Until the underlying issues are addressed (mental health, social disparities, racial divides, etc.) the kettle will continue boiling over and more-and-more unpredictable and chaotic ways.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Or they will observe the world doesn't burn down around them with this level of surveillance in place and will come to find it normal. Which may very well be fine; perhaps it's a useful normal.

Mirioron 7y ago
The problem is that it's very difficult to see the far-reaching consequences of policy that affects entire generations. People in the 1800s observed that using fossil fuels in abundance doesn't burn down the world around them, but we know now that that's not really true.
homonculus1 7y ago
The world won't burn down, they'll just slowly and quietly lose their freedom over the course of decades. They might not even notice, since it will happen invisibly through self-censorship and implied consequences. The very idea of freedom will seem useless in their own hands and frightening in others'. Control will be centralized liberalism will give way to fear. Everything will keep moving, but the people will not be in control of their own rule.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  The amount of freedom people are allowed is always a question of balance, not binary. If the world you described makes for a better life for the people in it, it's a better world. In the US, we used to consider dueling to be a freedom and a proper behavior for gentlemen to engage in. We changed our minds on account of the unnecessary death. Maybe people in the future may consider "dropping off the grid" to be weird and quirky, or downright dangerous. Maybe that's okay. We've known for millenia that unlimited freedom is more damaging on average than partially-constrained freedom. In the era of these new technologies, I don't think we're sure yet where the constraints should be.
- asdff 7y ago
  What freedom is being lost that isn't already lost. You go to the grocery store? The mall? The ball park? City hall? Your doctors office? Your college? The package room at your apartment? The airport? The train station? The gas station? All currently under surveillance and have been since the invention of the security camera. No one bats an eye, these are to document crimes that have occurred. Suddenly public schools also use cameras for the same purpose, and this is where the line is drawn? Personally, I feel much more comfortable having a government that represents me and offers me a recourse in charge of security footage than some asshole who runs the gas station and does who knows what with the footage when he gets home.