6 ms·

Interesting question. Interesting too that we've become so self-confident in our machines and our studies that we think to ask it. Seeking to regulate something

Interesting question. Interesting too that we've become so self-confident in our machines and our studies that we think to ask it. Seeking to regulate something like the use of psychology, which we understand so little of, seems like an 18th century pirate asking his captain whether they should regulate the ocean. Like no, we only know a minuscule amount of information about it, about the bare surface of it at that - ask me again in 2,000 years.

Bigpet 6y ago
I don't understand what this argument is. I think the FDA was approving medicines long before the precise molecular mechanisms were known. Even with unknowns you can still study outcomes and legislate around them. Instead you seem to propose "oh we don't know enough, so we should just let it run wild". I do agree that sensible legislation around this is hard to impossible to do. I'd rather see some more research into the effects funded before jumping directly into legislation.
- sandspar 6y ago
  You're right that we don't need to understand something completely before we regulate it. My point was to emphasize how little we know about psychology and how little good a law that addresses our current technology will do in the long run, since the psychology-focused technology we have 50 or 100 years from now will likely be vastly more dangerous. The image I have is of a caveman who, upon seeing one of his tribesmen kill another with a rock, proposes to regulate the use of rocks. Good idea maybe, but give it time and rocks will be the least of his troubles. However it's unfair of me to dismiss our real life solutions to real life problems by pointing to a problem that might come to exist in an imaginary long-term future. We can only make the best with what we have. Maybe I need to update my mental model of the law from an eternal-and-perfect view to an incremental-and-imperfect view, especially when it comes to the intersection of law and technology.
JellyBeanThief 6y ago
Yeah, no. Ignorance is a reason to employ caution, not throw it to the winds. What do you imagine is going to be the horrifying fallout of telling businesses and politicians they're not allowed to build and act on detailed profiles of people?

Bigpet 6y ago

I don't understand what this argument is. I think the FDA was approving medicines long before the precise molecular mechanisms were known. Even with unknowns you can still study outcomes and legislate around them. Instead you seem to propose "oh we don't know enough, so we should just let it run wild". I do agree that sensible legislation around this is hard to impossible to do. I'd rather see some more research into the effects funded before jumping directly into legislation.

sandspar 6y ago
You're right that we don't need to understand something completely before we regulate it. My point was to emphasize how little we know about psychology and how little good a law that addresses our current technology will do in the long run, since the psychology-focused technology we have 50 or 100 years from now will likely be vastly more dangerous. The image I have is of a caveman who, upon seeing one of his tribesmen kill another with a rock, proposes to regulate the use of rocks. Good idea maybe, but give it time and rocks will be the least of his troubles. However it's unfair of me to dismiss our real life solutions to real life problems by pointing to a problem that might come to exist in an imaginary long-term future. We can only make the best with what we have. Maybe I need to update my mental model of the law from an eternal-and-perfect view to an incremental-and-imperfect view, especially when it comes to the intersection of law and technology.

JellyBeanThief 6y ago

Yeah, no. Ignorance is a reason to employ caution, not throw it to the winds. What do you imagine is going to be the horrifying fallout of telling businesses and politicians they're not allowed to build and act on detailed profiles of people?