3 ms·

I love optimism, and have often been accused of adhering to it myself. To some extent, it is a requirement for civilization and even life, the basis of hope.

by toss1 5y ago

I love optimism, and have often been accused of adhering to it myself. To some extent, it is a requirement for civilization and even life, the basis of hope. But I've observed from decades ago that when we look at progress in science and technology, the future looks unimaginably bright, but when we look at politics and governance, it is incredibly dark. This contrast became massively magnified since 2015. Yet, even with the ascent of anti-democratic (small-'d') forces coordinating with transnational criminal gangs masquerading as government, I have some optimism that resistance to those forces are organizing. My main question is time -- will it happen in time, or will democracy fail? If so, it'll be some very dark centuries before it rises again. But I'm still hopeful, perhaps best to refer to it as "white-knuckled optimism".

ABCLAW 5y ago
>But I've observed from decades ago that when we look at progress in science and technology, the future looks unimaginably bright, but when we look at politics and governance, it is incredibly dark. I don't really see these as particularly different things. Our era has seen value financialized at almost every level of society by the deployment of transnational technology and institutions, resulting in the inability of national governments to hamper the global flow of anti-social or otherwise criminal resources and money. Some social ills and some policy adjustments simply aren't possible for governments to deal with, either as a result of the ambit of their power, the need for transnational alignment, or the time-sensitive nature for precise solutions to complex problems. Governments are in an arms race against increasing complexity in social problems. The development of additional command and control technologies, the deployment of extensive surveillance, and the weaponization of that surveillance against populations is directly tied to the intersection between power and technology. Technology enables power. We can design some technology to specifically disrupt current power structures, but overall technological development creates larger and larger capabilities on the part of those with power; better weapons, better intelligence, more resources, etc. So we have technology working at both ends, pulling at both sides. It isn't enough that technology allows us to do more; it's the balance between whether or not research tips the scale between the haves and have nots.
- toss1 5y ago
  yup. There was optimism aplenty when the internet was first growing, with the idea that it would democratize information, and pretty much everything. Yet here we are with a few mega-corps basically eating the whole pie, working as fast as they can to destroy the open internet in favor of their walled gardens, and curating every shred of content and amplifying it based on 'engagement', which is roughly inversely correlated with truth value, moral compass, or societal value (what ordinary publishers generally curate for). The net effect is highly corrosive to governance and society without even accounting for their amplification of intentional dezinformatsiya as part of active measures warfare. As you said, we need to create things that tip the balance towards democracy and the have-nots.

by toss1 5y ago

ABCLAW 5y ago

>But I've observed from decades ago that when we look at progress in science and technology, the future looks unimaginably bright, but when we look at politics and governance, it is incredibly dark. I don't really see these as particularly different things. Our era has seen value financialized at almost every level of society by the deployment of transnational technology and institutions, resulting in the inability of national governments to hamper the global flow of anti-social or otherwise criminal resources and money. Some social ills and some policy adjustments simply aren't possible for governments to deal with, either as a result of the ambit of their power, the need for transnational alignment, or the time-sensitive nature for precise solutions to complex problems. Governments are in an arms race against increasing complexity in social problems. The development of additional command and control technologies, the deployment of extensive surveillance, and the weaponization of that surveillance against populations is directly tied to the intersection between power and technology. Technology enables power. We can design some technology to specifically disrupt current power structures, but overall technological development creates larger and larger capabilities on the part of those with power; better weapons, better intelligence, more resources, etc. So we have technology working at both ends, pulling at both sides. It isn't enough that technology allows us to do more; it's the balance between whether or not research tips the scale between the haves and have nots.

toss1 5y ago
yup. There was optimism aplenty when the internet was first growing, with the idea that it would democratize information, and pretty much everything. Yet here we are with a few mega-corps basically eating the whole pie, working as fast as they can to destroy the open internet in favor of their walled gardens, and curating every shred of content and amplifying it based on 'engagement', which is roughly inversely correlated with truth value, moral compass, or societal value (what ordinary publishers generally curate for). The net effect is highly corrosive to governance and society without even accounting for their amplification of intentional dezinformatsiya as part of active measures warfare. As you said, we need to create things that tip the balance towards democracy and the have-nots.