4 ms·

Hum, grumble mumble... We surely are at the end of a cycle in human development terms, witch means the actual society going to change in something new, BUT "Ind

by kkfx 5y ago

Hum, grumble mumble... We surely are at the end of a cycle in human development terms, witch means the actual society going to change in something new, BUT "Industrial Society" is not actually a society in humans terms. We have had countless "industrial society" in various different societies, from Japanese steel, China ceramic and shipping (far in the past), metallurgic industry from Celts, Roman industry, cord and weapons industry in more recent times, ... surely "industry" as a concept have changed. It's still a matter of work in certain location with a certain supply chain to produce a certain (big) amount of goods, in tech terms we have switched various times and now we are about to change from subtractive manufacturing (CNC mills) to additive ones (3D printing) etc such tech change ALSO change more or less the human society but there are still two separate things. Actual economically-driven, neoliberal society yes completely fails to evolve, because real progress is against certain business, because managerial/profit driven development is incompatible with real innovation, that's an enormous issue of the present time, but again not an "industrial society" issue. Transportation changes thanks to TLCs and tech evolution, climate change push will probably push us from roads to air/water ways, so a future without major roads and rails infra that demand stability and a certain concentration will probably vanish in a more mixed and flexible ones, the need of big factories will change reducing a bit with tech progress, how we live will change accordingly, but again that's not an industrial society end, nor the actual society end... It's still probably too early to say when and how such changes happens if they'll happen. There are still too much variables in the game.

ilaksh 5y ago
So far yours is the only substantive response to the post (edit: although a few others popped up after I wrote this). I agree with most of the broad ideas you bring up which are insightful. However, the tone of your comment does not seem to be quite acknowledging that we are in reality now in a somewhat dire situation. Anyway I have a few questions. I too see many issues with "managerial/profit driven development" and true innovation. However, do you suppose that we should remove the profit motive? What do we replace it with? Because unfortunately people seem to fall back to some sort of centralized system like a scientific committee or centralized AI. The problems with these paradigms are even more severe than with corporations. My take is that involving profits is a way to introduce rules and score keeping to the game. And again, although there are quite a few cheaters, and least there is a game you can play. If you take away the rules and points, you are left with just politics. Or, in the case of a centralized AI, highly concentrated politics related to who controls the AI. And the rest organizing themselves how? Because another part of this equation is that humans are animals and will inevitably construct hierarchies related to mating and resource distribution (just like other animals). Large scale ultra-local production empowered by things like 3d printing seems to be on its way. But its very far from taking over. And right now, for example, we have a crisis in food production. And the few community gardens we have are negligible in terms of total calories. Also, almost all items, from construction materials to household goods, require oil to produce. Its nice to fantasize about algal oil or something, but large scale deployment is nowhere near here. To me what could possibly work or at least be a step in the right direction is to use something like advanced cryptocurrency and smart contract technology to reimplement things like money and government in ways that are more fair, cohesive and sane. Combine or even integrate that with truly distributed real time and redundant information systems for large scale data aggregation, visualization and query. My idea is kind of going along the lines of the centralized 1950s style AI, at least as far as being able to get holistic views. But it incorporates modern ideas about the robustness of distributed networks. So we can effectively and transparently share and aggregate global information using peer-to-peer protocols, but not be restricted to a single authoritarian interpretation. But I am very curious to hear, did you have specific ideas about moving beyond the "managerial/profit driven development"? It just feels like people who want to completely drop money or profit from this usually don't have a great plan. I think most are envisioning a vast network of "intentional communities" where everyone just shares. Again, the reality of that is not going to be as great as you think. Because it means replacing the "game" of profit with just pure politics. Most of the intentional communities become kind of like little cults. Organization will happen one way or another. If there isn't some points accumulation or other structure then you default to manipulation, stabbings, etc.
- kkfx 5y ago
  > do you suppose that we should remove the profit motive? What do we replace it with? Not remove, layer it. In the past we have had public universities and big "free" "innovation labs" from private those NOT managerial driven but just "we have big money, we fund some very skilled technicians who innovate on their own and see the outcome, something very nice for our business will appear". Such model have produced the most quick and revolutionary innovation we have seen in last century et least. My view is: States funds public universities whose target is pure research, innovation for humankind. They do not produce goods, just ideas and initial implementations. Companies for their profits, States for Citizens needs pick those ideas choosing what to implement, sell etc. Private research can't really compete so there will be a bit but not too much to steer society in dangerous evolution, States having the biggest concentration of talents and research can surveil and make Citizens informed enough to decide if something is good or not. > My take is that involving profits is a way to introduce rules and score keeping to the game. Although in practice we have seen the contrary: some innovate better than other conquering certain positions, than they start killing potential competitors thanks to money they have amassed... IMVHO innovation can only be stimulate by intellectual means, push needs and rewards means pushing dangerous innovations,, something good can arrive, but also much bad things. > right now, for example, we have a crisis in food production And it's cause is only partially the climate change, much is due by for-profit market moves, where it's more profitable having big food players instead of countless small ones. That's why IMVHO profit must be contained, it's not self-contained because the ideal free market can exists, only if kept free by force, by nature it derive quickly toward hierarchy against humans needs... The main point here is that States as Democracies represent the sole real free market: the people, all together unable to really form a monopoly or oligopoly. > It just feels like people who want to completely drop money or profit from this usually don't have a great plan. IMVHO money is a very misunderstood topic: so far money are a kind of substrate of anything lent to states in the form of public debt; that's not "money" that's a very old scam, dating back from the '300 or even certain Greeks polis. Money must be a unit of measure of a substrate, determined, not owned, by the public, no private parties involved. A symbol we use to weight nearly anything. If we made money like that, than profit change aspect: we do not have financialization much more than a thin layer because having no value as a substrate have no value, so no option for profit, at all. In that case a company can have benefits from good ads, but can't live only on ads, it need something valuable underneath etc. That's the real key all actual élites do not want because actual money is the best way to keep people in line with soft tie almost no one really see and revolt.

by kkfx 5y ago

ilaksh 5y ago

So far yours is the only substantive response to the post (edit: although a few others popped up after I wrote this). I agree with most of the broad ideas you bring up which are insightful. However, the tone of your comment does not seem to be quite acknowledging that we are in reality now in a somewhat dire situation. Anyway I have a few questions. I too see many issues with "managerial/profit driven development" and true innovation. However, do you suppose that we should remove the profit motive? What do we replace it with? Because unfortunately people seem to fall back to some sort of centralized system like a scientific committee or centralized AI. The problems with these paradigms are even more severe than with corporations. My take is that involving profits is a way to introduce rules and score keeping to the game. And again, although there are quite a few cheaters, and least there is a game you can play. If you take away the rules and points, you are left with just politics. Or, in the case of a centralized AI, highly concentrated politics related to who controls the AI. And the rest organizing themselves how? Because another part of this equation is that humans are animals and will inevitably construct hierarchies related to mating and resource distribution (just like other animals). Large scale ultra-local production empowered by things like 3d printing seems to be on its way. But its very far from taking over. And right now, for example, we have a crisis in food production. And the few community gardens we have are negligible in terms of total calories. Also, almost all items, from construction materials to household goods, require oil to produce. Its nice to fantasize about algal oil or something, but large scale deployment is nowhere near here. To me what could possibly work or at least be a step in the right direction is to use something like advanced cryptocurrency and smart contract technology to reimplement things like money and government in ways that are more fair, cohesive and sane. Combine or even integrate that with truly distributed real time and redundant information systems for large scale data aggregation, visualization and query. My idea is kind of going along the lines of the centralized 1950s style AI, at least as far as being able to get holistic views. But it incorporates modern ideas about the robustness of distributed networks. So we can effectively and transparently share and aggregate global information using peer-to-peer protocols, but not be restricted to a single authoritarian interpretation. But I am very curious to hear, did you have specific ideas about moving beyond the "managerial/profit driven development"? It just feels like people who want to completely drop money or profit from this usually don't have a great plan. I think most are envisioning a vast network of "intentional communities" where everyone just shares. Again, the reality of that is not going to be as great as you think. Because it means replacing the "game" of profit with just pure politics. Most of the intentional communities become kind of like little cults. Organization will happen one way or another. If there isn't some points accumulation or other structure then you default to manipulation, stabbings, etc.

kkfx 5y ago
> do you suppose that we should remove the profit motive? What do we replace it with? Not remove, layer it. In the past we have had public universities and big "free" "innovation labs" from private those NOT managerial driven but just "we have big money, we fund some very skilled technicians who innovate on their own and see the outcome, something very nice for our business will appear". Such model have produced the most quick and revolutionary innovation we have seen in last century et least. My view is: States funds public universities whose target is pure research, innovation for humankind. They do not produce goods, just ideas and initial implementations. Companies for their profits, States for Citizens needs pick those ideas choosing what to implement, sell etc. Private research can't really compete so there will be a bit but not too much to steer society in dangerous evolution, States having the biggest concentration of talents and research can surveil and make Citizens informed enough to decide if something is good or not. > My take is that involving profits is a way to introduce rules and score keeping to the game. Although in practice we have seen the contrary: some innovate better than other conquering certain positions, than they start killing potential competitors thanks to money they have amassed... IMVHO innovation can only be stimulate by intellectual means, push needs and rewards means pushing dangerous innovations,, something good can arrive, but also much bad things. > right now, for example, we have a crisis in food production And it's cause is only partially the climate change, much is due by for-profit market moves, where it's more profitable having big food players instead of countless small ones. That's why IMVHO profit must be contained, it's not self-contained because the ideal free market can exists, only if kept free by force, by nature it derive quickly toward hierarchy against humans needs... The main point here is that States as Democracies represent the sole real free market: the people, all together unable to really form a monopoly or oligopoly. > It just feels like people who want to completely drop money or profit from this usually don't have a great plan. IMVHO money is a very misunderstood topic: so far money are a kind of substrate of anything lent to states in the form of public debt; that's not "money" that's a very old scam, dating back from the '300 or even certain Greeks polis. Money must be a unit of measure of a substrate, determined, not owned, by the public, no private parties involved. A symbol we use to weight nearly anything. If we made money like that, than profit change aspect: we do not have financialization much more than a thin layer because having no value as a substrate have no value, so no option for profit, at all. In that case a company can have benefits from good ads, but can't live only on ads, it need something valuable underneath etc. That's the real key all actual élites do not want because actual money is the best way to keep people in line with soft tie almost no one really see and revolt.