6 ms·

“Cybernetics” is the way into exploring this feeling more. There is a lot of high quality research on it, but it doesn’t permeate tech culture a ton except for

“Cybernetics” is the way into exploring this feeling more. There is a lot of high quality research on it, but it doesn’t permeate tech culture a ton except for privacy/cryptography. I can’t talk you out of your despair, but I can point to resources to flesh the concept out for you that I chased down after feeling similar. I have not run into many tech-native people realizing and addressing this problem from tech-first except for the cypherpunks and chaotic ways it shows up in some parts of cryptocurrency tech, and then the VPN/ProtonMail places. I think engineers chasing this feeling is really important, as part of the cause is very much chasing RSUSs or w/e while not realizing the crazy dystopian governance layer our products are stitching together. Tech-native starting points that address this heads on: - “who owns the future,” Jaron Lanier, father of VR - “True Names,” the version with essays at the beginning, Vernor Vinge - Anything out of the cypherpunks, to include early bitcoin docs. You can disagree with the tech and also this group has really distasteful views around the edges, but they also created encryption that consumers could access, Tor, and similarly hugely impactful technologies based on the premise you have. Philosophy: - CCRU, Nick Land, Sadie Plant, Mark Fisher Nick Land is nuts today, but he had good thoughts on tech before the early 2000s. - “The Cybernetic Hypothesis,” Tiqun. - Leftist or very fringe groups and related papers in the Anarchist Library website or whatever it’s called. Math or systems theory academics: - Norbert Wiener, “the father of cybernetics,” out of MIT - Donna Meadows’ systems books, I think also out of MIT Fiction: - Neal Stephenson and William Gibson write books that describe a believable future if the trends you describe continue. Digging into this area unavoidably leads to more doom-y thinking but awareness in tech is necessary to even attempt to course correct.

drc500free 4y ago
Adding to this, Peter Reinhardt's post on replacing middle management with APIs. Hollowing out the middle of the career ladder may have a different impact than the historical automation of entry-level jobs. https://rein.pk/replacing-middle-management-with-apis https://rein.pk/replacing-middle-management-with-apis
Minor49er 4y ago
Overall, I agree, but cybernetics is practically a regression at this point. In a nutshell, it was an exploration to bridge gaps between the biological and the mechanical. In human terms, it's designing machines for us, and changing our approaches towards them. Martial arts have explored the concept of a tool or a weapon becoming an extension of the body, which is essentially disciplined Taoism. Today, we are so ingrained with our tools and machines that we worry more about form factors and user interfaces as if they are getting in the way of a neural impulse and its desired digital result Also great suggestion on True Names. It predicted how people would interact and present themselves online before the Internet or even BBSes were even around
- dogman144 4y ago
  I generally agree. Cybernetics is a Google term (which is ironic given the theme) that’s a way into the body of research after that general yuck feeling OP has and also covers part of the topic. But I agree with “all this” is something more than just Cybernetics. What central field ties up all those genres I listed? I haven’t found one yet. The lack of a central field for it, at least from what I can find, paired with this growing into a very legitimate monster of a problem, is a risky combination. It’s manifesting in weird ways. Disgruntled engineers, disgruntled Uber drivers, disgruntled life-by-QRcode users, anger at sort of dystopian govt ideas via tech. A central field would help move towards a solution.
  - Minor49er 4y ago
    I haven't heard of cybernetics being a Google term before I also see where you're coming from. I think since the concepts of cybernetics have been swallowed up by the modern world, "modernism" might be slightly more appropriate. Perhaps a new term is needed at this point too Some of those weird manifests you described have been compounding, too. At an extreme, there was the Unabomber, whose manifesto was anti-industrialization. One of his targets, David Gelernter, was a proponent of technology encroaching on our lives (almost to a hyper-cybernetic extreme, particularly in his book Mirror Worlds where he describes a then-future where everything and everyone had a real existence, but also a digital one too. The digital one would make it easier to monitor and control things that would manifest positively in the real world)
armitron 4y ago
> Nick Land is nuts today, but he had good thoughts on tech before the early 2000s. Nick Land is not nuts, just way ahead of you and way ahead of most folks alive today (as he was indeed "before the early 2000s"). If he seems nuts, it's due to abandoning the "human security system" and fully embracing "the outside", call him a shaman or a philosopher in the oldest and truest definition of the word (research into the nature of reality) if you'd like. "Every month staff would give readings from work-in-progress. Nick’s first talk was entitled: 'Putting the Rat back Into Rationality,' in which he argued that, rather than seeing death as an event that happened at a particular time to an individual, we should look at it from the perspectives of the rats carrying the Black Death into Europe; that is, as a world-encircling swarm, without any specific coordinates, or any sense of individuation. An older professor tried to get his head round this idea: 'How might we locate this description within human experience?' he asked. Nick told him that human experience was, of course, worthy of study, but only as much as, say, the experience of sea slugs: 'I don’t see why it should receive any special priority.'
- dogman144 4y ago
  Not sure the point of the blurb other than yes that’s been his gist for a while, agree! He went nuts as in club drug fueled all night benders staring at binary on screen and then repeating it for weeks/years and the resulting breakdown. As in, he literally lost his mind by the end and his colleagues who have as much bonafides as him attested to it happening. Whether or not he’s recovered, idk. And then if I agree with his view today - I haven’t dug into them, idk.
  - armitron 4y ago
    My point was that rather than following what most contemporary pseudo-philosophers do (acdemically or otherwise), Land fully embraced the outside. How can one fully embrace the outside / discover radical new perspectives if one is firmly entrenched in human society and norms?
    - dogman144 4y ago
      Fair enough, I think! His participatory tech-art was really interesting and also I guess looked crazy from the outside (or inside haha)

drc500free 4y ago

Adding to this, Peter Reinhardt's post on replacing middle management with APIs. Hollowing out the middle of the career ladder may have a different impact than the historical automation of entry-level jobs. https://rein.pk/replacing-middle-management-with-apis https://rein.pk/replacing-middle-management-with-apis

Minor49er 4y ago

Overall, I agree, but cybernetics is practically a regression at this point. In a nutshell, it was an exploration to bridge gaps between the biological and the mechanical. In human terms, it's designing machines for us, and changing our approaches towards them. Martial arts have explored the concept of a tool or a weapon becoming an extension of the body, which is essentially disciplined Taoism. Today, we are so ingrained with our tools and machines that we worry more about form factors and user interfaces as if they are getting in the way of a neural impulse and its desired digital result Also great suggestion on True Names. It predicted how people would interact and present themselves online before the Internet or even BBSes were even around

dogman144 4y ago
I generally agree. Cybernetics is a Google term (which is ironic given the theme) that’s a way into the body of research after that general yuck feeling OP has and also covers part of the topic. But I agree with “all this” is something more than just Cybernetics. What central field ties up all those genres I listed? I haven’t found one yet. The lack of a central field for it, at least from what I can find, paired with this growing into a very legitimate monster of a problem, is a risky combination. It’s manifesting in weird ways. Disgruntled engineers, disgruntled Uber drivers, disgruntled life-by-QRcode users, anger at sort of dystopian govt ideas via tech. A central field would help move towards a solution.
- Minor49er 4y ago
  I haven't heard of cybernetics being a Google term before I also see where you're coming from. I think since the concepts of cybernetics have been swallowed up by the modern world, "modernism" might be slightly more appropriate. Perhaps a new term is needed at this point too Some of those weird manifests you described have been compounding, too. At an extreme, there was the Unabomber, whose manifesto was anti-industrialization. One of his targets, David Gelernter, was a proponent of technology encroaching on our lives (almost to a hyper-cybernetic extreme, particularly in his book Mirror Worlds where he describes a then-future where everything and everyone had a real existence, but also a digital one too. The digital one would make it easier to monitor and control things that would manifest positively in the real world)

armitron 4y ago

> Nick Land is nuts today, but he had good thoughts on tech before the early 2000s. Nick Land is not nuts, just way ahead of you and way ahead of most folks alive today (as he was indeed "before the early 2000s"). If he seems nuts, it's due to abandoning the "human security system" and fully embracing "the outside", call him a shaman or a philosopher in the oldest and truest definition of the word (research into the nature of reality) if you'd like. "Every month staff would give readings from work-in-progress. Nick’s first talk was entitled: 'Putting the Rat back Into Rationality,' in which he argued that, rather than seeing death as an event that happened at a particular time to an individual, we should look at it from the perspectives of the rats carrying the Black Death into Europe; that is, as a world-encircling swarm, without any specific coordinates, or any sense of individuation. An older professor tried to get his head round this idea: 'How might we locate this description within human experience?' he asked. Nick told him that human experience was, of course, worthy of study, but only as much as, say, the experience of sea slugs: 'I don’t see why it should receive any special priority.'

dogman144 4y ago
Not sure the point of the blurb other than yes that’s been his gist for a while, agree! He went nuts as in club drug fueled all night benders staring at binary on screen and then repeating it for weeks/years and the resulting breakdown. As in, he literally lost his mind by the end and his colleagues who have as much bonafides as him attested to it happening. Whether or not he’s recovered, idk. And then if I agree with his view today - I haven’t dug into them, idk.
- armitron 4y ago
  My point was that rather than following what most contemporary pseudo-philosophers do (acdemically or otherwise), Land fully embraced the outside. How can one fully embrace the outside / discover radical new perspectives if one is firmly entrenched in human society and norms?
  - dogman144 4y ago
    Fair enough, I think! His participatory tech-art was really interesting and also I guess looked crazy from the outside (or inside haha)