3 ms·
History tells us that societies evolve very differently and it’s a bit of a good intellectual exercise to think that maybe what you want now is not what people
by balder1991 3y ago
History tells us that societies evolve very differently and it’s a bit of a good intellectual exercise to think that maybe what you want now is not what people will want in the future.
That said, assuming human nature remains the same, I logically assume places with a larger degree of freedom will always thrive in comparison to places where there isn’t as much freedom (at least in the long run) simply because we know one central place dictating rules can’t account for all the trade offs and sooner or later will make a terrible decision no one can escape from, many times motivated by the flaws of the few people making those decisions. Meanwhile a larger degree of freedom allows people to choose what’s best for them at scale and trends happen more organically. This seems to be the idea defended in the book “Why Nations Fail” in general terms.
Also it seems to me that the governments don’t and can’t really control their populations as much as we fear it. To do that, it needs too much information, and even though we can process more and more information much cheaper today, I don’t think it makes the big picture any easier to understand. Any visualization of data is doomed to be reduced to simplifications that only tell a very narrow story of what is really happening, or gets locked in a machine learning black box that isn’t interested in helping you particularly. The more complex something is, the less likely it is for us to make sense of it, and I think all the subdivisions of human fields (politics, history, economics etc.) actually do more harm than good because when you isolate those things you lose perspective of how they’re interacting and a whole model of how something works can fall flat (see economists not being able to predict anything in practice).
The world or human behavior remains and I believe will remain unpredictable with all sorts of emergent behaviors in different scales, if that makes sense. Some even predict nation states are declining and will be replaced by smaller city-state governments that are closer to people’s needs or that different forms of organizations will be created to deal with different issues now that companies aren’t subject to one country in particular etc.
- freefaler 3y agoAs the "cookie law" shows give a bureaucrat easier enforcement, you'll get more stupid laws enforced. The people who got them passed might be long gone from the system, but the laws would remain on the books and will be enforced more by more automation and AI. I agree that absolute control wouldn't be needed or enforced and freer societies would do better in the long run. But the main algorithm of populace control over the government can be broken by mass influence/mass control over voting systems. This is the thing that worries me most. Incumbents and people in power both benefit from the tools of automated enforcement of the laws so these would be invested in and improved.