This is a long essay that's worth a read. A lot of stuff in it to unpack. Can't help thinking that whether traditional modernist bureaucracy or "high-tech mode

This is a long essay that's worth a read. A lot of stuff in it to unpack. Can't help thinking that whether traditional modernist bureaucracy or "high-tech modernism", it's still just "Police and thieves in the street, scarin' the nation..." Not a very high "moral political philosophy". > Scott identifies high modernism as inherently antidemocratic... objectives decided on by elites who "know better". High-tech modernism, by contrast, systematically undermines elite judgment. I think this one has been done to death already by Adam Curtis. Both writers are scathing of technological pseudo-democracy, but neither account offers much sign of real democracy asserting itself other than as "sand in the wheels of the machine". Whether hybrid, state or private cybernetic governance, or any other kind, a culture that sets itself up technologically as an internal power struggle is doomed. Atom bombs or AI, without a shared rationale for building power we lack any idea how to wield it, or against what, except upon ourselves. One never maps a territory one does not intend to conquer.