4 ms·

Actually, I don't really see the problem with viewing society like a building. We have a constitution, an economic system, and the rule of law, all of which com

by rndmize 14y ago

Actually, I don't really see the problem with viewing society like a building. We have a constitution, an economic system, and the rule of law, all of which combine to form a societal foundation; this foundation has been flexible enough to scale our society from 13 states and a few million people to 50 and hundreds of millions; some people (slaves, etc.) were left out of the building and have slowly been brought in, though they were given the worst rooms... The problem the author has with this is in the next sentence: "Its parts are people, not struts or circuits." I find this somewhat silly. When examined in numbers, humans are quite predictable, or fields like sociology and anthropology wouldn't exist. Advertising wouldn't be effective. Why shouldn't we approach the development of society from these perspectives? Even if it isn't some sort of panacea that can solve all our problems, it should at least be a step up from the mishmash of business interests, religion and pandering that controls large parts of our government and society currently.

TeMPOraL 14y ago
> The problem the author has with this is in the next sentence: "Its parts are people, not struts or circuits." I find this somewhat silly. When examined in numbers, humans are quite predictable, or fields like sociology and anthropology wouldn't exist. Advertising wouldn't be effective. Why shouldn't we approach the development of society from these perspectives? Of course we should. It's called abstracting things. And, just as you write, it's much more effective than "the mishmash of business interests, religion and pandering that controls large parts of our government and society currently."
mrxd 14y ago
> Why shouldn't we approach the development of society from these perspectives? You probably didn't realize this, but the reason is that it's authoritarian and paternalistic. In a democratic society everyone, participates in public life, at least at some level. Organizing society so that experts rule gives them the power to dominate, control and exploit non-experts.

by rndmize 14y ago

TeMPOraL 14y ago

> The problem the author has with this is in the next sentence: "Its parts are people, not struts or circuits." I find this somewhat silly. When examined in numbers, humans are quite predictable, or fields like sociology and anthropology wouldn't exist. Advertising wouldn't be effective. Why shouldn't we approach the development of society from these perspectives? Of course we should. It's called abstracting things. And, just as you write, it's much more effective than "the mishmash of business interests, religion and pandering that controls large parts of our government and society currently."

mrxd 14y ago

> Why shouldn't we approach the development of society from these perspectives? You probably didn't realize this, but the reason is that it's authoritarian and paternalistic. In a democratic society everyone, participates in public life, at least at some level. Organizing society so that experts rule gives them the power to dominate, control and exploit non-experts.