From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Jul 17 2002 - 08:11:10 MDT
On Wednesday, July 17, 2002, at 07:40 am, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> In a sense we all are superempowered individuals. Sure, we all could do
> with international organisations supporting our personal projects, but
> even without them each of us is tremendously empowered compared to
> people in the past. The problem is of course that everybody else is
> empowered, so the competition is harder and one can still be a mediocre
> superempowered individual.
True! I remember as a kid, before PC's existed, dreaming of having a
huge computer in my own home when I grew up. I thought it would be
extremely expensive and rare. But I envisioned that it would make me
rich because of all the calculations I could do. I also thought it
would help me become a famous scientist because I could use it to solve
problems and make discoveries. Being a kid, I didn't envision that
computers would get so small or so cheap, nor did I imagine that
everyone else would have one and that I would gain no net advantage. I
only began to suspect this when I got to college at age 16 and started
learning FORTRAN on punchcards. This was in the mathematics department
because computers did not have their own department yet.
> Does technology lead to social reality, or does social reality lead to
> technology? I doubt it is as simple as one of these, it seems much more
> to be co-evolution.
Yes and yes, therefore yes. We are society and technology 'R' us. It
is impossible to talk about society or technology evolving separately
from the individuals that create them. Although we can do statistical
analysis on groups of individuals, none of these estimations apply to
anybody except in an individualized way.
> Assuming it is enough to develop new tech to break through opposing
> forces is in my opinion techno-naivism: the tech will change things
> because it is inherently good. But if people due to cultural programming
> doesn't see it as good (c.f. genetically modified food), it will not be
> widely adopted, development will stagnate and possibly competing
> technologies will get the major investments regardless of their
> empowerment potential. Assuming that it is enough to just get the
> regulators to make the right decision is a kind of socio-naivism: one
> assumes that all decisions a society makes are formal political or legal
> decisions, rather than the sum of a myriad individual decisions.
This is exactly right. Techno-experts often get blinded by their own
technology. I discover that the better technology becomes, the more it
is used to simply perpetuate human behavior. Most humans are herd
animals and very few wish to break out of the mold. As you point out,
it is extremely naive to expect humans to act differently because new
technology arrives. With my minor in psychology, I am constantly amazed
at the naivete of technologists who develop some new technological
breakthrough only to be surprised that few people are interested.
> The ideal approach would be to combine the tech with the social. Build
> tech that fits with current society but empowers good developments.
> Support this by cultural (and yes, legal and political) work. If the
> cultural aspects mesh well with the technological aspects you get an
> avalanche effect, that can help crush both technical and social
> resistance.
This not only is ideal, but I believe it is the only workable solution.
Human desires will drive technology and not the other way around. This
is why porn has a bigger market than life extension or space travel.
This is my motivation behind requiring GM food labels. Hiding
information from people is only going to convince them that there is
something wrong.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:30 MST