From: Michael Wiik (mwiik@messagenet.com)
Date: Wed Aug 21 2002 - 12:47:24 MDT
I got the impression that a few responders to my post in the Liberty vs
Utopia thread thought I was arguing for utopian stability over
libertarian chaos. But I think it's a little more complex than that.
I look at the thin line between stability and chaos as like the thin
line between genius and insanity. I try to hop around that line all the
time. No doubt many folks think I'm spending far too much time on the
insanity side, like when I talk about children being softly lulled to
sleep by the reassuring sounds of distant machine-gun fire keeping the
monsters away. Or that I'm being pretentious about connecting myself to
the concept of 'genius'. Not a problem for me, if I can't be thought as
smart I'll settle for being thought of as nuts.
I recall this PBS show on 'The Measured Century'. It was about the
growth of demographics in America in the 20th century. It started early
(late 1800's). You all remember the 20th century. It was a time of brave
new adventures in advertising and large-scale social engineering.
Advertising helped change our vocabulary. For example, in earlier times
a gift was a gift. It may have obligated you to someday repay the gift,
but most likely if you didn't repay the gift the loss was mostly
confined to not getting many more future gifts. Nowadays even 'free
gift' (an oxymoron before the 20th century) carries an obligation, even
if only psychological and only a mild one. Maybe if we can get websites
talking to each other rather than websites marketing stuff to people
then advertising wouldn't be needed anymore. We could make our buying
decisions based on collective inputs on price, quality, and reliability
rather than marketing drivel. Famed comedian Bill Hicks had some cogent
advice on what marketers can do about this.
And I think we're all familiar with the 20th century record on
large-scale social engineering experiments. Some (mostly those that
respected individual liberties) worked (at least somewhat, but nowhere
near their potential imho), while others failed with a very high cost in
resources including human resources.
Since lately I've been doing some research on fine-grained management
and workflow structures using semantic web concepts, I have felt
hesitant sometimes since I'm informed by the results of increasing
precision in measurement during 'The Measured Century' by some of the
more negative historical record. I think some of my ideas may squeeze
out middle management, as corporate executives could become increasing
less reliant on middle manager interpretations of the actual conditions
on the floor. Despite the instability such potential loss of employment
might cause, I remain more worried about how such fine-grain measurement
may be used. Or abused. It's not too difficult to see how fine-grain
measurements improving profiling and biometric scanners and such could
be used for the purposes of ubiquitous law enforcement, which to me is
like the line between order and chaos being turned into a impassible
fortified border.
If my interpretation of Gatto's reading of the philosophy of positivism
is correct, then positivism is like a gate on this order/chaos border,
which lets in little bits of chaos now and then and thus assures a
steady, measured and controlled level of advancement in the arts and
sciences. But I can see how such a gate can be welded shut at any time.
This is perhaps a more comprehensive explanation of what I mean when I
interpret extropian writing as suggesting that we need a superhuman
intelligence to guide us thru upcoming biotech and nanotech advances.
Perhaps we don't need an SI if we continue the positivist approach. And
this is what we are seeing, not Drexlerian nanotech but (so far) more
mundane applications such as improved materials, textiles perhaps being
an example. And the need to control this seems great, as witness the
discussions of how to ensure no gray goo disasters result. We might get
to singularity this way, but we may need to continue to be very careful.
OTOH a sysop scenario or space brothers or something like that could
maybe provide us with a safer shortcut. They could give us all 'loyalty
mods' like in Greg Egan's _Quarantine_ so we could all see exactly what
we needed to do to maximize our efficiency and profits or whatever it is
we want out of life.
Now all this sounds good, but it doesn't sound libertarian. The 'defacto
libertarians' I spoke of earlier (those outside systems of control) as
existing in the newly independent america didn't have the rapid
comunications systems and prospects for large-scale collaboration as we
enjoy today. Nor did they have the capabilties for sudden large-scale
revolutionary advances that woukld spread outside their immediate
domain. Sure, they might invent some improvement that they can then sell
to the nearest town, but it wouldn't necessarily lead to disruptions in
other, maybe larger towns where systems are more defined and maybe even
dependent on continuation of the local social structure. When you're on
the frontier, you may be extra careful in some ways, since you are
isolated and can't rely on nearby aid, but you can safely be more
adventurous in other ways, since you're not going to hurt anyone else.
Now, and again if my interpretation of Gatto is correct, then the
large-scale changes that took place during the industrial revolution --
such changes being agreed to by both capitalism and socialism to build a
utopian future (which the socialists thought then could then usurp) --
led to major disruptions in people's working lives. No longer could they
chat to their friends when they dropped by, since the factory gates
ensured their friends couldn't even get in to see them.
I have the idea -- uninformed so far by my limited history reading --
that medieval peasents really didn't have such a hard life as has been
suggested in the education I received. Yes of course, when they were
just starting out, they had to work hard (as did homesteaders on the
frontier), but once they got their house in order and cleared some land
for growing crops, they could live in a fairly steady state for a while.
They'd have to plant and harvest, but they might also have time to chat
when a friend stopped by, and thus they lived in a world where they
could increase their investment into social relationships. I don't mean
to suggest that they weren't ignorant and they no doubt smelled bad and
didn't often live to a ripe old age, but the idea implanted in my
schooling of these subjects was that of continuous, back-breaking labor
without a moment's letup. I think such an idea serves less as an exact
historical record and more to reinforce acceptance of the current
society since we're generally safe, have enough to eat, etc.
But the industrial revolution took at least some of that away. No longer
could the individual make minute-by-minute decisions of what he wanted
to do with his time, instead how he would spend his time would be
decided for him, at least for a good part of the day. Libertarians seem
to suggest that such a situation is fine, since the peasant made the
choice to work at the factory, and part of the contract was to let other
people decide for him a good part of his decisions for that day. This is
where I'm informed by (such as) Bob Black: I don't want to be free just
from excessive government regulation or taxation, I want to be free to
question the decisions of others as to what I should be doing with my
time on a minute-by-minute basis. This is why I work for myself.
I'm not sure how we can ever get to a point where we combine
libertarianism with the efficiencies possible with increasing
fine-grained measurement into a working system without some sort of SI
to help us. I see such 'help' as consisting of measuring and adjusting
our own attitudes, little by little, step by step. Like what self-help
books do. If you can look deeply within yourself, and be honest with
yourself, then maybe you can make the changes within yourself that will
result in better efficiency in your work so you can live better.
Based on observations of the rhetorical styles on this list, I feel most
folks, and perhaps especially libertarians, are more armored then they
should be if they want to maximize their potential. And with good
reason: the historical record informs that opening yourself up in such
ways often decreases liberty since it gives more control to those who
seek power by ruling others such as you. Some naive folks may think, for
example, that the school guidance counselor or human resources
department person is there to help you. They're not. They are there to
help their employers get a better grip on you. It's like a fire drill.
Walk out the door, turn left, and walk down the hall. It's not designed
to best protect your life, it's designed to best protect everyone's
life. It's designed to show that reasonable and correct policies were
made which satisfies insurance requirements. The best policy for you
might be to cut and run.
Now if we had an SI to talk to, someone who won't gossip about us,
someone who cares about us and will not abuse us for their own
amusement, maybe we could open ourselves to it. And learn about
ourselves to maximize our own productivity and have a better life. Maybe
then, if can hide our pain and embarrassment from others, we can realize
the best of both worlds (libertarian and utopian). But, as with the
sacrifice of generations of coal-miners and factory workers during the
industrial revolution which built up our current impressive
infrastructure, there will be pain. Not the pain of backbreaking work,
but the pain in the tearing down of old cognitive structures and
building up of new ones.
That's why I think changes in cognition will be very, very painful.
That's why we need an SI to talk to, to help us see our way thru it,
without exposing us to others who may seek to control us. The SI may not
add stuff to our lives, it may take stuff away. It may take away
psychological armoring. It may take away accumulated dross that we
emotionally feel is important and part of what we are but that is really
just holding us back. We will be exposed for a while. If there is
paradise on the other side then it may be worth it. But it's your
choice; it's an opt-in scenario.
To repeat my quote from Antoine de Saint-Exupery:
<<You know you have achieved perfection in design not when you have
nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away.>>
Thanks,
-Mike
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:19 MST