From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 10:03:30 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>For all of those extropians interested in how the axe will
>...
>This *is* a "sign" of the singularity -- can you state
>for certain that you are protected from its developments?
>If you are protected from these events *are* you protected
>from the next set of events?
>
>While I dislike the role of a dooms-day sayer, I realize
>...
>So, my friends, do you have a "Plan B"?
>
>R.
>
>
Information overload is one of the true signs of the singularity. I don't believe that there is a "good" way to deal with it. The "least bad" way appears to be to pick an area that you can keep up with, and try to network with people who have picked other areas.
There are many socially destructive forces operating now, the RIAA is a major villian, but not the worst. And some of the more destructive forces are well intentioned, but don't happen to see the particular effects that I see (or don't consider them as important).
Personally, I distrust all forces that try to coerce centralization and homogenization, from fast food joints (Drink Coke? What happened to, e.g., Moxie?) to mega-corps to central governments to industry associations. This is out of pure selfishness. They are after their good, and I am after mine. If a corp. decides that it will make more profit by slowly poisoning it's customers, it generally does just that, and hides the fact (evidence: consider the tobacco companies, consider the use of hydrogenated coconut oil, etc.). I'd prefer to avoid that. And the government barely pretends to control the more blatent excesses.
So. Yes, the RIAA is bad. Yes, there's an information overload. Yes, there are groups taking advantage of it. To me the main problem is the imbalance of power. But people will be shortsighted. Sorry, you've got to expect that. And there will be groups that take advantage of it. And you've got to accept that. What you do about it... is much less clear. Despite my rant, I have been known to go out for a pizza at Round Table, and to eat Nabisco Hydrox cookies, and drink Moutain Dew. All bad choices that I knew were bad choices. Bad in several ways. They were not only unhealthy, they strengthened the large corporations. But this is relatively rare. The kickers are: water, electricity, gasoline, telephones, and order. While those are centrally controlled, the centralizers have the upper hand. And the RIAA is only one of the logical outcomes from that chain.
The main current problem is the loss of the frontier. The frontier enhanced the growth of liberty*. The loss has the opposite effect. Cyberspace has been a poor substitute, but it may suffice for just long enough. Or not quite long enough. It's hard to tell from this year. What's really needed are space-based communities. Places where different communities can evolve their customs in different ways. (Don't expect the individual people to be more independant... it is the communities that will be more independant. The people, at least at first, will be more dependant on their communities.)
How to get from here to there isn't clear to me. But it seems as important as it ever did in the 1960s. I'm not sure that I'd still gladly die for the chance to forward the mission, but that's probably because I'm now older and, in a sense, more conservative.
* This was quite expensive in terms of lives, but if you compare, perhaps over all no more expensive than not pushing if forward. It destroyed the cultures, and many of the lives, of the original inhabitants, but it *did* increase their average liberty. (The life of a tribesman is nearly devoid of liberty. It is rather an example of living within a soicety that generally matches the instinctive plan. The constraints are seen as "the way things are", and not even noticed, as such.) A question here is: To what extent does the value of liberty justify imposing it on people against their will?
A sort of answer to this, from a social values point of view, is that the liberty of the individuals of a society is the technique that a society uses to adapt to changing circumstances. So if a situation is rapidly changing, then a large amount of liberty is a survival need. But when the situation stabilized, continued liberty imposes a continual increased organizational cost. So it can be seen as less efficient. In the short term.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:27 MST