From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Oct 18 2002 - 21:41:20 MDT
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> > maybe collectivist and hierarchical environments
> > seldom innovate or adopt new technology, or there are deeper factors
> > affecting both (or a combination of all).
I think what drives this is the human socio-economic equation. We all either
want to be recognized or view ourselves as attractive, clever, sophisticated,
etc. -- whatever the currency of your local environment is.
So you are going to innovate and adopt new technologies *if* they
give you an advantage in your local environment. [Take a look at
how much GMO food is being planted in the U.S. -- contrast that
with how much is being planted in the EU.]
In "collectivist" environments there is a problem how to promote
new ideas in a way that supports the pre-existing hierarchy.
[The classic -- I don't want to make my boss look bad problem.]
In strictly "hierarchical" environments there is a problem of how to break
out of the system. If you are lucky you have a mentor promoting your
work. Then you get the credit, recognition, etc. If you aren't then you
have a higher up who credits themselves with your insights. In this
case the best course of action is to get out of the system.
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Eugen Leitl (I think) wrote:
> I was addressing merely the fact that technology advances alone allow for
> a much closer tracking of what is happening elsewhere, selectively
> empowering these who are in possesson of that information. The value of
> the network, or of a database is a function of its size.
Since the network is going to (effectively) be "free", I'd place the
emphasis on *who* gathered and/or has the "information" and/or who
manages the databases.
A more sophisticated analysis would compare the relative costs (and *trends*)
in those costs of (a) collecting; (b) storing; and (c) analysing the
information. I don't believe those vectors are on similar trends.
> I'm arguing that the awareness that technology drives power assymetry is
> not widespread, and hence results in no palpable counterpressure in the
> legal domain. Since a lot of these developments are irreversible we should
> be pushing this information into the (unfortunately largely aphathetic)
> public.
While I disagree with the "irreversible" position -- I'd hit the floor
with respect of the rest of this comment with a resounding "here here".
If we let it go *too* far -- cleaning up the problem is *much* more
difficult. We are witnessing the U.S.-Britain/U.N. discussion on this
precise issue today.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:39 MST