Kill the Culture and Burn the Pulpit Part 1: An Analysis of a revolution

[The Wizard]

Doing nothing is option #2.  I don't think I can make the "world work", but I do trust that I can be part of something which will make it slightly better.

I'd rather steer towards a vision of utopia than let the ship sail in the opposite direction.  While I instinctively reject the limitations in such either/or choices, I can't see a third way.

Exactly, it's like the meaning of life. You can't find it, but a lot of good can come from the pursuit.

Utopias require a few things:

What you describe isn't Utopia. Utopia is an ideal, it's something that cannot be made, merely pursued. The objective, at least for me and I hope for Captain Utopia, is to just make a better society. Those thing's aren't part of my agenda, at least.

And just how to you plan to steer things?  Either you buy into the current system - and we've seen how well that works - or you overthrow the system in favor of something that looks good on paper (Engels and Marx may have some useful hints).

That's  not steering,that's either selling out or rebooting the system. If you're willing to be patient, you can change things without doing either.

[Captain Utopia]

We don't know how to travel at the speed of light but we know what to do if we want to approach it.

Yeah, get fried by hydrogen atoms that hit like neutron radiation (given 1 hydrogen atom per meter^3 in deep space.  It's even worse inside a solar system).  Also, we know that we CAN'T travel at light speed.  Period, so the analogy gets even better. 

Okay, but I still don't think that 'Utopia' is an achievable goal.

I don't believe that any utopia is possible, or sustainable, pretty much for the reasons you give.  But I think it is definitely possible to steer towards something which looks better than what we have now.  Avoiding stagnation pretty much guarantees that steering towards something better will be a continual task.

And just how to you plan to steer things?  Either you buy into the current system - and we've seen how well that works - or you overthrow the system in favor of something that looks good on paper (Engels and Marx may have some useful hints).

Neither option initially.  I'm working with the metagovernment projects to create a software architecture based upon collaborative leaderless decision making, it records decisions/votes/discussions and will eventually be able to shadow existing governmental structures.  Either it will prove its utility at that stage, or it will fail miserably.  The e-Democracy movement is young and largely untested, but there's a lot of energy there.  I go into more detail in the plutonomy thread.

[Doktor Howl]

We don't know how to travel at the speed of light but we know what to do if we want to approach it.

Yeah, get fried by hydrogen atoms that hit like neutron radiation (given 1 hydrogen atom per meter^3 in deep space.  It's even worse inside a solar system).  Also, we know that we CAN'T travel at light speed.  Period, so the analogy gets even better. 

Okay, but I still don't think that 'Utopia' is an achievable goal.

I don't believe that any utopia is possible, or sustainable, pretty much for the reasons you give.  But I think it is definitely possible to steer towards something which looks better than what we have now.  Avoiding stagnation pretty much guarantees that steering towards something better will be a continual task.

And just how to you plan to steer things?  Either you buy into the current system - and we've seen how well that works - or you overthrow the system in favor of something that looks good on paper (Engels and Marx may have some useful hints).

Neither option initially.  I'm working with the metagovernment projects to create a software architecture based upon collaborative leaderless decision making, it records decisions/votes/discussions and will eventually be able to shadow existing governmental structures.  Either it will prove its utility at that stage, or it will fail miserably.  The e-Democracy movement is young and largely untested, but there's a lot of energy there.  I go into more detail in the plutonomy thread.

Wait.  You're going to have our society run by computers? 

I'M NOT HAVING THAT SHIT.  MACHINES ARE OUR SERVANTS, NOT OUR GODDAMN MASTERS.

I'd like to sign up as your arch-nemesis. 

Dok,
Neo-neo-Luddite.

[Adios]

We don't know how to travel at the speed of light but we know what to do if we want to approach it.

Yeah, get fried by hydrogen atoms that hit like neutron radiation (given 1 hydrogen atom per meter^3 in deep space.  It's even worse inside a solar system).  Also, we know that we CAN'T travel at light speed.  Period, so the analogy gets even better. 

Okay, but I still don't think that 'Utopia' is an achievable goal.

I don't believe that any utopia is possible, or sustainable, pretty much for the reasons you give.  But I think it is definitely possible to steer towards something which looks better than what we have now.  Avoiding stagnation pretty much guarantees that steering towards something better will be a continual task.

And just how to you plan to steer things?  Either you buy into the current system - and we've seen how well that works - or you overthrow the system in favor of something that looks good on paper (Engels and Marx may have some useful hints).

Neither option initially.  I'm working with the metagovernment projects to create a software architecture based upon collaborative leaderless decision making, it records decisions/votes/discussions and will eventually be able to shadow existing governmental structures.  Either it will prove its utility at that stage, or it will fail miserably.  The e-Democracy movement is young and largely untested, but there's a lot of energy there.  I go into more detail in the plutonomy thread.

Wait.  You're going to have our society run by computers? 

I'M NOT HAVING THAT SHIT.  MACHINES ARE OUR SERVANTS, NOT OUR GODDAMN MASTERS.

I'd like to sign up as your arch-nemesis. 

Dok,
Neo-neo-Luddite.

Add me to that army Dok.

Hawk,
has seen the movies.

[Doktor Howl]

Besides, I don't want things to get better.  I want to see the monkeys suffer, and I want to see the whole thing fall over and catch fire.

Both because I like watching big things fall down, and because the monkeys deserve it.  I am comfortable with the fact that they'll take me with them.

[The Wizard]

Besides, I don't want things to get better.  I want to see the monkeys suffer, and I want to see the whole thing fall over and catch fire.

Both because I like watching big things fall down, and because the monkeys deserve it.  I am comfortable with the fact that they'll take me with them.

But then the show's over. I want to ride this thing as long as possible.

But whatever works for you. As long as you don't actively try and make things worse, I'm good.

[Captain Utopia]

Two nemeses in one day?!

Okay, okay, let me explain - it's more along the lines of human intelligence augmented with technology, to balance out some of our more troubling cognitive deficiencies, than overt control.  Like the way a calculator helps with our deficiency at making calculations with many numbers, if it works, this will help us with our deficiency at making decisions about real-world issues.

While some monkeys will still fall over and catch fire, that should keep many of them alive for a bit longer.

[LMNO]

Can we name it SkyNet?

[Adios]

Two nemeses in one day?!

Okay, okay, let me explain - it's more along the lines of human intelligence augmented with technology, to balance out some of our more troubling cognitive deficiencies, than overt control.  Like the way a calculator helps with our deficiency at making calculations with many numbers, if it works, this will help us with our deficiency at making decisions about real-world issues.

While some monkeys will still fall over and catch fire, that should keep many of them alive for a bit longer.

Keep them alive? Why?

[Adios]

Can we name it SkyNet?

LMNO has seen the movies too!

[Captain Utopia]

Can we name it SkyNet?

It already has a name, but that's the extent of its public face for now.

While some monkeys will still fall over and catch fire, that should keep many of them alive for a bit longer.

Keep them alive? Why?

Because they are an unrealised asset.  When the Cognitive Surplus starts to be really harnessed, that's going to be quite the revolution and I want to be part of it.

[Adios]

Can we name it SkyNet?

It already has a name, but that's the extent of its public face for now.

While some monkeys will still fall over and catch fire, that should keep many of them alive for a bit longer.

Keep them alive? Why?

Because they are an unrealised asset.  When the Cognitive Surplus starts to be really harnessed, that's going to be quite the revolution and I want to be part of it.

Ever study what happens after a revolution?

[Doktor Howl]

Besides, I don't want things to get better.  I want to see the monkeys suffer, and I want to see the whole thing fall over and catch fire.

Both because I like watching big things fall down, and because the monkeys deserve it.  I am comfortable with the fact that they'll take me with them.

But then the show's over. I want to ride this thing as long as possible.

But whatever works for you. As long as you don't actively try and make things worse, I'm good.

Oh, no, that's when the show really starts.

And I've been actively throwing sand in the gears for 30 years now.

[Doktor Howl]

Two nemeses in one day?!

Okay, okay, let me explain - it's more along the lines of human intelligence augmented with technology, to balance out some of our more troubling cognitive deficiencies, than overt control. 

You're like a nightmare factory, you know that?

[Captain Utopia]

Ever study what happens after a revolution?

What are you thinking of in particular?