This is something I just started writing a half hour ago, while under the influence of lots of caffeine and even more punk rock. So, read and critique to your hearts content. Part 2 will be feature my own personal ideas, and will be posted once I write. So, sometime today or tomorrow. Also, do you think I should add examples to this or is it fine as is? Just something to think about.
The human species has played host to countless revolutions throughout its young life. These revolutions tend to develop along the same lines; you start with an oppressed group, usually the majority but sometimes an influential minority. This group is stuck in a less than acceptable position by the current regime, who are either terrified of the people they oppress or dismissive of them and their needs. Tensions rise, with the oppressed group complaining about their situation and the power group cracking down on them as a result. Eventually a leader appears, someone with the charisma (note I do not say moral righteousness or intelligence) to unite the oppressed group. This leader decides the nature of the revolution, whether it is violent or not, whether it will work within the law or whether they'll just murder the power group. War ensues, the battles being fought in whatever form dictated by the leader. Some people will probably die, either in battle or in "mysterious circumstances". Finally, the revolution concludes, with either the power group still in power and rather miffed about the whole thing or with the revolutionary group in power, with its leader at the helm.
Assuming that the revolutionaries win, then things can go several ways. In most cases, the revolutionary group picks up where the old power group left off, the only change resulting being a change in the nameplate and national anthem. A few statues will probably be built in the leader's honor. The cycle will start again, with a new revolutionary group forming to fight for their "freedom".
Another possibility is that the revolutionary group turns out to be worse than those it deposed. The leader turns out to be a complete maniac, and proceeds to use his power to commit genocide on anyone who he feels threatens him, i.e. everyone. He'll paint his ass purple, form a cult of personality around himself, and use fear and atrocity to maintain his throne. Secret police and death squads will be formed, giving the psycho-leader his own personal honor guard of government paid monsters. After years of horror and inhuman oppression, assuming the leader isn't assassinated by one of his advisers, this regime will collapse under the weight of his psychosis. Everything descends down into chaos, with even more people dying, until someone, probably another dictator, takes control.
And sometimes, through some wonderful stroke of luck, the revolution will actually succeed without destroying itself in the process. The leader will not turn out to be a psycho or a political animal. The group now in power actually makes good on some of its promises. Things are looking pretty good, a constitution is written up guaranteeing lots of nice freedoms and fail safes to prevent another dictator from taking power. Don't worry though, it'll fall apart eventually.
See, like it or not, the revolution will be compromised. Give it time. The revolution will survive for only as long as the leader lives. Once he dies, someone new takes over, someone with a different vision of what things should be. Or some other group moves in and latches onto the revolution like a parasite, manipulating it to serve their purposes. They'll kill the dream and turn it into food, fuel to get them to the next source of sustenance.
Worst of all, the revolution may commit suicide. The people, once so full of passion, will turn lazy and cowardly. They'll sell their freedoms for false safety and cheap entertainment. They'll become devolved and deformed, depressed media addicts who cannot fathom where it all want wrong. The revolution will be remembered only in history books, woodenly ironic pop culture, and in the tear filled eyes of the true believers, now old and beaten, buying the latest assembly line fad for their children.
That is what all previous revolutions have turned into. They either die young and unfulfilled, or they die slowly and whore themselves out. Those that destroy themselves go unlamented, as they probably wouldn't have done a good job in the long run anyway. But those that live to see themselves become side show attractions, those are truly sad. To have your revolution succeed is to watch it die at the hands of the people you started it for.
Good piece. :mittens:
It's been occurring to me lately that a lot of movements, political, artistic, etc. seem to be at their best when they're new. Do you agree with this notion? If so, do you think any good could come of making revolutions a frequent occasion?
It also occurs to me that if any new revolution is to happen in America, it will probably come from the Teabaggers. This disturbs me, because I'm seeing a lot of parallels between them and the early Nazi party(excuse my Godwinning).
QuoteIt's been occurring to me lately that a lot of movements, political, artistic, etc. seem to be at their best when they're new. Do you agree with this notion?
Yup, I agree that most movements tend to be at their best early on. In the last several decades, what with the rise of pop culture and the world media, a movement have to deal with a annoying decision. If they want to actually cause change, they'll probably have to attract media attention, but if they want to stay true to their ideals and not end up as pop culture, they'll probably have to avoid media attention.
QuoteIf so, do you think any good could come of making revolutions a frequent occasion?
Not really, at least not if they follow the pattern I described. A lot of revolutions require immense effort and oftentimes bloodshed to function, and more often than not, it all turns out to have been for nothing. Even if they do work, the results are usually relatively short lived.
QuoteIt also occurs to me that if any new revolution is to happen in America, it will probably come from the Teabaggers.
I'm afraid of that as well. If you're right and they do turn into a real revolution, then I imagine it'll be either really funny in a pathetic sort of way, or just plain horrifying. As for the Nazi party parallel's, I can see what you mean. They both have been born from similar demographics, and have similar leadership.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 14, 2010, 09:59:35 PM
Not really, at least not if they follow the pattern I described. A lot of revolutions require immense effort and oftentimes bloodshed to function, and more often than not, it all turns out to have been for nothing. Even if they do work, the results are usually relatively short lived.
I didn't really think so either. I was just curious about your opinion. If the majority of revolutions have no positive effect, there's no reason to have another revolution immediately following a successful one.
QuoteI'm afraid of that as well. If you're right and they do turn into a real revolution, then I imagine it'll be either really funny in a pathetic sort of way, or just plain horrifying. As for the Nazi party parallel's, I can see what you mean. They both have been born from similar demographics, and have similar leadership.
This is a shame, because to me it feels like America's slipping- like it's always been slipping. There have been some victories, like the Civil Rights movement, but these more often than not were small revolutions in their own right. I've been thinking that maybe America could use another revolution(it has, after all, been over 200 years), but there's no way that it would turn out well in the present political climate. The only people who care enough to make a change are blinded by their bastard ideology.
I suppose that when it comes to politics, frustration is a general rule.
QuoteI suppose that when it comes to politics, frustration is a general rule.
This is going to be what the second part will be about. My theory is that one reason that politics is now a pointless way to run a revolution, due to the sheer impossibility of getting anything done. So, I think that a different point of attack should be used, one that influences politics as well as the way people think and act.
Anyone out there? :?
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 15, 2010, 12:44:41 AM
Anyone out there? :?
I'm out there. :cry:
EDIT: I've seen it suggested on this site that art is the real way that social change is instigated, rather than politics. Is that something along the lines of what you're thinking?
Or is it more along the lines of linguistics, tying in with your plan to save the world with language?
QuoteI'm out there. :cry:
Sorry. Appreciate that you've responded to this. Was just hoping for more that one person is all.
Quote
EDIT: I've seen it suggested on this site that art is the real way that social change is instigated, rather than politics. Is that something along the lines of what you're thinking?
Or is it more along the lines of linguistics, tying in with your plan to save the world with language?
Actually a little of both. Personally I think that changing the culture is the way to bring about real change. So, both language and art are included. My idea is to subvert and then replace cultural traits.
The people running the show now control the vast vast majority of the 'art' that people see, good luck with that.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 15, 2010, 04:24:59 AM
The people running the show now control the vast vast majority of the 'art' that people see, good luck with that.
Ah, but are the people in power opposed to compassion, foresight, and critical thought?
Oh, wait. :x
QuoteThe people running the show now control the vast vast majority of the 'art' that people see, good luck with that.
This is pretty much what the subversion part of my idea is based upon
Not to sound too cynical, but haven't the majority of public artworks always been under control of the Powers That Be? Whether it be kings commissioning composers, or the Catholic church hiring painters and sculptures, or record companies pushing out pop, or movie studios deciding which films to fund, most of what we consider to be "popular artwork" has been under the control of some sort of Authority.
So cute when they're still young and idealistic ;-)
QuoteNot to sound too cynical, but haven't the majority of public artworks always been under control of the Powers That Be? Whether it be kings commissioning composers, or the Catholic church hiring painters and sculptures, or record companies pushing out pop, or movie studios deciding which films to fund, most of what we consider to be "popular artwork" has been under the control of some sort of Authority.
The idea isn't about art, it's about culture. I used art as an example of culture, but that isn't all I'm going to work with. My idea, put simply, is that maybe the best way to induce change is to change the culture rather than the politics or by deposing whoever is in charge.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 15, 2010, 03:33:38 PM
QuoteNot to sound too cynical, but haven't the majority of public artworks always been under control of the Powers That Be? Whether it be kings commissioning composers, or the Catholic church hiring painters and sculptures, or record companies pushing out pop, or movie studios deciding which films to fund, most of what we consider to be "popular artwork" has been under the control of some sort of Authority.
The idea isn't about art, it's about culture. I used art as an example of culture, but that isn't all I'm going to work with. My idea, put simply, is that maybe the best way to induce change is to change the culture rather than the politics or by deposing whoever is in charge.
Culturejamming? Its a lot of fun, but I'm not sure it works on any sort of large scale. I think the Yes Men with their little prank on Dow Chemical over the Bhopal disaster. Sure it was a news splash, it was embarrassing for Dow, but it resulted in no chage to the status quo. Bhopal is still a mess and Dow isn't paying a dime. In fact, India is footing the bill for aid to the area.
Culture jamming when Hikem Bey and others started pushing it was gonna change culture... but its 30, 40 years later and I can't think of a single incident that really changed things. Even the iconic flower girls putting dasies in the gun barrels of the National Guard resulted in a couple guys leaving the ranks and some nice nostalgic pictures to remember the Yippies by. I think culture jamming is good for occasionally jogging loose a cog, or throwing a little sand in the gears, but I don't think it will or can fundamentally change The Machine.
QuoteCulturejamming?
Too a large extent, that is what I'm planning. I've got a short term plan in the works to see whether I can use the culture jamming community or not.
QuoteI think culture jamming is good for occasionally jogging loose a cog, or throwing a little sand in the gears, but I don't think it will or can fundamentally change The Machine.
Maybe. I'm gonna try it out first and see how things go. I think maybe if thing's were done on a larger scale, it might have different results.
Revolutions are doomed to fail by their nature. It's a wonder any have worked at all.
As I see it, revolutionaries succeed by the strength of their commitment. The status quo may have more guns, but the revolutionaries are fighting for a cause they believe in, and will fight to the bitter end. This is their fatal flaw, because once they win, that same zealotry remains, and they begin targeting "counter-revolutionaries". They fought so hard to get in power that they'll do anything to stay in power, and they become the new dictators.
For this reason, I've come to reject revolutions. Of course, gradual reform is equally worthless. Perhaps there is something in a dual power strategy. Don't fight for a new world, but actually create the world you want to see, then outlive the enemy.
"A revolution today, can only solve the problems of yesterday, not those of tomorrow"
-- Some Guy
Say you want a revolution? Well what do you mean - forcing a new leadership on a Governmental institution, or changing the way the institution works?
My problem with the word "revolution" is that it has the connotation of a non-representative violent militia imposing its will upon a people, and as the OP points out, this makes little difference in the medium-long term if the institutional structures remain largely the same. On the other hand, cultural/societal-scale changes from the industrial revolution to the information age, have profound and lasting effects on institutional structures, and funnily enough, they aren't seen as a direct threat by the ruling elite of the time.
One example - it follows that as the ability for a population to communicate amongst itself grows, then the elite will find itself under increasing scrutiny - and indeed, if Google is to be believed, then people are becoming less concerned about traditional news-at-eleven crime and more so with scandals performed by the elite:
| (http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=crime,+scandal&date=all&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N) (http://www.google.com/trends?q=crime,+scandal&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0) | |
The elite was certainly asleep at the wheel when they allowed a computer in every home, with a network to bind them. For this is bad news. Bad news indeed. Especially given the massive bump in "crime" referenced/reported by the news at the beginning of the US 2008 Presidential election cycle -- that had no effect.
Think about it - an elite which controls mass media and who can pump many more crime fnords into the brain-stems of a compliant population, has just lost control of the herd. There's something going on here, I can't put my finger on it, or exactly how the institutional structures are being changed, but this is the type of revolution which interests me.
QuoteWell what do you mean - forcing a new leadership on a Governmental institution, or changing the way the institution works?
Either one. Pretty much any major shift in the power structure or society.
QuoteOn the other hand, cultural/societal-scale changes from the industrial revolution to the information age, have profound and lasting effects on institutional structures, and funnily enough, they aren't seen as a direct threat by the ruling elite of the time.
Good point. The folks in power might not have seen it coming, as such groups tend to be short sighted in nature, or thought the benefits of the changes would outweigh the losses.
QuoteOne example - it follows that as the ability for a population to communicate amongst itself grows, then the elite will find itself under increasing scrutiny - and indeed, if Google is to be believed, then people are becoming less concerned about traditional news-at-eleven crime and more so with scandals performed by the elite:
True, but I'm not sure if that change has proven entirely beneficial. At least in recent years, public scrutiny towards the elite has proven to be more about simple entertainment than exposing them. Politicians are starting to turn the way of tabloid celebrities. The public is more interested in what they have on their i-pod than what they stand for or are actually doing. The press is spending more time selling the power group than keeping them honest.
Quote
Think about it - an elite which controls mass media and who can pump many more crime fnords into the brain-stems of a compliant population, has just lost control of the herd. There's something going on here, I can't put my finger on it, or exactly how the institutional structures are being changed, but this is the type of revolution which interests me.
I'm not sure if this is really a good thing either. All it seems is that they've changed their game. The political and economic elite still control the media. The only real difference is that they have stopped distracting the public with crime, and started distracting them with scandal. The public craves yellow journalism, and so that is what is given to them.
Not trying to shoot down your ideas, just stating some concerns. You should see how you can use what you've written about for you own efforts. Also, I should have the second part of the essay written in the next couple of days.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 19, 2010, 02:20:27 PM
QuoteOn the other hand, cultural/societal-scale changes from the industrial revolution to the information age, have profound and lasting effects on institutional structures, and funnily enough, they aren't seen as a direct threat by the ruling elite of the time.
Good point. The folks in power might not have seen it coming, as such groups tend to be short sighted in nature, or thought the benefits of the changes would outweigh the losses.
Also, structural changes in the way an institution works can be somewhat unpredictable.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 19, 2010, 02:20:27 PM
QuoteOne example - it follows that as the ability for a population to communicate amongst itself grows, then the elite will find itself under increasing scrutiny - and indeed, if Google is to be believed, then people are becoming less concerned about traditional news-at-eleven crime and more so with scandals performed by the elite:
True, but I'm not sure if that change has proven entirely beneficial. At least in recent years, public scrutiny towards the elite has proven to be more about simple entertainment than exposing them. Politicians are starting to turn the way of tabloid celebrities. The public is more interested in what they have on their i-pod than what they stand for or are actually doing. The press is spending more time selling the power group than keeping them honest.
Sure, and I can see the attraction of that -- celebrities "get away" with their bad behaviour all the time, and certainly there are more cases now of politicians involved in sex scandals for whom it does not mean the end of their career.
But I am certain that eroding the publicly-held dignity of the political profession will have unpleasant consequences for those who rely upon that bluff.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 19, 2010, 02:20:27 PM
Quote
Think about it - an elite which controls mass media and who can pump many more crime fnords into the brain-stems of a compliant population, has just lost control of the herd. There's something going on here, I can't put my finger on it, or exactly how the institutional structures are being changed, but this is the type of revolution which interests me.
I'm not sure if this is really a good thing either. All it seems is that they've changed their game. The political and economic elite still control the media. The only real difference is that they have stopped distracting the public with crime, and started distracting them with scandal. The public craves yellow journalism, and so that is what is given to them.
I'd say a major difference is that "crime" is a fault of the populace, whereas "scandal" is a fault of an elite. The potential to control the media has been diminished by the ability for a scandal story to distribute itself via email and blogs and forums -- the mainstream media no longer has the luxury of choosing to bury any story it wishes.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 19, 2010, 02:20:27 PM
Not trying to shoot down your ideas, just stating some concerns. You should see how you can use what you've written about for you own efforts.
Shoot away, no-one likes an echo-chamber! I don't understand the second sentence though.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 14, 2010, 11:42:33 PM
QuoteI suppose that when it comes to politics, frustration is a general rule.
This is going to be what the second part will be about. My theory is that one reason that politics is now a pointless way to run a revolution, due to the sheer impossibility of getting anything done. So, I think that a different point of attack should be used, one that influences politics as well as the way people think and act.
Agreed 100%. I'm looking forward to the second part!
QuoteI don't understand the second sentence though.
I meant that if you can find a way to exploit these societal changes for your own cause, then you should. If that's what you're into, of course.
Quote
But I am certain that eroding the publicly-held dignity of the political profession will have unpleasant consequences for those who rely upon that bluff.
Fair enough. That variety won't do well in the changing environment. Do you think it's possible that a new breed of politico will develop, one that embraces and makes use of scandal rather than trying to bluff it away? If that group hasn't already appeared, a la Palin.
Quote
The potential to control the media has been diminished by the ability for a scandal story to distribute itself via email and blogs and forums -- the mainstream media no longer has the luxury of choosing to bury any story it wishes.
Those forms of media suffer from a high substance to noise ratio. For a lot of people, the mainstream media is still the only thing they think they can trust.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 19, 2010, 04:35:46 PM
QuoteI don't understand the second sentence though.
I meant that if you can find a way to exploit these societal changes for your own cause, then you should. If that's what you're into, of course.
Ah yes, thanks, I am!
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 19, 2010, 04:35:46 PM
Quote
But I am certain that eroding the publicly-held dignity of the political profession will have unpleasant consequences for those who rely upon that bluff.
Fair enough. That variety won't do well in the changing environment. Do you think it's possible that a new breed of politico will develop, one that embraces and makes use of scandal rather than trying to bluff it away? If that group hasn't already appeared, a la Palin.
Silvio Berlusconi (http://graneyandthepig.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/italian-prime-minister-naked-pictures-not-a-scandal/) is close to that, too.
But I think we want to respect authority. This is different from wanting an authority deserving of our respect. We flip from the former motivation into the latter once an individual threshold is crossed. Consider the meme against pop stars/entertainers commenting on political issues which are "out of their depth", and the whole "he's just a celebrity" attack on Obama.
That disconnect, to me, signals a loss of top-down control, especially as the scandals don't seem to follow a strict partisan divide.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 19, 2010, 04:35:46 PM
Quote
The potential to control the media has been diminished by the ability for a scandal story to distribute itself via email and blogs and forums -- the mainstream media no longer has the luxury of choosing to bury any story it wishes.
Those forms of media suffer from a high substance to noise ratio. For a lot of people, the mainstream media is still the only thing they think they can trust.
Okay - but the mainstream media
are reporting more scandal stories. I can only speculate why - and I think it's a tragedy of the commons issue, with the tasty grass being the juicy secrets - where with fewer players the status-quo was previously held by a loose gentleman's agreement.
Underneath every utopia, something vile lurks.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 05:20:02 PM
Underneath every utopia, something vile lurks.
Is there a better cover for doing vile things?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 05:20:02 PM
Underneath every utopia, something vile lurks.
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.
3) Don't try to engineer the fate of the world / prevent others from same?
Why do you trust your ability to make the world work?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 05:55:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 05:20:02 PM
Underneath every utopia, something vile lurks.
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.
Utopias require a few things:
1. Universal buy in. You aren't going to get that, mostly because there are jackasses like me in the world, who can't be satisfied, no matter how hard you try. You'll have to do something about us.
2. Stasis. If the society changes, that means it wasn't perfect. Ergo, utopias require stagnation. Promoters of new ways of thinking have to be dealt with.
3. Artists and other left-handed thinkers will have to be run out of town (even Plato said that). They're nothing but trouble, and they upset the perfection of the system with their constant commentary and odd behavior.
So, yeah, you can probably achieve a Utopia of sorts, for a period of time...But it, like all Cities, will have to be built on a foundation of the bones of those who didn't want it and wouldn't get out of the way.
But hey, eggs/omelets, right?
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 06:01:17 PM
3) Don't try to engineer the fate of the world / prevent others from same?
Why do you trust your ability to make the world work?
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 06:10:10 PM
Utopias require a few things:
1. Universal buy in. You aren't going to get that, mostly because there are jackasses like me in the world, who can't be satisfied, no matter how hard you try. You'll have to do something about us.
2. Stasis. If the society changes, that means it wasn't perfect. Ergo, utopias require stagnation. Promoters of new ways of thinking have to be dealt with.
3. Artists and other left-handed thinkers will have to be run out of town (even Plato said that). They're nothing but trouble, and they upset the perfection of the system with their constant commentary and odd behavior.
So, yeah, you can probably achieve a Utopia of sorts, for a period of time...But it, like all Cities, will have to be built on a foundation of the bones of those who didn't want it and wouldn't get out of the way.
But hey, eggs/omelets, right?
We don't know how to travel at the speed of light but we know what to do if we want to approach it.
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.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 06:24:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 06:24:14 PM
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).
I am sure 'Utopia' would bore me to fucking death in 3 days. And I'm being generous by giving it 3 days.
QuoteDoing 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.
QuoteI'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.
Quote
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.
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 06:29:54 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 06:24:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 06:29:54 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 06:24:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 06:56:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 06:29:54 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 06:24:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 06:29:54 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 06:24:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 07:39:53 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 06:56:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 06:29:54 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 06:24:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 06:29:54 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 06:24:14 PM
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.
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.
QuoteBesides, 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.
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.
Can we name it SkyNet?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 08:17:17 PM
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?
Quote from: LMNO on July 19, 2010, 08:19:59 PM
Can we name it SkyNet?
LMNO has seen the movies too!
Quote from: LMNO on July 19, 2010, 08:19:59 PM
Can we name it SkyNet?
It already has a name (http://thedeviousplot.com/), but that's the extent of its public face for now.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 19, 2010, 08:30:11 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 08:17:17 PM
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 (http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html). 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.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 08:35:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 19, 2010, 08:19:59 PM
Can we name it SkyNet?
It already has a name (http://thedeviousplot.com/), but that's the extent of its public face for now.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 19, 2010, 08:30:11 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 08:17:17 PM
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 (http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html). 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?
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on July 19, 2010, 08:13:22 PM
QuoteBesides, 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.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 08:17:17 PM
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?
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 19, 2010, 08:37:45 PM
Ever study what happens after a revolution?
What are you thinking of in particular?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 19, 2010, 08:37:45 PM
Ever study what happens after a revolution?
What are you thinking of in particular?
The reprisals that follow every revolution, of course.
I was thinking more along the lines of the industrial revolution, than the "let's storm the castle and become the new leaders of this land" sort of revolution. Especially since the latter rarely seems to achieve its stated ideals.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 09:32:11 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of the industrial revolution, than the "let's storm the castle and become the new leaders of this land" sort of revolution. Especially since the latter rarely seems to achieve its stated ideals.
Looking around, it never achieves its stated ideals.
But this turns out to be some "singularity" crap (with the term used incorrectly)? Well, I can tell you what the results of interfacing humans with information systems REALLY does, because it's happened already.
The humans go nuts.
Yep. Your brain is built to handle the stresses of hunting antelope and dodging leopards. That's it. You were NOT designed to have a constant inrush of information. This will NOT cause you to make better decisions, it will cause you to either go crazy, or self-medicate with prescription meds, illegal drugs, booze, and/or weird religion.
Also, what the fuck is up with this direct democracy crap? That's been tried, and it was a fucking horrorshow. I speak, of course, about Athens. They used ostrakos instead of computers, but all computers will do is speed up the horror.
Has anyone tried some kind of rule by antelopes and leopards?
I mean that in the most straightfaced way imaginable.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 09:54:52 PM
Has anyone tried some kind of rule by antelopes and leopards?
I mean that in the most straightfaced way imaginable.
Yeah.
Then we improved on it, and got all that we have today.
My ideal future is to be mostly left alone.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have some kind of brain-computer interface that let me google stuff and pirate nugget porn while I drive to work, but I don't see myself using it to save the world and end hunger or anything like that.
Quote from: Nast on July 19, 2010, 09:58:23 PM
My ideal future is to be mostly left alone.
You'll be dragged kicking and screaming into cybernetic utopia, and you'll
like it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 09:53:02 PM
But this turns out to be some "singularity" crap (with the term used incorrectly)? Well, I can tell you what the results of interfacing humans with information systems REALLY does, because it's happened already.
The humans go nuts.
Yep. Your brain is built to handle the stresses of hunting antelope and dodging leopards. That's it. You were NOT designed to have a constant inrush of information. This will NOT cause you to make better decisions, it will cause you to either go crazy, or self-medicate with prescription meds, illegal drugs, booze, and/or weird religion.
I'm talking about a phone/web app, not a cybernetic implant! Just a place a person can go to throw their weight behind a particular topic, instead of just griping about it impotently on some forum. Incidentally, they could still gripe on a forum, but the actual participation aspect that I'm talking about would only take a fraction of that time.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 09:53:02 PM
Also, what the fuck is up with this direct democracy crap? That's been tried, and it was a fucking horrorshow. I speak, of course, about Athens. They used ostrakos instead of computers, but all computers will do is speed up the horror.
E-Democracy is an umbrella term for using information technology to allow members of a defined group to decide on issues. Direct democracy is one form it could take, but it wouldn't be my first choice, and there need not be only one method of voting. Catholics may choose to proxy their vote to the Pope to vote as one bloc, for example, or they may choose to do so only on certain issues or not at all.
So it's almost like a tiered democracy. Many will vote directly, but "leaders" would only have power insomuch as people support them at a given moment?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:26:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 09:53:02 PM
But this turns out to be some "singularity" crap (with the term used incorrectly)? Well, I can tell you what the results of interfacing humans with information systems REALLY does, because it's happened already.
The humans go nuts.
Yep. Your brain is built to handle the stresses of hunting antelope and dodging leopards. That's it. You were NOT designed to have a constant inrush of information. This will NOT cause you to make better decisions, it will cause you to either go crazy, or self-medicate with prescription meds, illegal drugs, booze, and/or weird religion.
I'm talking about a phone/web app, not a cybernetic implant! Just a place a person can go to throw their weight behind a particular topic, instead of just griping about it impotently on some forum. Incidentally, they could still gripe on a forum, but the actual participation aspect that I'm talking about would only take a fraction of that time.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 09:53:02 PM
Also, what the fuck is up with this direct democracy crap? That's been tried, and it was a fucking horrorshow. I speak, of course, about Athens. They used ostrakos instead of computers, but all computers will do is speed up the horror.
E-Democracy is an umbrella term for using information technology to allow members of a defined group to decide on issues. Direct democracy is one form it could take, but it wouldn't be my first choice, and there need not be only one method of voting. Catholics may choose to proxy their vote to the Pope to vote as one bloc, for example, or they may choose to do so only on certain issues or not at all.
Wooooo...Rush Limbaucracy! :banana:
Dok has a point. A system like that would just empower the loudest assholes who work for the biggest networks...who work for the richest fucks.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:39:23 PM
So it's almost like a tiered democracy. Many will vote directly, but "leaders" would only have power insomuch as people support them at a given moment?
Yeah, it's as flexible as you want to make it. These are open-source projects developing open api's - it's hard to imagine it really working any other way - so you get to choose how to place your vote, and you can place whatever software you wish in the decision making process. E.g. Your friend Jane may be more into "Space Science" than you, so anything which is tagged under that area you can proxy your vote to her, and revoke it at a moments notice if you review her decisions and don't agree with them.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:42:14 PM
Wooooo...Rush Limbaucracy! :banana:
:lulz:
Sure - but with dittoheads in particular, the situation won't change much under this new scheme.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:46:51 PM
Dok has a point. A system like that would just empower the loudest assholes who work for the biggest networks...who work for the richest fucks.
How is this different from our current system of Governance which sways with the political winds anyway?
Here's how - idiotic policies can be passed quickly and repealed just as quickly when they fail because of their own stupidity. You don't have to wait 4-5 years, while those in an echo chamber keep beating the dead horse, for the reckoning to come.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:53:54 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:46:51 PM
Dok has a point. A system like that would just empower the loudest assholes who work for the biggest networks...who work for the richest fucks.
How is this different from our current system of Governance which sways with the political winds anyway?
Here's how - idiotic policies can be passed quickly and repealed just as quickly when they fail because of their own stupidity. You don't have to wait 4-5 years, while those in an echo chamber keep beating the dead horse, for the reckoning to come.
:lulz:
~ 50% of America still supports supply-side economics, 30 years after it was proven to be a failure.
You're saying you can change the way the system incentivizes without changing its behavior. That can't be right.
If people can push a button and say "What he says goes", then the system will promote demagoguery, creating more and crazier demagogues.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:53:54 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:46:51 PM
Dok has a point. A system like that would just empower the loudest assholes who work for the biggest networks...who work for the richest fucks.
How is this different from our current system of Governance which sways with the political winds anyway?
Here's how - idiotic policies can be passed quickly and repealed just as quickly when they fail because of their own stupidity. You don't have to wait 4-5 years, while those in an echo chamber keep beating the dead horse, for the reckoning to come.
It's different than what we have now because what we have now is a functional plutonomy. Most of our legislation is guided by, essentially, shares and ROIs. What you're proposing takes the power away from the rich, and gives it to the noisy and self-assured.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:57:21 PM
It's different than what we have now because what we have now is a functional plutonomy. Most of our legislation is guided by, essentially, shares and ROIs. What you're proposing takes the power away from the rich, and gives it to the noisy and self-assured.
Okay, starting to buy into this, now.
I can't wait to see an America where Beck and Palin make policy from the Fox News studios.
Oh, fuck yeah. :lulz:
:foreheadslap:
I was trying to show what a BAD IDEA IT WAS! :lol: Stop liking BAD IDEAS!!
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 11:03:56 PM
:foreheadslap:
I was trying to show what a BAD IDEA IT WAS! :lol: Stop liking BAD IDEAS!!
This is an AMAZING idea. I can't wait to see policy as dictated by Sean Hannity. :lol:
The country is schizophrenic enough without giving people the ability to change their mind as often as they want.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 11:19:00 PM
The country is schizophrenic enough without giving people the ability to change their mind as often as they want.
No, I want to see the same sort of decisiveness we currently put into our space program applied to EVERYTHING! :banana:
I wish I could actually test this stuff on a realistic scale without putting anything at stake.
Imagine: A world where you can rigorously determine if your idea works better than entrails-reading.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 11:24:16 PM
I wish I could actually test this stuff on a realistic scale without putting anything at stake.
Imagine: A world where you can rigorously determine if your idea works better than entrails-reading.
I'd die of boredom.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:49:06 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:39:23 PM
So it's almost like a tiered democracy. Many will vote directly, but "leaders" would only have power insomuch as people support them at a given moment?
Yeah, it's as flexible as you want to make it. These are open-source projects developing open api's - it's hard to imagine it really working any other way - so you get to choose how to place your vote, and you can place whatever software you wish in the decision making process. E.g. Your friend Jane may be more into "Space Science" than you, so anything which is tagged under that area you can proxy your vote to her, and revoke it at a moments notice if you review her decisions and don't agree with them.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:42:14 PM
Wooooo...Rush Limbaucracy! :banana:
:lulz:
Sure - but with dittoheads in particular, the situation won't change much under this new scheme.
Jesus Fucking Christ. What are you on? Please take a few to study the aftermath of ANY revolution. Until then please stay quiet.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 11:24:16 PM
I wish I could actually test this stuff on a realistic scale without putting anything at stake.
Imagine: A world where you can rigorously determine if your idea works better than entrails-reading.
Well the architecture will run in parallel to existing institutions while the bugs are being worked out, and will otherwise be functional except that no-one will be expected to implement all the solutions it generates. Testing criteria will include how resilient it is to demagoguery, and whether hysteresis is an actual problem, or one which can be dealt with by requiring something like a 2/3rds cut-off -- i.e. a full third of voters would have to change their positions to repeal a particular decision.
So you will get that chance if you choose to participate.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 19, 2010, 11:33:28 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:49:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:42:14 PM
Wooooo...Rush Limbaucracy! :banana:
:lulz:
Sure - but with dittoheads in particular, the situation won't change much under this new scheme.
Jesus Fucking Christ. What are you on? Please take a few to study the aftermath of ANY revolution. Until then please stay quiet.
Um. I was saying that dittoheads vote in-line with Rush right now, and those elected leaders defer to him on certain issues. So I don't see how the scheme I describe, in the worst case, could be worse than what we currently have. Right now it costs people like Rush absolutely nothing to be completely wrong on an issue, but if they actually had accountability for the awful decisions that they would come up with, then that equation would change.
I have studied the aftermath of a revolution, and I still don't understand what your concern is. Could you elaborate? Else if you have any links I'll be glad to read them.
So you have studied the aftermath of revolutions and you didn't discover that it either just changes names or gets worse? Try again.
The main problem with E-Democracy is that it is based on exactly the same fallacy as our current system of democracy- quality by popularity. This would work fine if people were well-informed and capable of sound judgment. Unfortunately for this and every system, people are people. They don't want the system to work, they just want to push their opinions and take out their frustration on everyone else. If people genuinely wanted democracy to function, it would function. It's like Dok's little bureaucracy experiment. If, as a voter, your top priority is to make sure that you consider the needs of everyone in your society, improve the aspects of your society that are lacking, and keep yourself well-informed about current events and facts, all while keeping a cool head, you will probably make the best possible vote. Most people aren't willing to go that far for politics. They'd rather die at the hands of the police in ill-concieved protests.
Of course, that only makes things entertaining for people like us.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 01:28:32 AM
So you have studied the aftermath of revolutions and you didn't discover that it either just changes names or gets worse? Try again.
Well, all this time I've been talking about a revolution in terms of changing institutional structures as defined earlier in the thread (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25770.msg898808#msg898808), so I think we're talking about different things.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 01:48:06 AM
Well, all this time I've been talking about a revolution in terms of changing institutional structures as defined earlier in the thread (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25770.msg898808#msg898808), so I think we're talking about different things.
When I mentioned protests, I was talking about teabaggers, silly.
Of course, they haven't been cracked down on. Yet. Neither did the National Socialist German Workers' party for a while. I maintain my stance on the Tea Party as presented on page 1 of this thread.
EDIT: Oops. Didn't know what you were replying to.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 11:20:08 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 11:19:00 PM
The country is schizophrenic enough without giving people the ability to change their mind as often as they want.
No, I want to see the same sort of decisiveness we currently put into our space program applied to EVERYTHING! :banana:
Bump.
I love this plan.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 01:51:22 AM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 01:48:06 AM
Well, all this time I've been talking about a revolution in terms of changing institutional structures as defined earlier in the thread (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25770.msg898808#msg898808), so I think we're talking about different things.
When I mentioned protests, I was talking about teabaggers, silly.
Of course, they haven't been cracked down on. Yet. Neither did the National Socialist German Workers' party for a while. I maintain my stance on the Tea Party as presented on page 1 of this thread.
EDIT: Oops. Didn't know what you were replying to.
My bad - I quickly edited the proper quote in after I hit post.
I would say that politics is irrelevant to most people precisely because they don't get a say any more than once every couple of years, and even then it's a choice between two shitty options and still their voice is unheard except for a single vote which will probably be miscounted anyway. The rational decision in that environment is to not give a shit about politics.
E-Democracy can address all of those flaws. Will it make everyone super aware and awesome? No, of course not. But it follows that under those circumstances more people will take more interest in a process in which they can play a meaningful part without having to dedicate unreasonable personal resources.
It's not a panacea but this incremental benefit, alone, makes it a topic worth exploring.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 02:42:25 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 11:20:08 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 11:19:00 PM
The country is schizophrenic enough without giving people the ability to change their mind as often as they want.
No, I want to see the same sort of decisiveness we currently put into our space program applied to EVERYTHING! :banana:
Bump.
I love this plan.
Sorry to dampen your enthusiasm, but I expect a simple threshold can be implemented to compensate for 50%+/-1 hysteresis. If you set it at 66%, then you've got to get at least a full third of voters to switch their votes - how likely is it that this would happen often enough to cause the problem you're describing?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 03:29:20 AM
Sorry to dampen your enthusiasm, but I expect a simple threshold can be implemented to compensate for 50%+/-1 hysteresis. If you set it at 66%, then you've got to get at least a full third of voters to switch their votes - how likely is it that this would happen often enough to cause the problem you're describing?
Judging from New Hampshire since 2008? They voted for Obama, and then went negative on him, IIRC, before he was even inaugurated.
I quit this thread.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 03:43:38 AM
I quit this thread.
Sorry to hear that. I'm still enjoying the kid explain the world to me.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 03:47:11 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 03:43:38 AM
I quit this thread.
Sorry to hear that. I'm still enjoying the kid explain the world to me.
Fuck it, he is lost somewhere in 1969.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 03:48:27 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 03:47:11 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 03:43:38 AM
I quit this thread.
Sorry to hear that. I'm still enjoying the kid explain the world to me.
Fuck it, he is lost somewhere in 1969.
Sure. I remember explaining all this to some cynical old bastard relative, back in 1982 or so. They laughed and I got pissed...But my, how that worm does turn.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 03:29:20 AM
I would say that politics is irrelevant to most people precisely because they don't get a say any more than once every couple of years, and even then it's a choice between two shitty options and still their voice is unheard except for a single vote which will probably be miscounted anyway. The rational decision in that environment is to not give a shit about politics.
E-Democracy can address all of those flaws. Will it make everyone super aware and awesome? No, of course not. But it follows that under those circumstances more people will take more interest in a process in which they can play a meaningful part without having to dedicate unreasonable personal resources.
It's not a panacea but this incremental benefit, alone, makes it a topic worth exploring.
Or they will vote on a whim and take less interest than they do currently. At least the current farce is keeping the masses hooked. They will be ever more shortsighted, and this time nobody will be able to say "Remember the ____ administration? Let's not make those mistakes again." There will be no administration, no period of time to refer back to. Politics will exist purely in the moment, with no memory and no foresight, and everybody focusing on their own desires above all. Nobody will even consider anyone else's point of view, because they didn't suffer as a group when they were on the losing side.
Business as usual in the 21st century.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 03:29:20 AM
But it follows that under those circumstances more people will take more interest in a process in which they can play a meaningful part without having to dedicate unreasonable personal resources.
I see precisely zero reason to believe this.
If you ever want to see what the Internet does to people, see Facebook. See Youtube. See 4chan.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 04:11:58 AM
If you ever want to see what the Internet does to people, see Facebook. See Youtube. See 4chan.
Catchy but 169% full of fail.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:15:56 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 04:11:58 AM
If you ever want to see what the Internet does to people, see Facebook. See Youtube. See 4chan.
Catchy but 169% full of fail.
Actually, he's right.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 04:17:28 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:15:56 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 04:11:58 AM
If you ever want to see what the Internet does to people, see Facebook. See Youtube. See 4chan.
Catchy but 169% full of fail.
Actually, he's right.
Bullshit. Remember my nuts grow on trees theory?
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:19:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 04:17:28 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:15:56 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 04:11:58 AM
If you ever want to see what the Internet does to people, see Facebook. See Youtube. See 4chan.
Catchy but 169% full of fail.
Actually, he's right.
Bullshit. Remember my nuts grow on trees theory?
Maybe I'm wrong on the causation, but look at how people act on those sites and ask yourself if you want them running a country that way.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:19:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 04:17:28 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:15:56 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 04:11:58 AM
If you ever want to see what the Internet does to people, see Facebook. See Youtube. See 4chan.
Catchy but 169% full of fail.
Actually, he's right.
Bullshit. Remember my nuts grow on trees theory?
Sorry, don't recall. Link?
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:19:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 04:17:28 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:15:56 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 04:11:58 AM
If you ever want to see what the Internet does to people, see Facebook. See Youtube. See 4chan.
Catchy but 169% full of fail.
Actually, he's right.
Bullshit. Remember my nuts grow on trees theory?
I saw what FC did to regular people. CG, for that matter.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 20, 2010, 04:23:58 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:19:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 04:17:28 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:15:56 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 04:11:58 AM
If you ever want to see what the Internet does to people, see Facebook. See Youtube. See 4chan.
Catchy but 169% full of fail.
Actually, he's right.
Bullshit. Remember my nuts grow on trees theory?
Sorry, don't recall. Link?
Like i fucking remember.
Okay, but anyway:
A line of reasoning-
CU says stronger involvement with the democratic process, aided by smartphones, will strengthen the system.
CS cites various examples of the internet community to show that internet + policymaking = no.
But (forgive me) netizens do have markedly worse behavior, damaged rationality, and muffled empathy compared to people in meatspace.
(In my experience.)
In addition, it could be argued that web access is too insecure to be used in important democratic processes. Electronics already have a bad rap sheet as far as voting goes, and that was even done by people who had to physically show up.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 20, 2010, 04:37:17 AM
Okay, but anyway:
A line of reasoning-
CU says stronger involvement with the democratic process, aided by smartphones, will strengthen the system.
CS cites various examples of the internet community to show that internet + policymaking = no.
But (forgive me) netizens do have markedly worse behavior, damaged rationality, and muffled empathy compared to people in meatspace.
(In my experience.)
In addition, it could be argued that web access is too insecure to be used in important democratic processes. Electronics already have a bad rap sheet as far as voting goes, and that was even done by people who had to physically show up.
That, and one well-placed bomb in the Atlantic Ocean could instantly take out your entire government if you rely on the Internet to make all your decisions. The Internet does rely on undersea cables right now.
EDIT: Ok, so I've looked at the diagram, and there are a LOT more than one cable connecting America to the rest of the world. I feel like an idiot now.
We need undersea cables to have internet access stateside?
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 20, 2010, 04:54:47 AM
We need undersea cables to have internet access stateside?
Yes, if you want to be able to access the rest of the world. Here's a diagram I found(linked because hot damn that is a huge image):
http://technuage.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/internet-SeaCable-guardian.jpg
As you can see, there are a lot of cables in the Atlantic and a good amount in the Pacific, so a single bomb wouldn't have a chance of hurting the entire infrastructure, beyond temporarily slowing down everyone's Internet speed.
Now, E-Democracy would likely have to run on a national network separate from the Internet anyway, out of necessity. So really my entire point there is moot.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 20, 2010, 04:54:47 AM
We need undersea cables to have internet access stateside?
IT'S A COLLECTION OF TUBES NOT A BIG TRUCK
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 05:02:54 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 20, 2010, 04:54:47 AM
We need undersea cables to have internet access stateside?
IT'S A COLLECTION OF TUBES NOT A BIG TRUCK
I'm not sure if you were making fun of me just now or not but I giggled regardless.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 05:04:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 05:02:54 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 20, 2010, 04:54:47 AM
We need undersea cables to have internet access stateside?
IT'S A COLLECTION OF TUBES NOT A BIG TRUCK
I'm not sure if you were making fun of me just now or not but I giggled regardless.
Actually, I was just mindlessly repeating the words of a drunken congressman from Alaska.
First up - I don't think you could run a successful E-Democracy system with anonymous voting.
Running with that premise then security becomes less of an issue - the voting record would be public data and anyone could easily verify their individual vote against the official dataset, or run the tallies themselves. Also, each issue need not be as dramatic and Important, since it is easier to divvy up into smaller concerns. It's not like you only get one say every couple of years.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 04:11:58 AM
If you ever want to see what the Internet does to people, see Facebook. See Youtube. See 4chan.
These are all environments where people have little to no (perceived) consequences for their actions. Like any public washroom - if people believe they can get away with acting however they want and no-one will ever call them on it - they will.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 04:58:51 AM
Now, E-Democracy would likely have to run on a national network separate from the Internet anyway, out of necessity.
Why?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 05:07:55 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on July 20, 2010, 04:58:51 AM
Now, E-Democracy would likely have to run on a national network separate from the Internet anyway, out of necessity.
Why?
To prevent people outside the country from voting, of course. Although this does raise the question of how to vote while abroad...
Implanted RFID chips that interface with smartphones, perhaps? This has the advantage that it could be used to prevent certain unsavoury characters from getting their say. You know, malcontents. Subversives. Just blacklist their RFID tag and they'll never vote again. Perhaps they could even be arrested for making an attempt. We don't want the wrong kind of people getting involved in politics.
Well what's wrong with a username/password tied to your social security number or something? I don't see the need for a separate network.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 05:45:43 AM
Well what's wrong with a username/password tied to your social security number or something? I don't see the need for a separate network.
Just examining the horror. You KNOW a faction will vote for that.
Huh? What horror?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 06:07:26 AM
Huh? What horror?
Horror that does not yet exist, but potentially could. I'd say I'm trying to imagine a worst-case scenario, but I know it could get a lot worse than that. At any rate, it should be fun.
EDIT: What's wrong with me? I jump from legitimate criticism of a theoretical political system into paranoid accusations of potential technological fascism. I need to get some sleep.
Another way to try it:
Quote from: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/219103,senator-online-seeks-candidates-for-federal-election.aspxPolitical party Senator Online (SOL) is seeking "everyday Australians" to represent it in the next Federal Election.
Registered in August 2007, SOL claims to be Australia's "first and only internet-based political party", promising to conduct online votes on major issues and act in Parliament accordingly.
The party, which does not have any policies or an official stance, is currently seeking candidates from Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia.
It has already appointed 27-year-old NSW Police officer Wes Bas as its candidate for NSW, inking a legal contract that compels Bas to vote in accordance with his online constituents.
The horror of unintended consequences is a price paid for doing anything at all.
The consequences of apathy and cynicism are far more horrifying to me.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 03:28:09 PM
The horror of unintended consequences is a price paid for doing anything at all.
The consequences of apathy and cynicism are far more horrifying to me.
Sure, because ivory tower social planning has never gone horribly, horribly wrong before.
In recent years, we've definitely seen the Internet's power to mobilize fringe factions. Smaller causes, projects, issues, subcultures, etc are able to quickly accumulate their own networks. I think things are looking a bit brighter for the fringes, which have better tools than ever to inform and gather support.
It's not an ivory tower social plan.
It's a mechanism to allow a society to plan for itself drawing upon unused collaborative capital vs. the failing institutions we're currently stuck with.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:25:33 PM
It's not an ivory tower social plan.
How many real world application trials have you done?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:25:33 PM
It's not an ivory tower social plan.
How many real world application trials have you done?
It would be fun to watch the current shadow government cut all internet access to this new shadow government experiment.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:45:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:25:33 PM
It's not an ivory tower social plan.
How many real world application trials have you done?
It would be fun to watch the current shadow government cut all internet access to this new shadow government experiment.
It would be even more fun to watch this new shadow government in action.
Just saying.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 20, 2010, 04:22:37 PM
In recent years, we've definitely seen the Internet's power to mobilize fringe factions. Smaller causes, projects, issues, subcultures, etc are able to quickly accumulate their own networks. I think things are looking a bit brighter for the fringes, which have better tools than ever to inform and gather support.
Yup, and this is both a good and bad thing. For every cause which brings mutual benefit, you'll have things like the support groups which teach anorexic kids how to maintain their eating disorders. I've no idea what the solution to that is, but it's here, and shows no signs of going away.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:25:33 PM
It's not an ivory tower social plan.
How many real world application trials have you done?
Point. But I'm not giving you a picture, I'm describing a paint set. I'm not suggesting that I know any of the solutions to our political problems, but instead saying that institutions can benefit from external collaboration if handled correctly. This is something not previously possible before many:many communication networks became widely accessible, and this principle has been verified in the real world online.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:45:02 PM
It would be fun to watch the current shadow government cut all internet access to this new shadow government experiment.
These are international projects. If one country did cut access, then another country would still be moving forward. Thing is, if these systems provide real value, then other countries will follow. If there is no value, then nothing is lost. I'm not big on conspiracy theories though.
I'm not sure if this E-Democracy idea would work or not, but at least it's an attempt to do something.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:52:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 04:45:02 PM
It would be fun to watch the current shadow government cut all internet access to this new shadow government experiment.
These are international projects. If one country did cut access, then another country would still be moving forward. Thing is, if these systems provide real value, then other countries will follow. If there is no value, then nothing is lost. I'm not big on conspiracy theories though.
Do you think the current shadow government is a conspiracy theory? Seriously?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:50:15 PM
Point. But I'm not giving you a picture, I'm describing a paint set.
That was a cop out.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 05:01:58 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:50:15 PM
Point. But I'm not giving you a picture, I'm describing a paint set.
That was a cop out.
Big time.
What stage of planning are you at? How many committed member do you have? How many countries are currently involved?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 05:01:58 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:50:15 PM
Point. But I'm not giving you a picture, I'm describing a paint set.
That was a cop out.
There are "real world" examples of collaborative ventures out-performing institutions at their own-game, all over the internet. It is something only possible with the internet. If saying that there is potential to improve upon the performance of our governmental institutions by using the exact same means, places me in an ivory tower in your eyes, then so be it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 05:02:39 PM
What stage of planning are you at? How many committed member do you have? How many countries are currently involved?
This isn't about me. I'm trying to implement just a small part, and I'm doing so independently. If I get hit by a truck today, the project will still go on just fine. I don't know the numbers, every few days metagovernment finds new projects from all over the world that had sprung up independently.
There is an incomplete list here: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Related_projects
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 05:15:09 PM
There are "real world" examples of collaborative ventures out-performing institutions at their own-game, all over the internet. It is something only possible with the internet. If saying that there is potential to improve upon the performance of our governmental institutions by using the exact same means, places me in an ivory tower in your eyes, then so be it.
So, let me get this straight: The path to your near-utopia involves people using the internet, but you don't have any concrete ideas as to actually implimenting that? I don't want a paint set, man, I have to worry about keeping 56 people employed, getting my bills paid, and doing horrible shit when nobody is looking. I am a busy man...So are most people. If we all stopped what we were doing to design an internet utopia, we'd all starve to death.
Sad fact: There were only a couple of hundred people involved in setting up the entire US system. Everyone else was busy growing food, making tools, sailing cargo ships, robbing people, etc. When the visionaries were done with their model, then people decided whether or not they wanted it. In that case, they did.
You've cast yourself in the role of a visionary. Let's have some vision, okay?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 05:01:58 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:50:15 PM
Point. But I'm not giving you a picture, I'm describing a paint set.
That was a cop out.
There are "real world" examples of collaborative ventures out-performing institutions at their own-game, all over the internet. It is something only possible with the internet. If saying that there is potential to improve upon the performance of our governmental institutions by using the exact same means, places me in an ivory tower in your eyes, then so be it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 05:02:39 PM
What stage of planning are you at? How many committed member do you have? How many countries are currently involved?
This isn't about me. I'm trying to implement just a small part, and I'm doing so independently. If I get hit by a truck today, the project will still go on just fine. I don't know the numbers, every few days metagovernment finds new projects from all over the world that had sprung up independently.
There is an incomplete list here: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Related_projects
So the beast has no head, no brain, no focused goals. Sounds like a bunch of people with time on their hands running around willy-nilly screeching about change but not accomplishing anything.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 05:29:34 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 05:01:58 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:50:15 PM
Point. But I'm not giving you a picture, I'm describing a paint set.
That was a cop out.
There are "real world" examples of collaborative ventures out-performing institutions at their own-game, all over the internet. It is something only possible with the internet. If saying that there is potential to improve upon the performance of our governmental institutions by using the exact same means, places me in an ivory tower in your eyes, then so be it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 05:02:39 PM
What stage of planning are you at? How many committed member do you have? How many countries are currently involved?
This isn't about me. I'm trying to implement just a small part, and I'm doing so independently. If I get hit by a truck today, the project will still go on just fine. I don't know the numbers, every few days metagovernment finds new projects from all over the world that had sprung up independently.
There is an incomplete list here: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Related_projects
So the beast has no head, no brain, no focused goals. Sounds like a bunch of people with time on their hands running around willy-nilly screeching about change but not accomplishing anything.
Rather like a certain administration, no? :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 05:35:44 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 05:29:34 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 05:01:58 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:50:15 PM
Point. But I'm not giving you a picture, I'm describing a paint set.
That was a cop out.
There are "real world" examples of collaborative ventures out-performing institutions at their own-game, all over the internet. It is something only possible with the internet. If saying that there is potential to improve upon the performance of our governmental institutions by using the exact same means, places me in an ivory tower in your eyes, then so be it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 05:02:39 PM
What stage of planning are you at? How many committed member do you have? How many countries are currently involved?
This isn't about me. I'm trying to implement just a small part, and I'm doing so independently. If I get hit by a truck today, the project will still go on just fine. I don't know the numbers, every few days metagovernment finds new projects from all over the world that had sprung up independently.
There is an incomplete list here: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Related_projects
So the beast has no head, no brain, no focused goals. Sounds like a bunch of people with time on their hands running around willy-nilly screeching about change but not accomplishing anything.
Rather like a certain administration, no? :lulz:
:lulz:
Some good points:
-if somebody invents an iPhone app which allows them to actually participate in democracy, it will sell like mad
-I support the effort to decentralize power. To some extent you can take it away from lobbyists by giving a voice to the consensus. Technology can do this. It's already happening gradually, but it needs another push*.
Cons: (and this is an ancient con)
-democratic consensus doesn't always select the best ideas. Look at the teabaggers!
It's impossible to predict how technology is going to change the world. We can get a glimpse of it by examining current trends, but those aren't great predictors due to the black swan effect. So I'm not really looking for Captain Utopia to paint us a picture of exactly how this is going to work - as you get more specific, you get less accurate.
I do have hope that all this technology is going to give us some better measures of consensus, some better way to let the politicians know what's up, than gallup polls.
*Kalle Lasn's terrible book "Culture Jam" describes what he calls "the jaws of change" - he says that to get anything done, to change the status quo, you need two angles working in concert. Below, you have grassroots movements run by regular shmucks (like metagovernment), and above, you need some more powerful support. A serious investor or government sponsor, for example.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 20, 2010, 06:22:59 PM
Some good points:
-if somebody invents an iPhone app which allows them to actually participate in democracy, it will sell like mad
-I support the effort to decentralize power. To some extent you can take it away from lobbyists by giving a voice to the consensus. Technology can do this. It's already happening gradually, but it needs another push*.
Cons: (and this is an ancient con)
-democratic consensus doesn't always select the best ideas. Look at the teabaggers!
It's impossible to predict how technology is going to change the world. We can get a glimpse of it by examining current trends, but those aren't great predictors due to the black swan effect. So I'm not really looking for Captain Utopia to paint us a picture of exactly how this is going to work - as you get more specific, you get less accurate.
I do have hope that all this technology is going to give us some better measures of consensus, some better way to let the politicians know what's up, than gallup polls.
*Kalle Lasn's terrible book "Culture Jam" describes what he calls "the jaws of change" - he says that to get anything done, to change the status quo, you need two angles working in concert. Below, you have grassroots movements run by regular shmucks (like metagovernment), and above, you need some more powerful support. A serious investor or government sponsor, for example.
Of course there is 0% chance of abuses.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 20, 2010, 06:22:59 PM
Cons: (and this is an ancient con)
-democratic consensus doesn't always select the best ideas. Look at the teabaggers!
Sure it's ancient. It led to the end of Athens as a cultural center, for example.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 06:31:43 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 20, 2010, 06:22:59 PM
Some good points:
-if somebody invents an iPhone app which allows them to actually participate in democracy, it will sell like mad
-I support the effort to decentralize power. To some extent you can take it away from lobbyists by giving a voice to the consensus. Technology can do this. It's already happening gradually, but it needs another push*.
Cons: (and this is an ancient con)
-democratic consensus doesn't always select the best ideas. Look at the teabaggers!
It's impossible to predict how technology is going to change the world. We can get a glimpse of it by examining current trends, but those aren't great predictors due to the black swan effect. So I'm not really looking for Captain Utopia to paint us a picture of exactly how this is going to work - as you get more specific, you get less accurate.
I do have hope that all this technology is going to give us some better measures of consensus, some better way to let the politicians know what's up, than gallup polls.
*Kalle Lasn's terrible book "Culture Jam" describes what he calls "the jaws of change" - he says that to get anything done, to change the status quo, you need two angles working in concert. Below, you have grassroots movements run by regular shmucks (like metagovernment), and above, you need some more powerful support. A serious investor or government sponsor, for example.
Of course there is 0% chance of abuses.
Okay?
I didn't realize this thread was only for posting foolproof, fully concocted plans to save the world and harm no one. Sorry, I'll try to be more doom and gloom.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 20, 2010, 06:49:56 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 20, 2010, 06:31:43 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 20, 2010, 06:22:59 PM
Some good points:
-if somebody invents an iPhone app which allows them to actually participate in democracy, it will sell like mad
-I support the effort to decentralize power. To some extent you can take it away from lobbyists by giving a voice to the consensus. Technology can do this. It's already happening gradually, but it needs another push*.
Cons: (and this is an ancient con)
-democratic consensus doesn't always select the best ideas. Look at the teabaggers!
It's impossible to predict how technology is going to change the world. We can get a glimpse of it by examining current trends, but those aren't great predictors due to the black swan effect. So I'm not really looking for Captain Utopia to paint us a picture of exactly how this is going to work - as you get more specific, you get less accurate.
I do have hope that all this technology is going to give us some better measures of consensus, some better way to let the politicians know what's up, than gallup polls.
*Kalle Lasn's terrible book "Culture Jam" describes what he calls "the jaws of change" - he says that to get anything done, to change the status quo, you need two angles working in concert. Below, you have grassroots movements run by regular shmucks (like metagovernment), and above, you need some more powerful support. A serious investor or government sponsor, for example.
Of course there is 0% chance of abuses.
Okay?
I didn't realize this thread was only for posting foolproof, fully concocted plans to save the world and harm no one. Sorry, I'll try to be more doom and gloom.
Wasn't my intention. I guess I am far too jaded. I have seen and heard too many Great Plans™ that all ended up with a new set of the powerful with no change.
forgive me for the sarcasm, I just got a little tweaked by being force fed cynicism.. I just don't think it's necessarily a given that things are going to get worse. Technology has been steadily improving quality of life (by some measures). Every few years they come up with a new type of communication or network. And it keeps accelerating - we're going to be seeing MAJOR growth every few months now. The general trend is that these things give more power to regular jackasses (through the magic of representation). It's easier to get educated now than ever before. Sure, some people will use technology maliciously, some will be out for profit, and some people will ignore it, but technology is also empowering lots of people who want to do something about their shitty situations.
This guy (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25522.0) is a good example. He's not a celebrity or politician, or even a guy who wrote a book. He's just some prole. Maybe it's not the perfect idea, but you've heard of it, right? That's a victory for chumps like us.
Yeah, no plan we can come up with is foolproof. Every plan has chaos in it, especially the ones that aim highest. That doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept that we're going to get fucked, it means that the plan that we're operating on right now (the status quo) is living on borrowed time - we should be grabbing sticks and hammers and hitting this fucking thing and jumping on it and kicking it until quarters are flying out everywhere.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 20, 2010, 07:11:14 PM
forgive me for the sarcasm, I just got a little tweaked by being force fed cynicism.. I just don't think it's necessarily a given that things are going to get worse. Technology has been steadily improving quality of life (by some measures).
Technology has improved quality of life by leaps and bounds.
It's also the only hope we have of surviving another 100 years as a species.
On the downside, some of it drives people crazy.
I just posted part two in a new thread. Enjoy. :)
the phase of culture we're in right now reminds me of the industrial revolution
they told us that vacuum cleaners and microwaves would free up the housewife's day
instead, the housewife ended up doing MORE housework because everybody's standards went up.
And today, e-mail is supposed to make life easier than sending snail mail
but when you're applying for a job, now you're competing with thousands of people instead of just dozens. So you have to use the full potential of the technology and blast your resume all over the goddamn place like it's ebola or something
And I think this is a good microcosm
if technology allows us more hands-on participation within democracy, and everybody is using that system, it's going to take a lot of effort to actually make a signal in all that noise.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 07:16:00 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 20, 2010, 07:11:14 PM
forgive me for the sarcasm, I just got a little tweaked by being force fed cynicism.. I just don't think it's necessarily a given that things are going to get worse. Technology has been steadily improving quality of life (by some measures).
Technology has improved quality of life by leaps and bounds.
It's also the only hope we have of surviving another 100 years as a species.
On the downside, some of it drives people crazy.
Downside? It'll be hilarious.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 05:21:29 PM
You've cast yourself in the role of a visionary. Let's have some vision, okay?
I don't see myself as a visionary. I've just been reporting on what's going on with metagovernment, noting a few trends and extrapolating a little in order to provide an answer for each criticism or doubt which has been laid against the concept of E-Democracy.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 20, 2010, 07:25:26 PM
if technology allows us more hands-on participation within democracy, and everybody is using that system, it's going to take a lot of effort to actually make a signal in all that noise.
I've been chewing this one over - it raises a good question.
I guess if you look at Health Care reform or Financial reform, or any big package - I'm using the US as an example, but that's not really pertinent - then you have hundreds or thousands of different motes of law all bundled together into a single yes/no vote. Now the game played is that Republicans and Democrats may agree on 95% or more of those provisions, but the remainder is partisan cat-nip - bundling means that the speaker of the house or whatever tries to ensure that a majority of people will just swallow the bits they don't like to get the things they do. Then the minority party gets pissed at the attempt to force them to accept stuff they don't want. So things then drag on for months without full agreement, when there is actually a fair amount of consensus agreement on the less controversial aspects.
Bringing all this online would mean that you could split up all these big issues into their smaller components. You'd need some way to ensure that people can participate without being overloaded with detail, and I think issue-proxying could play a part in that, but it's not the only potential solution.
Oh, okay.
Someone let me know when they actually have something.
Will do.
In the meantime, there are over a dozen functioning projects here: http://metagovernment.org/active
At this point however, we don't know what will work best for each scale of governance. One solution may not fit all. It would be surprising if it did. So people from all around the world are collaborating on ideas and testing them out.
That's where we are now, and it's not worthless just because its still in progress.
Hmm. I'm gonna keep an eye on this. Might have some uses for it at a later date.
Come trolljoin the mailing list with me :D
hxxp://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Thus it happens in matters of state; for knowing a far off (which it is only given a prudent man to do) the evils that are brewing, they are easily cured. But when,for want of such knowledge, they are allowed to grow until everyone can recognize them, there is no longer any remedy to be found.
(The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli [1469-1527])
Note: anything important, the government does in secrecy and obscurity.
Do you foresee a time when Machiavelli is no longer relevant in world politics? What would that world look like?
There's a rant in this. Will post later.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 21, 2010, 02:26:48 PM
Do you foresee a time when Machiavelli is no longer relevant in world politics? What would that world look like?
Maybe someday, when people are more like spiders. Self-sufficient, solitary, and basically mindless.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 21, 2010, 02:26:48 PM
Do you foresee a time when Machiavelli is no longer relevant in world politics? What would that world look like?
I'm guessing radioactive, cold, and completely inhospitable to life.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 21, 2010, 06:41:47 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 21, 2010, 02:26:48 PM
Do you foresee a time when Machiavelli is no longer relevant in world politics? What would that world look like?
I'm guessing radioactive, cold, and completely inhospitable to life.
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/forum/ohsnap-1.gif)