SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Journal by khallow
I was trying to put together some musings I had about experimentation at the society level with an eye to eventually making society better, but suffered from serious writer's block. So here's what I have.
First, the observation that we can look at a society as a bunch of humans with infrastructure. This infrastructure appears at many levels: individual biology/psychology, culture, rules and trade, the traditional sort of infrastructure (energy generation, roads, emergency services, telecomms, internet), and education/knowledge.
Today, we bring a lot of interesting tools to the table for improving society. First, we have a better understanding and knowledge of the workings of society. Second, advancing technology allows us to do things that weren't possible before. A key one is things are becoming less scarce. We may even be on the verge of the post-scarcity society where basic human needs are "too cheap to meter".
Second, it seems a fine environmental for experimenting with a variety of possibilities that would be legally and culturally acceptable to a degree.
For example, we're already trying out non-traditional relationships like same sex marriage and internet discourse with considerable success.
I wish society was more open to economic/trade experimentation (like gig economy, high frequency trade (and other automated trade mechanisms), and cryptocurrency).
Finally, not much point to experimenting, if one doesn't pay attention to the results. For example, we have vast improvement in the human condition due to the present economic system (global trade, capitalism, plus widespread democracy), but I still see people pushing old narratives that ignore that. Similarly, the economic experiments I mentioned above all have resistance from sources that usually can't be bothered to find an actual problem (gig workers are "exploited", HFT is stealing pennies from grandma every time she trades, and cryptocurrencies are for tax evasion).
On that last point, it doesn't make sense to do experiments, if you can't perceive what works or not in those experiments.
First, the observation that we can look at a society as a bunch of humans with infrastructure. This infrastructure appears at many levels: individual biology/psychology, culture, rules and trade, the traditional sort of infrastructure (energy generation, roads, emergency services, telecomms, internet), and education/knowledge.
Today, we bring a lot of interesting tools to the table for improving society. First, we have a better understanding and knowledge of the workings of society. Second, advancing technology allows us to do things that weren't possible before. A key one is things are becoming less scarce. We may even be on the verge of the post-scarcity society where basic human needs are "too cheap to meter".
Second, it seems a fine environmental for experimenting with a variety of possibilities that would be legally and culturally acceptable to a degree.
For example, we're already trying out non-traditional relationships like same sex marriage and internet discourse with considerable success.
I wish society was more open to economic/trade experimentation (like gig economy, high frequency trade (and other automated trade mechanisms), and cryptocurrency).
Finally, not much point to experimenting, if one doesn't pay attention to the results. For example, we have vast improvement in the human condition due to the present economic system (global trade, capitalism, plus widespread democracy), but I still see people pushing old narratives that ignore that. Similarly, the economic experiments I mentioned above all have resistance from sources that usually can't be bothered to find an actual problem (gig workers are "exploited", HFT is stealing pennies from grandma every time she trades, and cryptocurrencies are for tax evasion).
On that last point, it doesn't make sense to do experiments, if you can't perceive what works or not in those experiments.
Reply to: Re:Dumb question
Post Comment
Do not use if foil seal is broken.
(Score: 2) by nostyle on Thursday March 24 2022, @06:16PM
I do not come here to argue, so I will limit myself to a single response to your reply.
Using this logic, you could defend bank-robbery. Still your overall premise was "eventually making society better", an ideal which you seem to abandon in the passage above. I find it revealing that you cannot enumerate any value added.
...except that it does. (Here giving you as much proof as you gave me.)
Sure...either that or become broke and homeless. But if I've got mine, why should I care?...right?
...At least until all the traditional jobs have vanished and been replaced by gig work. In the end it all seems to boil down to master/slave relationships, but, hey, that's okay if all the contracts are in order, ...right?
Here you are being intentionally obtuse. I used "fabricate" in the sense of "lie about" rather than in the sense of "create". Please elaborate on
how HFT differs from graft.
I'll not argue further about crypto. I suspect there may be some value in having a convenient means of barter outside of traditional currency in the event the SHTF - perhaps better than the liquor and tobacco I am stock-piling for that eventuality. And I certainly would not refuse any offers anyone would like to proffer for an NFT of my next journal on SN. :)
--
In truth, your response makes me think that Azuma may have a point, and that your promotion of these technologies has an ulterior motivation.