SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
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.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Do not use if foil seal is broken.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 25 2022, @12:55AM (6 children)
No problem here. I'm used to neighborly on the internet.
Well, we can make that less impending and inevitable, and/or we can figure out how to put the pieces together afterward by this experimentation. It helps to know what works and doesn't work so we don't make as many of the same mistakes next time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 25 2022, @02:37AM (5 children)
Salvation will not come by way of gig work, HFT or crypto, though, so my estimation is that you are discussing deck chair arrangements on the Titanic.
There is a quote I once read that I have been unable to find for some months now, saying something like this:
Let's run that experiment.
--
-Matthew Koma, Zedd, Spectrum (Acoustic Version) [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 25 2022, @03:28AM
Eureka!!! Found it:
-Baha'u'llah, Tabernacle of Unity [bahai.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 25 2022, @03:42AM (3 children)
So what? If there genuinely is an iceberg out there rather than your imagination, we can drop that stuff and do something more useful to immediate survival. But in the meantime, what's the point of not doing it? My take is that if we want to survive this age relatively intact, we're going to have to bootstrap our own way out. That means work and a lot of experimentation.
What makes you think we haven't? For example, this is what happens at a variety of religious retreats and monasteries, places of learning, etc. And the approach works fine for them. One needs peace and tranquility for the things they offer.
But how valuable is peace and tranquility really? Sure, destroying humanity in a nuclear war is a bad idea. Let's not do that. But what of the vim and vigor of the business world? I think it has a great mix of peace and conflict that serves us better than the above ideal would. That is in part why I tend to focus on business-oriented experimentation rather than government policy, ideals, and such. My take here is that we've already have in place a better approach than peace and tranquility for large portions of society.
Further, what are you willing to do to the souls that aren't willing to go with the program ever? There's this delusion that people just need the right learning experience and they'll be peaceful. No one has found that magic yet. And I wouldn't be surprised if (or perhaps when someone does, it turns out to be a snake in the grass (say technologically enhanced brainwashing or the like) which can and maybe will be used to destroy peace rather than create it.
Further, the quote calls for universal consensus. That's not an experiment even if we should choose to consider this possible. As I've noted elsewhere, a good experiment should be limited in extent. If it shows the desired improvements, then we can consider implementing it on a larger scale.
Bottom line here is that I think the pessimism and the demand for unanimity are both unrealistic. Neither would have done anything about Russia invading the Ukraine, for a current war example.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 25 2022, @05:16AM (2 children)
"That is why you fail"
-Yoda
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday March 25 2022, @07:07AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 25 2022, @11:31PM
A little bit like how Azuma keeps trying ta school ya.