omega1212 t1_ja7zeyk wrote
Reply to comment by zachster77 in The Desert of the Virtual. The metaverse heralds an age in which hardly anyone still believes that tech firms can actually solve our problems by Maxwellsdemon17
Certainly. Beyond the clearly undemocratic nature of the aim being decided more interestingly I wonder if it could be decided democratically, or at least at an individual level
zachster77 t1_ja84vi0 wrote
I think I get what you mean. But I’m not sure “the wisdom of the crowd” serves us well in situations like these. Popularity contests only reward the currently popular.
Have you read Kim Stanley Robinson? He (among others) sometimes writes about Ecological Economics. Tying capitalistic rewards to systems that benefit the planet (and us as one of its animals), could put our long term goals in alignment with our short-term baser instincts.
omega1212 t1_ja87py4 wrote
That's fair. I think I just trust crowds more than elites in ethical questions (for logical ones it's the reverse). They're more likely to think of themselves in bad and good positions of hypothetical social arrangements.
And no I haven't! I largely agree with that statement about aligning incentives, if not for the tendency towards regulatory capture, not sure how you account for that
zachster77 t1_ja87vta wrote
Yeah, we certainly haven’t solved for that yet, unfortunately.
omega1212 t1_ja89cew wrote
Maybe publicly financed elections would do it indirectly. But yeah it seems power is where all the good ideas go to die lol
wwen42 t1_ja8joac wrote
No, because democracy is dumb. Literally. Over 50% of the US read at a 6th grade level and you want them to decide how to innovate? That's fucking crazy if you ask me. Which you didn't but there it is anyway. YMMV.
omega1212 t1_ja8w7xm wrote
It's more about the "aim" of innovation, i.e. what social configuration and lifestyle are we trying to enable with technology. If you ask the billionaire class they might be interested in a future where a lot of people (other than them) work a ton to advance their visions of the future. And if you ask everyone else they might think we should automate as much as possible to enable creativity and human freedom
AbyssalRedemption t1_jabeg6q wrote
I mean, this is definitely kind of the problem of our times. Billionaires and corporations have taken into charging forward into the “technological determinism” paradigm, where technological “progress” takes precedence and society should adapt to it, as opposed to innovating tech and progress BASED on society’s evolving demands, ala a sort of “technological voluntarism”. They’ve pushed this so much over the past few decades that I think most of society just accepts that it’s the status quo. Meanwhile, it’s this rampant, uncontrolled, unmonitored growth that’s leading to the planet’s rampant exploitation/ destruction, and humanity failing to keep up with the rate of technology. It’s not a sustainable model anymore.
Rofel_Wodring t1_ja9mkfw wrote
>No, because democracy is dumb. Literally. Over 50% of the US read at a 6th grade level and you want them to decide how to innovate?
People say stupid shit like this and yet always whine about elites exploiting them.
As if there was some faction of Herrenvolk Loyalist Elites who, unlike every other elite that ever existed, will not ever betray their underlings to benefit their peers. Oh, if only these fictional Volkheit-promoting elites were in power, instead of the stupid masses or our corrupt leadership!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments