The essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" that is linked in this article so accurately describes a situation my family is going through that it is eerie. That it is an essay from the 1970's is...
The essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" that is linked in this article so accurately describes a situation my family is going through that it is eerie. That it is an essay from the 1970's is make it even more uncanny.
I thought there were some good points here, but it seems like there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when both appealing to a need for regulation, but also decrying that governments are failing at...
I thought there were some good points here, but it seems like there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when both appealing to a need for regulation, but also decrying that governments are failing at fulfilling that duty.
I guess my take at this very high level of general criticism of capitalism is that when Silicon Valley types get fed up with the vagaries of human systems, they appeal to the literal tyranny of physics. That’s the basis of all the crypto-cruft: exploit properties of information and entropy that are bound by physics. There is a beauty in it that I find appealing. There’s a reason we use terms like “mathematical rules” or the “laws that govern the universe”. It is a form of tyranny, but from a secular perspective, there is no agent behind this form of tyranny. Ultimately, physical laws are the regulators when all else fails, because, as far as we know, they cannot fail—not in the same way that cloud services, or states, or corporations might. And we’ve recorded enough modern human history now to know that those constructs inevitably do fail in unpredictable and sometimes perverse ways.
I think there is truth (an inhuman, cold, hard truth, but still a truth) to the notion that regulatory apparatuses not backed by physics or mathematical certainty are destined to fail. I don’t know how to begin to think about replacing capitalism, systemically. But, since it is a human system, I’m confident that it’s not physically impossible to do it. I also don’t really see a replacement that we could smoothly migrate to, so I don’t want to be around when its regulatory systems catastrophically fail.
The failure points in this system are the same as any other system based on "immutable rules." Even if the rules are well established and agreed upon, it is the decisions surrounding the practical...
The failure points in this system are the same as any other system based on "immutable rules." Even if the rules are well established and agreed upon, it is the decisions surrounding the practical application (or lack of application) of those rules that are still dependent on human agency and foibles. The perfect beauty of a mathematical system only retains that perfection when observed from a distance. Once it is invoked as a bases for practical application to human affairs it becomes mundane and usable simply in the act of choosing to invoke it, which is, in and of itself a human choice fraught with personal motivations and known or unknown desires to establish control or influence. None of this is inherently wrong but it must be acknowledged and accounted for or else the "pure" results can be use to monstrous ends to which no one person is seemingly accountable.
I disagree. Physics can be exploited to monstrous ends (cf. nuclear bombs). It can also be exploited for other things (cf. nuclear power plants). These things are not mundane (or are you invoking...
The perfect beauty of a mathematical system only retains that perfection when observed from a distance. Once it is invoked as a bases for practical application to human affairs it becomes mundane and usable simply in the act of choosing to invoke it, which is, in and of itself a human choice fraught with personal motivations and known or unknown desires to establish control or influence.
I disagree. Physics can be exploited to monstrous ends (cf. nuclear bombs). It can also be exploited for other things (cf. nuclear power plants). These things are not mundane (or are you invoking the sense of “mundane” as in earthly/secular/non-spiritual?). It’s hard for me to see how decisions surrounding the practical application of technology relates to decisions surrounding systems, such as economics or politics. Those are systems that have historically not been backed by natural physics. That is the part that I see as appealing, and which, for better or worse, is what I think also appeals to the Jack Dorsey’s out there who see the perverseness of this and wish we could back well-designed or well-intentioned human systems with something as robust as what backs up nature.
I fully support the efforts to create well-designed and well-intentioned human systems. We must, it is how civilization progresses. But part of that system must also account for the human tendency...
I fully support the efforts to create well-designed and well-intentioned human systems. We must, it is how civilization progresses. But part of that system must also account for the human tendency to twist any system to selfish and ultimately cruel ends. Which circles back around to the point of the original article. Even when you think you have set up an equitable system it often only takes a scratch beneath the surface to reveal hidden systems of power because they are necessary. And since we can't get rid of them the next best thing is to acknowledge them, talk about them and hopefully ameliorate their more corrosive effects.
Is this axiomatic, though? I guess this question is a razor that can dissect a certain kind of pessimism from optimism. I guess you can label me somewhat of a technocrat in that I do believe there...
And since we can't get rid of them
Is this axiomatic, though? I guess this question is a razor that can dissect a certain kind of pessimism from optimism. I guess you can label me somewhat of a technocrat in that I do believe there could be technological solutions out there for many of our systemic problems. I'm not 100% sure, but it seems within the realm of possibility. I think that presuming that all human systems are doomed by by moral fallibility is too strong.
But part of that system must also account for the human tendency to twist any system to selfish and ultimately cruel ends.
Right, which is why it is appealing to look to universal laws, rather than human ones, to regulate selfishness and cruelty. If we can't self-govern in our own best interest, then maybe we can defer regulating our own worst interests with laws that we don't know how to break?
The essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" that is linked in this article so accurately describes a situation my family is going through that it is eerie. That it is an essay from the 1970's is make it even more uncanny.
While focusing on the women’s movement, that essay is also chock full of great insight on politics generally. A fantastic read.
I thought there were some good points here, but it seems like there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when both appealing to a need for regulation, but also decrying that governments are failing at fulfilling that duty.
I guess my take at this very high level of general criticism of capitalism is that when Silicon Valley types get fed up with the vagaries of human systems, they appeal to the literal tyranny of physics. That’s the basis of all the crypto-cruft: exploit properties of information and entropy that are bound by physics. There is a beauty in it that I find appealing. There’s a reason we use terms like “mathematical rules” or the “laws that govern the universe”. It is a form of tyranny, but from a secular perspective, there is no agent behind this form of tyranny. Ultimately, physical laws are the regulators when all else fails, because, as far as we know, they cannot fail—not in the same way that cloud services, or states, or corporations might. And we’ve recorded enough modern human history now to know that those constructs inevitably do fail in unpredictable and sometimes perverse ways.
I think there is truth (an inhuman, cold, hard truth, but still a truth) to the notion that regulatory apparatuses not backed by physics or mathematical certainty are destined to fail. I don’t know how to begin to think about replacing capitalism, systemically. But, since it is a human system, I’m confident that it’s not physically impossible to do it. I also don’t really see a replacement that we could smoothly migrate to, so I don’t want to be around when its regulatory systems catastrophically fail.
The failure points in this system are the same as any other system based on "immutable rules." Even if the rules are well established and agreed upon, it is the decisions surrounding the practical application (or lack of application) of those rules that are still dependent on human agency and foibles. The perfect beauty of a mathematical system only retains that perfection when observed from a distance. Once it is invoked as a bases for practical application to human affairs it becomes mundane and usable simply in the act of choosing to invoke it, which is, in and of itself a human choice fraught with personal motivations and known or unknown desires to establish control or influence. None of this is inherently wrong but it must be acknowledged and accounted for or else the "pure" results can be use to monstrous ends to which no one person is seemingly accountable.
I disagree. Physics can be exploited to monstrous ends (cf. nuclear bombs). It can also be exploited for other things (cf. nuclear power plants). These things are not mundane (or are you invoking the sense of “mundane” as in earthly/secular/non-spiritual?). It’s hard for me to see how decisions surrounding the practical application of technology relates to decisions surrounding systems, such as economics or politics. Those are systems that have historically not been backed by natural physics. That is the part that I see as appealing, and which, for better or worse, is what I think also appeals to the Jack Dorsey’s out there who see the perverseness of this and wish we could back well-designed or well-intentioned human systems with something as robust as what backs up nature.
I fully support the efforts to create well-designed and well-intentioned human systems. We must, it is how civilization progresses. But part of that system must also account for the human tendency to twist any system to selfish and ultimately cruel ends. Which circles back around to the point of the original article. Even when you think you have set up an equitable system it often only takes a scratch beneath the surface to reveal hidden systems of power because they are necessary. And since we can't get rid of them the next best thing is to acknowledge them, talk about them and hopefully ameliorate their more corrosive effects.
Is this axiomatic, though? I guess this question is a razor that can dissect a certain kind of pessimism from optimism. I guess you can label me somewhat of a technocrat in that I do believe there could be technological solutions out there for many of our systemic problems. I'm not 100% sure, but it seems within the realm of possibility. I think that presuming that all human systems are doomed by by moral fallibility is too strong.
Right, which is why it is appealing to look to universal laws, rather than human ones, to regulate selfishness and cruelty. If we can't self-govern in our own best interest, then maybe we can defer regulating our own worst interests with laws that we don't know how to break?
I think of it not as a razor but as a double-edged sword. That fact that we as humans are both wonderfully and tragically clever.
I'm not sure what to make of the essay itself but it generated a lot of interesting discussion.