-
4 votes
-
"Is democracy a fad?" Ben Garfinkel’s sobering forecast for democracy in the automation age.
18 votes -
Puerto Rico is dying
26 votes -
Critics ask if US President Donald Trump and Elon Musk are 'intentionally crashing the economy', as described in the book Disaster Capitalism and seen in the transition from the USSR to Russia
34 votes -
Sunday morning musings no. 2 How to be nice but authentic to people who seem decent but whose jobs seem to be a big part of the problem?
I recently was at a brunch with a friend and their friend. Their friend works at a startup who buys, very cheaply, pictures of mammograms from hospitals, something something AI anonymization, and...
I recently was at a brunch with a friend and their friend. Their friend works at a startup who buys, very cheaply, pictures of mammograms from hospitals, something something AI anonymization, and resells the data to ‘researchers’. I asked several things, for example, what responsibility does her company have for breaches or failures to protect identity? Her response: we have reporting requirements.
In my mind, that something like this exists at all is a complete social failure and consequence of hypercapitalism. The goal of using hospital data for research is obviously a good one. But in my mind, that data should not exist in a non-anonymous way outside the control of the hospital, and, in its anonymous form, should be available to all researchers for free. It seems obvious to me the best way to innovate real solutions is to get as many smart people as possible researching the data, and not just those who can afford it. Less obvious, but still problematic: if we limit the availability of the data to those who can afford it, we are limiting the availability of the data to those whose primary incentive of research is profit, as opposed to public interests like health.
I’m very tired of pretending for the sake of equanimity that this work is somehow OK. But neither is it productive to be argumentative at brunch. I guess one approach is simply to say, gee that’s swell and move on to a different topic, or just not ask people about their work at all. But I’m a prophet, I feel compelled to tell the truth, and sometimes to an unhealthy degree make people feel uncomfortable.
I don’t know what the solution is, it’s one of the reasons I went to divinity school: to gain access to a potentially practical platform for advocating meaningful change. But the problem is so well integrated and so insidious. Am I doomed to always be in isolated despair?
22 votes -
Musings on our current system
Do you think that the future will look back on our last late stage capitalist system and see the brutalization of marginalized populations around the globe? As our society looks back on chattel...
Do you think that the future will look back on our
lastlate stage capitalist system and see the brutalization of marginalized populations around the globe? As our society looks back on chattel slavery, feudalism, etc?I would like to imagine a socialism or a different system. Rooted in humanism.
21 votes -
The mythlogy of work and other thoughts on the growing anti-work movement
14 votes -
Fed up with Capitalism, Marxism gains popularity among youth in China
12 votes -
The second defeat of Bernie Sanders
16 votes -
The decline and fall of the spectacle-commodity economy
5 votes -
Donald Trump’s National Labor Relations Board: Assault on US labor in the pandemic era
5 votes -
Imperialism is using up the resources that could fight Covid-19
4 votes -
The coronavirus crisis has highlighted exploitative global trade regimes
9 votes -
Why a social credit system is so scary
13 votes -
The Best They’ve Got: Examining the National Review’s “Against Socialism” issue
25 votes -
The super-rich endanger democracy
10 votes -
The strongmen strike back
6 votes -
Even conservatives support Sweden’s welfare state. Here’s why.
10 votes -
John Galton wanted Libertarian paradise in ‘Anarchapulco.’ He got bullets instead.
9 votes -
“Socialism” vs. “capitalism” is a false dichotomy
28 votes -
The futility of trade war explained by economist Michael Pettis
6 votes