Social Software Society for Safety.<\/p>\n
Is there any scarcity? Perhaps friendship, because it requires time, shared history, and attention, is the ultimate scarcity\u2014but must it always be the case?<\/p>\n
A thoroughgoing naturalist, I stipulate that the value of all objects supervenes on their natural properties\u2014rational evaluation of them is constrained by the facts. If I choose one car instead if its identical copy, simply because one has been stamped with a \u201cbrand,\u201d this is the very definition of irrationality\u2014if the 2 objects are exactly the same\u2014you must be indifferent or violate the axioms of decision theory\/identity theory. If I used a Replicator Ray to duplicate the Hope Diamond\u2014which would you choose\u2014the original\u2014based on its history (was stolen, traveled around the world, etc) or the duplicate\u2014they are identical!!<\/p>\n
What happens to the value of the original? It is worth \u00bd because now there are 2? I make a 3rd copy so now it is worth 1\/3? Nonsense\u2014value has nothing to do with scarcity\u2014a piece of feces may be totally unique in shape, just like a snowflake\u2014but it has no value. Intrinsic value of objects depends on their properties. Instrumental value depends on what they can be used for (converted to intrinsic value).<\/p>\n
Now I switch the 2 Hope Diamonds\u2014neither of us knows which is which\u2014do you pout and refuse to take it?<\/p>\n
Now I duplicate your parents. I\u2019m going to kill one set of them\u2014which do you save? The originals. You owe them a duty simply because of the authenticity of the past relationship\u2014the history you share with them. This is the difference between subjects and objects.<\/p>\n
In an October 5, 2007 article, (WSJ, also summer feature in 07 New Atlantis), Christine Rosen argues that \u201cbecause friendship depends on mutual revelations that are concealed from the rest of the world, it can flourish only within the bounds of privacy; the idea of public friendship is an oxymoron.\u201d<\/p>\n
What then, does the arrival of the transparent society bode for friendship? With ubiquitous computing\u2014devices built into our clothes, embedded in the environment, cameras linked to our retinal displays, recording and streaming everything to our digital backup, our \u201clife log,\u201d\u2014what of friendship? Social networking software will be integrated into all interactions\u2014your face recognition software will pull up the profile of anyone you meet, instantly searching keywords for common interests, friends, past lovers, etc. Video testimonial files will pop up\u2014don\u2019t date this guy! You will get an accomplishment \u201crating\u201d for different areas\u2014career, hobbies, etc. Edited montages of your greatest hits and misses will populate the net\u2014spin control, reputation management\u2014prestige brokering will be the function of \u201cbanks\u201d of the future. Myspace and Facebook are nothing compared to what will come.<\/p>\n
Rosen argues that Facebook and Myspace dilute the word \u201cfriend.\u201d With such a quantity of \u201cfriends\u201d we diminish the intensity and quality of relationships. We already rank \u201creal world\u201d friends unconsciously\u2014Myspace makes it explicit with a top friends list. Rosen is aware that the social network sites create a new type of accountability\u2014records of IMs, personal news feeds, etc mean that you can never claim to be unavailable\u2014you will get caught in your white lie.<\/p>\n
But the true potential of the transparent society lies in what I call \u201cruthless objectivity.\u201d I\u2019ve begun practicing this myself as a form of cognitive behavior therapy\u2014confronting yourself on tape\/video forces you to see how you interact with the world\u2014allowing you to overcome negativity, if you can take the heat.<\/p>\n
Within a decade, \u201comniveillance\u201d and life logging may be the rule. Acknowledge your failings and insecurities and they no longer have power\u2014except of course if they are things you can\u2019t change. Thus the technological transhumanist imperative to overcome limitations\u2014what is disease, but just such an unfair limitation?<\/p>\n
Here is the key point for those of us involved with the lifeboat foundation. We can design defense systems forever but at the end of the day, the best we can do is minimize accidental harm. You will never stop 100% of people determined to go on a rampage or commit acts of terrorism. You can see this already with gun control. You\u2019ll never build a gun smart enough not to be shot in anger\/unless you undermine the technology itself. You can\u2019t wait for the gun to authenticate in the heat of battle\u2014unless I suppose it were hooked up to instant face recognition software (we could postulate scenarios all day!) When events like Columbine or the Virginia Tech shootings happened I am always shocked\u2014not that they occurred, but that we have as few rampages each year as we do!!<\/p>\n
Most of our social institutions (our factory education system) are set up to create winners and losers, artificial scarcity that breeds resentment, failure, exclusion, marginalization, and anger. No wonder people react unreasonably to an unreasonable world, it is only reasonable (in a twisted way). People are actually more resilient than given credit for.<\/p>\n
The Federalist papers, written during the debate over the formation of the institutions of the US government, famously argue for a system of checks and balances, so that ambition will counter ambition, greed counter greed. We could expect reasoned debate and participatory democracy from a government of angels, but we have a government of men so we must assume the worst and design things accordingly. Every man is not a Socrates.<\/p>\n
This design approach won\u2019t work in the 21st<\/sup> century. You can only get so far assuming we are sociopaths. We are about to reverse engineer the brain. The mystery of empathy\u2014how Ghandi, Mother Teresa, or Jesus managed to care for the unwashed masses\u2014this will become apparent. Anyone that wants to be more moral can work at it just like going to the gym. The science of empathy is no more mysterious than that of muscle building.<\/p>\n Empathy enhancements, along with constant cognitive therapy thanks to total omniveillance can make us a much more tolerant and humane\u2014and therefore SAFER\u2014society. Of course, people will have to rethink the idea of privacy. My prediction is that once cheap surveillance technology arrives, the only stable endpoint is total recording of everything mundane and sensational. Privacy has no intrinsic value\u2014it only derives instrumental value from the fact that people are evil and will use information to hurt one another. Futurists often seem to miss the essential point that 1$ spent on lessening the chances that somebody is going to be alienated can make us a lot safer in aggregate than $1 million spent on an elaborate technical solution. Not that these approaches are mutually exclusive\u2014I argue that the only real hope for humanity is to re-write our neurological source code.<\/p>\n Facebook is still rather crude\u2014it will give way to the next generation. We control the use to which our technology is put\u2014it does not control us unless we allow it to. When the Virginia Tech \u201cmassacre\u201d occurred, April 16, 2007, I scoffed at the memorial groups that sprung up\u2014like an emotional echo chamber\u2014thousands of people, quite distant from the actual events (not direct friends\/family members) created pages and testimonials.<\/p>\n Another symptom of our ADD society\u2014only 4 days before Don Imus had been fired over his \u201cnappy headed hoes\u201d remark\u2014if the timing had been a bit different his scandal would have been forgotten before it got started.<\/p>\n My initial reaction was wrong\u2014if these people want to \u201cgrieve\u201d this way, perhaps it was of some comfort to the survivors and victims. It certainly doesn\u2019t hurt anyone.<\/p>\n The Net is radically democratic and empowering. It isn\u2019t one to many broadcasting, but many to many. I don\u2019t like Blogs\u2014who cares about your mundane life\u2014what you had for dinner at some restaurant. I don\u2019t want to start a regular blog because if I got a following I\u2019d have to keep cultivating them\u2014you\u2019re only as good as your last post.<\/p>\n And yet I\u2019m guilty of the same narcissism, uploading myself on youtube now, logging my bodybuilding photos for all to see. At least I try to be interesting\u2014my pictures and slideshows, if ridiculous, are more entertaining than 50% of the material out there. As expected, I am starting to attract a gay following on youtube\u2014at least they appreciate the male physique. There is a difference between blogging your life and sharing an area you\u2019ve devoted 13 years to and achieved something in\u2014ultimately I think that comes through.<\/p>\n As for relationships, today there are considerable limits to our empathy and attention\u2014the latest studies show 5 \u201cclose\u201d friends as average. The superlative \u201cbest\u201d friend admits of only one, regardless of how many BFFs you may say you have. Polyamory (multiple person marriage) doesn\u2019t work well with our current cognitive architecture, and love triangles are socially unstable despite what geometry might say (but at 60% divorce rate, regular marriage ain\u2019t doing a lot better).<\/p>\n A God or superintelligence might have the cognitive capacity to attend and respond to every aspect of your being\u2014multiplied by 6 billion, and truly be everyone\u2019s best friend. Until then, we\u2019ll have to be content to use our new social software to relate not alienate. You never know who\u2019s watching.<\/p>\n Joseph<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Social Software Society for Safety. Is there any scarcity? Perhaps friendship, because it requires time, shared history, and attention, is the ultimate scarcity\u2014but must it always be the case? A thoroughgoing naturalist, I stipulate that the value of all objects supervenes on their natural properties\u2014rational evaluation of them is constrained by the facts. If I [\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":30,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-futurism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/30"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}