True, we must “all” “think” more about the future and legacy of freedoms afforded for ourselves and for future generations. There is also a trade off between peace and security for freedoms and anonymity which we should also take into consideration?
Direct democracy, if it is ever to displace representative democracy, will require legitimate participation, so too protections afforded to guard us all from identity theft, including most likely biometric scanning. How else can we be protected in a global society where any hacker with the adequate skills can assimilate our core identity, for whatever purpose?
However, the greatest power the masses have is withdrawal of cooperation? If fascism and totalitarianism becomes the directive, then lack of cooperation is means to war of attrition?
Posted by SHaGGGz on 01/28 at 08:24 PM
The only plausible way to deal with these issues is a Brinian sousveillance society, though the prospects look pretty grim if the last few years are any indication, with the US president Orwellianly touting the ideals of “unprecedented transparency” in his administration while actually carrying out the most secretive one in recent memory, and being unprecedentedly ruthless in cracking down on whistleblowers and anyone who threatens to make real such flowery prose.
We are only reaching the tip of the iceberg of the transformative effect emerging technologies will have on society, with 3d printed firearms seeping into mainstream awareness, and it’ll only get increasingly dangerous and unmanageable without basically putting an end to many of the civil rights we’ve hitherto taken for granted. Without a countervailing force reversing the trend of increasing secrecy and decreasing accountability at the top, we may end up in quite the singularly grim scenario indeed, if any.
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 01/28 at 11:00 PM
I’ve been meaning to ask CygnusX1, why do you always end your sentences with question marks (sorry that this is unrelated to the article)?
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/29 at 12:46 AM
Because of falsifiability: everything is open to question. We were brought up to believe the world—never mind the entire cosmos—is an exact place, we don’t perceive the fallacy in believing in an exact world as we don’t notice the Earth turning; we are animals living on as ball of rock turning through space—where is the exactness in that?
So Cygnus is correct in placing question marks after statements, as our perceptions are not exact, merely hominid reflections of reality.
Being Christian, you might have read the Book of Ecclesiastes wherein it is stated life is like a vapor (after all, take away the space between our atoms and we are microscopic). So we don’t know what reality is and we don’t know what to do. I laud Cygnus for using question marks to indicate how everything is open to question. We must be pancritical in questioning everything otherwise we are based on faith or a limited, narrow criticality such as Marxism, say.
Posted by SHaGGGz on 01/29 at 12:49 AM
I AGREE, INTOMORROW!!! I THINK HE SHOULD ALSO GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF SHOUTING EVERYTHING BECAUSE EXISTENCE IS SUCH A MIND-BLOWINGLY WONDERFUL MYSTERY, WHAT KIND OF DREARY SOUL COULD EVER STOP BEING IN A PERPETUAL STATE OF TRANSCENDENT AWE?!?!
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/29 at 03:45 AM
Why, everyday is Christmas, SHaGGGzy baby.
Now for the piece: it has to be explained to Chris and other conservatives there is a time to go along to get along, and there is a time to rebel; now is the time to rebel—or soon. Don’t know if we can lick the oligarchs, but we have our backs to the wall.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 01/29 at 05:28 AM
“I’ve been meaning to ask CygnusX1, why do you always end your sentences with question marks (sorry that this is unrelated to the article)?”
Christian, rather than offer points and opinions expressed as statements, I use a question mark to offer it as a point of argument and for reflection. Most folks don’t get it, and some get a little upset and irritated by this.
I must admit it has become rather compulsive, yet I feel it also saves time from forming every point of argument as a leading question?
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/29 at 09:10 PM
As Spike Lee would say, it’s doing the right thing.
Posted by contraterrine on 02/03 at 11:03 AM
All that we need do to reverse this dystopia is to elect politicians who believe in individual freedom above governmental tyranny.
And with the great unwashed being so very well educated to make rational political choices, it’s going to be so so sooooooooooo easy, won’t it?