Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies


The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.


Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Overview of technopolitics


whats new at ieet

Sorgner @ Grand Narratives, Posthumanism, and Aesthetics Conference

Why the politics of the future is technology and technology is the future of politics

Symbols and their Consequences in the Sex Robot Debate | John Danaher

Understanding the Algorithmic Self (Videos)

Are we ready for robot relationships?

Le Parti Transhumaniste Allemand accélère


ieet books

Surviving the Machine Age: Intelligent Technology and the Transformation of Human Work
Author
Kevin LaGrandeur and James Hughes eds.





JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life


Comment on this entry

IEET Audience Divided on Best Way to Resist Global Fascism


January 03, 2017

We asked “How should technoprogressives resist the rise of global fascism?” You were divided in your preferred strategies.


...

Complete entry


COMMENTS



Posted by jasoncstone  on  01/06  at  05:58 AM

I think it would be nice if there were a kind of “liberal community in a box” that would include at least the following:

1. Rules for creating a system of justice that include due process, where the understanding would be that you should not subject others to a system of justice that you would not be willing to be subjected to if accused of wrong doing yourself.

2. Rules and tools for encouraging and preserving deliberation and group decision making (liquid democracy implemented as a blockchain smart contract?)

3. Procedures for monitoring for human rights violations and reporting them to the United Nations or other human rights watch groups (Sousveillance with blockchain timestamps?)

4. Open source software and hardware designs, as well as open source learning materials, for building all of the things from the ground up that citizens would need for a modern, high quality of life. (e.g. Outernet.is, Build Your Own Metal Working Shop From Scrap by David J. Gingery and Vincent R. Gingery)

5. Knowledge and tools to help organize the production, quality control, and distribution of goods and services in order to make guarantees to all participants (something like DIY social services). Perhaps instead of total equality in distribution the focus could be on keeping everyone above a minimum threshold for quality of life.


I like Techno-Anarcho-Socialist approaches, however, I’m afraid that participants may be so naive about justice, due process of the law, and international norms for human rights, that the community could, somewhat paradoxically, devolve into a form of distributed, authoritarian, human rights abusing culture.

Distributed Authoritarianism is not Anarcho-Socialism!

For those of us who are truly afraid, maybe we should start finding ways to work as UN observers. Perhaps someone could contact the UN to try to create a program that makes it easy to interface with the UN, so that we can start laying the groundwork for a system that would make it possible to safely communicate about human rights problems to the UN, even in communities where Fascism has become the norm.


P.S. Maybe we could work with conservative capitalist to invest in projects that will return profits and work towards creating infrastructure and tools that enable Techno-Acharcho-Socialism (perhaps we could use a more politically correct label - Left Libertarianism?).





Posted by TedHowardNZ  on  01/08  at  05:41 PM

Reality seems to be really complex, far more so than most socially accepted linguistic structures allow for.

It seems that every individual human being is a complex system involving about 20 levels of cooperative systems, about half mostly physical (atoms, molecules, cells, organs, bodies etc) and about half mostly software (strategies, beliefs, habits, cultures etc).

Having some sort of an understanding of how complex cooperative systems emerge and stabilise in an evolutionary context is fundamental.  Games theory is clear, that raw cooperation is always vulnerable to cheating strategies, and to be stable requires attendant sets of strategies to identify and remove any benefit gained by “cheating” strategies.  That notion is infinitely recursive in all dimensions.  Resulting in very complex, highly dimensional strategic spaces, with very complex, very dimensional and very context sensitive risk reward probability distributions.

When one examines the nature of understanding (epistemology) in an evolutionary context, it seems that all “a priori” knowledge is simply some form of “heuristics” that worked in our evolutionary past, and are not necessarily relevant to our exponentially changing present.

Thus the classical “Boolean” notion of truth (true vs false) is but the simplest of an infinite class of possible understandings, and the evidence is now substantially in favour of the notion that the reality in which we exist is fundamentally probabilistic within constraints, rather than strictly deterministic, though the deterministic (true/false) system delivers a useful approximation in many contexts.

It seems that the experiential reality every one of us has is uniquely personal, and is of a software model of reality subconsciously created by our brains, and thus composed of many evolutionary “hacks” and implicit cultural assumptions that few people have consciously explored.  To the degree that our biological and cultural and personal histories are similar, there seems to be the possibility of communication between models.  To the degree that there is difference, such communication becomes less probable.

The probability of communication drops rapidly as the levels of abstraction increase in the concepts being discussed.  Reliable communication of even second order abstractions is difficult, 3rd almost impossible, and by the time one gets to 12th order abstractions, the probability of communication is asymptotically approaching zero.

In this context, I have little hope that anyone will understand what follows in the way I would like them to understand it, and I am giving it my best shot.

One thing to clearly emerge from complexity theory, is that the more complex the systems, the more flexible the boundary conditions need to be.  This applies at all levels.  Simple rule based systems that make no allowance for individuals to make the sort of decisions that their knowledge indicates are most appropriate, force systems into sub-optimal outcomes and exponentially expanding risk profiles.  Hard boundaries become brittle and eventually fail catastrophically.

Complexity theory is clear - anarchism (individual freedom) always loses to fascism under conditions of control.  (Recurs to whatever level you wish.)

The major domain of control in today’s society is market value.

Markets are a great tool for the allocation of scarce resources.  Market value is a function of scarcity multiplied by desire (supply and demand).

The thing that not many people have yet gotten a handle on is that automation of production and delivery allows the production of universal abundance in an exponentially expanding set of goods and services.

The value of anything universally abundant in a market is zero (as scarcity is zero, and anything multiplied by zero gives zero).  If you doubt that consider air, arguably the single most important commodity for any human being yet of zero market value in most contexts due to universal abundance.

The exponential expansion of full automation now makes markets the single greatest threat to the existence of all of us.

Market values are now directly in opposition to human values for an exponentially expanding set of goods and services.

[continued in part 2]





Posted by TedHowardNZ  on  01/08  at  05:42 PM

[continued from part 1]

The dominant market response to universal abundance is to erect barriers, currently mostly in the shape of Intellectual Property (IP) laws, but also in far more subtle and abstract forms of regulation of the finance and monetary and health and safety systems.  From the perspective of the reasonable needs of the majority, all such endeavours can be characterised as “cheating strategies”.


In our evolutionary past, it has been useful to focus attention in times of stress, to reduce the choices available to consciousness to simple binaries that can be quickly assessed and acted upon.  When faced with a charging sabre tooth cat, such a response is entirely appropriate.  When faced with a failing economic system it leads directly to Fascism.


Current fascist trends are the natural strategic outcome of adherence to a scarcity based market system, when it is no longer the most appropriate system for the level of complexity we now face.

We need to transition to something that is strategically appropriate to the levels of abundance possible with full automation.
The set of workable options seems to be infinite - and our existing market based system isn’t among them.

The limits we face are not technical, or material, or ecological, or energetic (though limits do exist in all of those domains).

The biggest problem we have is the models we use to make sense of this existence we find ourselves in.

Our technology is increasing in its ability to do more with less far faster than our population is expanding, but our market based systems are forcing many into unneeded poverty.

That is a source of injustice that is tearing at the very fabric of our social systems, and we all rely on our social cooperative at many different levels.

Having just come through a 7.8 earthquake, with all the disruption to fundamental infrastructure involved in that, I am more conscious than ever of the total reliance on cooperation, and the fragility of our existing systems.  Had that quake been in a more populated area, it would have been beyond the ability of existing systems.  We were lucky to be in a relatively sparsely populated rural area, where most services could be restored relatively quickly, but even so the amount of outside effort delivered was huge.  Had it not been for the hundreds of trapped international tourists here in Kaikoura, and the economic impact of loss of tourism, I doubt the response would have been what it has been.

So I am very conscious of all the many levels of cooperation and risk spreading that are performed by the existing economic system, and I am also very conscious of the many levels of cheating strategies, and the exponentially decreasing utility of markets in the face of fully automated production.

It is clear to me that awareness, and individual choice, are the only reliable way forward.

Abundance and longevity and freedom seem possible, and while risk can be reduced, it can never be entirely eliminated, that is a logical impossibility.





Posted by instamatic  on  01/10  at  07:14 PM

Want Selective Service conscription eliminated. If Trump is as bad as some are saying he is, do not want the slightest risk he would draft impressionable youth.






Add your comment here:


Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


HOME | ABOUT | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
35 Harbor Point Blvd, #404, Boston, MA 02125-3242 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org