RealityApologist posted:

Last month, Balaji Srinivasan gave a lecture at Y Combinator's Startup School 2013 entitled "Silicon Valley's ultimate exit strategy". He describes the US as the "Microsoft of nations", and suggests in a calm, reasonable tone that Silicon Valley think seriously about seceding and starting its own (or possibly several) sovereign countries.

You can watch the full lecture here: cOubCHLXT6A

Shortly after the talk, he published this piece in Wired:

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/software-is-reorganizing-the-world-and-cloud-formations-could-lead-to-physical-nations/

For the first time in memory, adults in the United States under age forty are now expected to be poorer than their parents. This is the kind of grim reality that in other times and places spurred young people to look abroad for opportunity. Indeed, it is similar to the factors that once pushed millions of people to emigrate from their home countries to make their home in America. Our nation of immigrants is, tautologically, a nation of emigrants.

These emigrants, our ancestors, didn’t bear enmity towards the countries they left — quite the contrary. They weren’t “Going Galt” or being “unpatriotic” by leaving, as they often left out of sadness and melancholy, not anger. In many cases they remained homesick for the rest of their lives, leaving only because they had to, not because they wanted to.

Yet while our ancestors had America as their ultimate destination, it is not immediately obvious where those seeking opportunity might head today. Every square foot of earth is already spoken for by one (or more) nation states, every physical frontier long since closed.

With our bodies hemmed in, our minds have only the cloud — and it is the cloud that has become the destination for an extraordinary mental exodus. Hundreds of millions of people have now migrated to the cloud, spending hours per day working, playing, chatting, and laughing in real-time HD resolution with people thousands of miles away … without knowing their next-door neighbors.

The concept of migrating our lives to the cloud is much more than a picturesque metaphor, and actually amenable to quantitative study. Though the separation between our bodies is still best characterized by the geographical distance between points on the surface of the earth, the distance between our minds is increasingly characterized by a completely different metric: the geodesic distance, the number of degrees of separation between two nodes in a social network. Importantly, this geodesic distance is just as valid a mathematical metric as the geographical. In fact, there are entire conferences devoted to cloud cartography, in which research groups from Stanford to Carnegie Mellon to MIT present the first maps of online social networks — mapping not nation states but states of mind.

Perhaps the single most important feature of these states of mind is the increasing divergence between our social and geographic neighbors, between the cloud formations of our heads and the physical communities surrounding our bodies. An infinity of subcultures outside the mainstream now blossoms on the Internet — vegans, body modifiers, CrossFitters, Wiccans, DIYers, Pinners, and support groups of all forms. Millions of people are finding their true peers in the cloud, a remedy for the isolation imposed by the anonymous apartment complex or the remote rural location.

Yet this discrepancy between our cloud subculture and our physical surroundings will not endure indefinitely. Because the latest wave of technology is not just connecting us intellectually and emotionally with remote peers: it is also making us ever more mobile, ever more able to meet our peers in person.

And so these cloud formations of mind are beginning to take physical shape, driving the reorganization of bodies. In the technology space, we have already seen this transpire at small scale: a cloud formation of 2 people coming together for 10 years facilitated by Match.com, a formation of 10 people for a year in a hacker house, a formation of 100 people for a few months at a startup incubator, and a formation of 1000 people for a few days at an open-source gathering like RailsConf. More recently we saw the thousands that occupied Wall Street for a month, the ten thousand Redditors involved in Jon Stewart’s Rally, and the tens of thousands that took Tahrir Square at the height of the Arab Spring. Those trivial photo-sharing apps seem far less trivial in this light.

But while these large rallies command deserved attention, something else of significance is happening more quietly: Cloud formations are starting to take physical shape in the form of long-term friendly communities that are geographically colocated, like Campus, Embassy Network, and the Rainbow Mansion. In some ways this isn’t anything new — the twin ideas of co-living in the same house or co-housing with separate houses in a shared community have been around in Denmark since the 1960s and the U.S. since the 1860s. What is new is the ease of finding compatible peers via web search, online forums, and social networks. And so the concept is spreading around the world, with hundreds of co-living and co-housing locations now accessible through the internet in the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, and across Continental Europe.

It is not yet clear how widespread this phenomenon will become, but few humans are truly so solitary that they would shun the very idea of shared communities — and from email to mobile phones, what technologists experiment with on the weekends has frequently foreshadowed what everyone else will be doing during the week in ten years.

And from there?

It is simultaneously straightforward and radical to note that when cloud formations take physical shape, neither their scale nor duration has an upper bound. There is no scientific law that prevents 100 people who find each other on the internet from coming together for a month, or 1,000 such people from coming together for a year. And as that increases to 10,000 and 100,000 and beyond, for longer and longer durations, we may begin to see cloud towns, then cloud cities, and ultimately cloud countries materialize out of thin air.

At first this sounds rather implausible. Perhaps the internet will spur a wave of internal migrations as online communities begin gathering in person — but could this process really lead to a new city, or country?

Yet the technical prerequisites are already well underway. Machine translation of signs, text, and speech brings down language barriers and facilitates ever more cross-cultural meetings of like minds. Immersive headsets, input devices, and telepresence robots further collapse space and time, allowing us to instantly be alongside others on the other side of the globe. Mobile technology makes us ever more mobile, increasingly permitting not just easier movement around a home base but permanent international relocation.

Technology is thus enabling arbitrary numbers of people from around the world to assemble in remote locations, without interrupting their ability to work or communicate with existing networks. In this sense, the future of technology is not really location-based apps; it is about making location completely unimportant.

But could everything really become that mobile, that portable? What about transportation, infrastructure, food, shelter, the clothes on our backs?

Consider transportation first: Car ownership is already declining, and the combination of Uber, Lyft, their public-transportation analogs, and new shareable car fleets will greatly reduce traffic and emissions. On-demand rental will ultimately become more convenient than the burden of outright ownership, especially in an autonomous car world, and will make us vastly more mobile as a result. And many more things can be transported on-demand once we have the on-demand car.

With respect to infrastructure, projects from neighborhood pothole repairs to bridge changes are being crowdfunded or driven through private-public sector partnerships (in fact, entrepreneurs built roads for most of American history). And with autonomous cars coming, technologists are going to need to reinvent roads again. Google’s Vannevar is moving construction to the cloud, much of shipping logistics and the supply chain is going there as well, and robots can already build small buildings and operate autonomous mines. The net result is that both core infrastructure and many of the mechanisms for building and funding it are becoming computerized, and thus deployable in new locations.

And from the road we turn our eyes to the sky: next up will be a carbon-friendly computerized infrastructure for safer air traffic control, to guide the emerging fleets of drones doing everything from photography to surveying to delivery.

As for the physical items used in daily life — the present, let alone the future, is already a time where everything from food to shelter to clothing to transportation to your very wallet and keychain can be accessed on demand from your mobile phone, in more cities every day.

So when it comes to the constraints on mobility imposed by the physical world, the rule is simple: when goods themselves can’t be digitized, our interface to them will be.

The benefits of such high mobility are much more than convenience to the people who supply these goods. For example, with online food ordering, an owner of a small restaurant is finally able to prepare meals in batch, order ingredients in bulk, and reach repeat customers without wasting valuable, limited resources in guesswork. With the advent of mobile microtasks, we are seeing the emergence of new digital assembly line jobs that offer greater flexibility, less risk of injury, and hourly wages comparable in some cases to those of new hires at GM. And with autonomous mines, workers can extract needed minerals without risking black lung disease.

This is why location is becoming so much less important: technology is enabling us to access everything we need from our mobile phone, to find our true communities in the cloud, and to easily travel to assemble these communities in person. Taken together, we are rapidly approaching a future characterized by a totally new phenomenon, the reverse diaspora: one that starts out internationally distributed, finds each other online, and ends up physically concentrated.

What might these reverse diasporas be like? As a people whose primary bond is through the internet, many of their properties would not fit our pre-existing mental models. Unlike rugged individualists, these emigrants would be moving within or between nation states to become part of a community, not to strike out on their own. Unlike would-be revolutionaries, those migrating in this fashion would be doing so out of humility in their ability to change existing political systems. And unlike so-called secessionists, the specific site of physical concentration would be a matter of convenience, not passion; the geography incidental and not worth fighting over.

Today, one of the first and largest international reverse diasporas has assembled in Silicon Valley, drawn by the internet to the cloud capital of technology; in fact, an incredible 64% of the Valley’s scientists and engineers hail from outside the U.S., with 43.9% of its technology companies founded by emigrants.

But the geocenter of this cloud formation is only positioned over Silicon Valley for historical reasons, as the semiconductor manufacturing that was made easier by the temperate clime of the South Bay has long since moved away. Nothing today binds technologists to the soil besides other people. In this sense Silicon Valley is nothing special; it is best conceptualized as just the most common (x,y) coordinates of a set of highly mobile nodes in a social network whose true existence is in the cloud.

And this global technology cloud truly stretches over the whole earth, touching down at various locales both in the U.S. — at Sendgrid in Boulder, Tumblr in New York, Rackspace in Austin, Snapchat in L.A., Zipcar in Boston, Opscode in Seattle — and outside it — at Skype in Estonia, Tencent in Shenzhen, Soundcloud in Germany, Flipkart in India, Spotify in Sweden, Line in Tokyo, and Waze in Israel. Cultural connections forming between people in this cloud are becoming stronger than the connections between their geographic neighbors. Palo Alto’s Accel invests in India’s Flipkart, Estonia’s Skype is folded into Seattle’s Microsoft, Israel’s Waze is merged into Mountain View’s Google, and the SoundCloud engineer on a laptop in Berlin builds a deeper relationship with the VC in New York than the nearby Bavarian bank.

Today, the geocenter of the global technology cloud is still hovering over Silicon Valley. But in a world where technology is making location increasingly less important, tomorrow the reverse diaspora may well assemble somewhere else.

Of course, it would take some time for a reverse diaspora assembled in a new location to advance from small communities in existing buildings to the infrastructure for towns and cities, let alone to starting new countries. If history is any guide, it took almost 170 years to go from 1607 (Jamestown) to 1776 (America), 90 years to go from 1857 (Sepoy Mutiny) to 1947 (India), and 52 years to go from 1896 (Herzl) to 1948 (Israel) — though at Internet time, things could happen more quickly than that.

And we can’t know from today’s vantage point where that first reverse diaspora might assemble outside the U.S., or what those cloud cities or countries will be like. They could be countries formed by internationally recognized processes similar to the ones that created 26 new countries over the past 25 years, a pattern noted by Marc Andreessen. They could be regions of the world set aside by global agreement for experimentation, as discussed by Larry Page. They could be floating cities in international waters as put forth by Peter Thiel, or one of the more ambitious 80,000 person colonies on Mars desired by Elon Musk. The specific location is still unknown; in a real sense it matters far less than the people there.

What we can say for certain is this: from Occupy Wall Street and YCombinator to co-living in San Francisco and co-housing in the UK, something important is happening. People are meeting like minds in the cloud and traveling to meet each other offline, in the process building community — and tools for community — where none existed before. Those cloud networks where people poke each other, share photos, and find their missing communities are beginning to catalyze waves of physical migration, beginning to reorganize the world.

Will this ultimately end in a cloud country of our own, as Page, Thiel, and Musk propose in different ways? We can set this as a long-term goal, like the kind of dream that propelled so many millions to exit and come to America in the first place, but it’s unclear what the future holds. We do know this, however: as cloud formations take physical shape at steadily greater scales and durations, it shall become ever more feasible to create a new nation of emigrants.

I agree with a lot of this work, but the current of libertarian ideological nonsense runs through the approach (especially from people like Thiel) that needs to be addressed. So I wrote up the following essay in response:

A few days ago I reshared this talk from Balaji Srinivasan, along with my initial comments defending the position against what I took to be a superficial rejection from David Brin and others. It was my first watching of the lecture, and my comments were borne of the passion that comes from having considered and argued for similar conclusions over the last few years, against those I felt were resisting the alternative framework BSS was suggesting without due consideration.

But there is always room for critical reflection, and now that I've had a few days to digest the talk I'd like to write a more considered response. I am utterly convinced that a world run by software can be more fair, inclusive, and sustainable than any mode of organization the industrial age had to offer. Nevertheless, BSS says precious little in the talk of what such a world would look like, or what reasons we have for believing the conclusion to be true. BSS's argument is largely critical about the problems and constraints of the existing system, with the goal of motivating interest in an alternative. I agree with much of his critique, especially his observation that people are already eagerly fleeing industrial age "paper" technologies in favor of digital alternatives. But the Silicon Valley audience to which the talk is directed might give the impression that a world run by software would benefit primarily those privileged few who are already benefiting from our nascent digital age, as yet another way to widen the gap between the wealthy and the rest. I think this is a misleading impression. A positive story that constructively described how a world run by software would operate would go a long way towards helping people imagine it as a real and plausible alternative, with distinct advantages over the existing order of things. I hear that BSS is planning to publish a more detailed treatment of his views, but while we wait I'd like to add my own thoughts to the discussion.

Because after all, there is lots to say and lots of discussion still to come from many different quarters. We are talking about about a fundamental change of the social order-- a revolution-- that will bring about many changes at many different scales. These changes might manifest in surprising and unpredictable ways, so feedback from everyone is important. The task of integrating diverse perspectives and feedback was not possible (and barely even conceivable) before the advent of digital technologies. We're just beginning to use these tools to organize digital populations at scales that rival nations, and already these digital populations overlap and engage with industrial age political structures in complex and twisted ways. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. There are discussions we must have about how to use the tools and organizations around us to bring about the changes we want, and then there are discussions about what changes we want and what the world will look like when our revolution is complete. There are important things to say about the former, but I want to use this space to speculate on the latter.

Here's what a world run by software looks like:

A world run by software is run on on open-source principles. It is participatory, and encourages experimentation in an open, collaborative development. There's already been a lot written about open source and peer networks. I don't want to just talk about the values of a digital society, I want to talk about the nuts and bolts of how it works. So I'm taking these principles as given. If any Silicon Valley types think a world run by software is a world of tightly controlled walled gardens, I urge you to consider another line of work immediately. (I'll say more about dealing with the libertopian "walled gardens" later in the essay.)

More abstractly, a world run by software is task-oriented. A program performs a function; a world run by software is designed to execute specific functions reliably and on demand. This involves three basic functional parts:

1. Executors, who carry out some specified task,
2. Programmers, who design and optimize the tasks to be carried out
3. Selectors, who select which tasks get carried out

In democracies like the US, the government is typically charged with all three roles, separated somewhat in the three branches, with democratic feedback taking the form of voting for the representatives who ultimately select, program, and execute our political world. Democratic feedback also takes the form of economic and other sociopolitical activity which the representatives consider, but the feedback in both cases is coarse-grained and unreliable. In a world run by software, these roles can all be more widely distributed and participatory to allow individuals a more direct engagement with the the political order.

Consider first, and perhaps most easily, the role of selection. What activities deserve our efforts and attention, and what should should our attitudes towards these topics be? Representative bodies tend to give such questions a very narrow treatment that is susceptible to corruption and divergence from the general will. Digital communities, on the other hand, self-organize into affinity groups and coalitions that regularly broadcast their positions on any number of social issues and policies. This activity can be regularly and automatically harvested for feedback from the community about any topic you'd like, and can be used to represent and anticipate the dynamics of the general consensus of the people. We don't need to set aside time and rituals for voting and participating in a democracy, because every action you take is a vote in a world run by software.

If our policy directions and collective planning is handled automatically by self-organized digital communities, the role of traditional governance looks radically different. In a world run by software, governance is system administration. "Politicians" are no longer elected representatives empowered to make political judgments, they are administrators tasked with maintaining the tools for supporting and maintaining the people's political judgments. This takes the form, on the front end, of maintaining a public and powerful interface for engaging with the machinery of the political system, and on the back end maintaining the protocols and infrastructure that make it all work smoothly together. Politics becomes a form of engineering, of network management, of organizational facilitation. In other words, a digital government consists entirely of open source programmers who contribute to the code bank of governmental procedure.

The last functional role is played by the executors, who carry out the work requested by the people according to the standard procedures instructed by programmers. Thus far the entire system I've described has been horizontal and self-directed, and the executors are no different. They are free to engage with the general will as they see fit, and can use that information to decide what jobs need doing and where their time and skills are best spent. Executors are the "working class" of the traditional caste system, but in a world run by software every worker is guaranteed recognition for the work they do. This will take the form of gamification techniques where people earn "badges" that represent the many dimensions of their skills and mastery. This system of rewards not only motivates work and encourages a competitive atmosphere, but also serves to more efficiently connect requested work with the people in the best position to handle the job. It also frees the executor from any institutional obligations, so they might follow the vocation of their choosing.

A properly implemented system of this sort, where requests are initiated by users and handled by executors and mediated by political facilitators, is sufficient for managing all political and economic activity. Even under improved automation, there will always be human work to do, including physical human labor. But there are more than enough of us to do all that work many times over, including many who want the challenge and recognition of success at even the difficult or "dirty" jobs. This completely obviates the need for paid employment as a means of compensation and distribution of wealth. So in a world run by software we are each free to follow our idle desires. We can pursue our curiosities confident that our needs and requests (including for basic food, shelter, medicine and education) will be provided on request, and that the political infrastructure exists to support any grievances that might arise. There's an opportunity cost to mere idle fantasy in potential badges unearned, but the possibility that our endeavors can bring genuine recognition and success will continue to stimulate innovation and progress.

In a digital world, influence replaces material wealth as the engine of power. The loud voices in strong communities may command disproportionate influence, with no proper authorities to check that power from above. Instead, their power is checked by the wax and wane of digital populations, as they freely settle into the communities of their choosing. This is a power peasants rarely had against their feudal lords, and requires the protections of the people's right to speech and movement. In other words, it means there can be no perfectly walled gardens; all systems must be porous, allowing information to flow in and out in standardized ways. This is the key to understanding the distinction between the libertopian castle doctrine nightmare many people legitimately worry about, and a collectively self-organized digital society. In a world run by software, privacy is a setting not a right. If you aren't providing feedback and aren't transparently documenting your activity and successes, you will not receive recognition from a digital society, and will have difficulty engaging with or accessing any of its benefits. In other words, you are opting out. People should be free to opt out, but at a certain point it means moving off the grid entirely. And given the freedoms of a digitally self-organized society, that's not something people are likely to do.

I've laid out, as briefly as I can manage, some very high-level organizational structures for managing a world run by software, and pointed towards the potential advantages and disadvantaged it might bring. Many people see such a world as a utopian potential in our distant technological future. I don't see anything in the proposal I've offered here that isn't already possible with existing technologies; in fact, many of the ideas suggested here are already in various stages of implementation and discussion in many active online communities already. I'd argue that the theoretical and philosophical dimensions of this proposal are also tractable within existing political and ethical models.

We do not lack for the tools and talent to implement ideas as ambitious and revolutionary as these. We do not lack the political will to seek out and advocate for real alternatives to our political situation. I feel these changes are inevitable and already well underway, whether I advocate for them or not. I hope that the vision of the future that BSS has provoked me to lay out here helps us resolve that future more clearly so we can better prepare for its arrival.

This thread should primarily be about BSS's argument in the lecture and article, and the implications of the ideas presented therein. If you want to insult me or my views, it might be better to just ignore the fact that I started this thread. I hope it is clear from the above that I'm not offering a full-throated endorsement of his view, but I think it deserves some critical engagement nevertheless.

c_man posted:

RealityApologist posted:

-mapping not nation states but states of mind.

c_man posted:

RealityApologist posted:

I agree with a lot of this work, but the current of libertarian ideological nonsense runs through the approach (especially from people like Thiel) that needs to be addressed. So I wrote up the following essay in response:

A few days ago I reshared this talk from Balaji Srinivasan, along with my initial comments defending the position against what I took to be a superficial rejection from David Brin and others. It was my first watching of the lecture, and my comments were borne of the passion that comes from having considered and argued for similar conclusions over the last few years, against those I felt were resisting the alternative framework BSS was suggesting without due consideration.

But there is always room for critical reflection, and now that I've had a few days to digest the talk I'd like to write a more considered response. I am utterly convinced that a world run by software can be more fair, inclusive, and sustainable than any mode of organization the industrial age had to offer. Nevertheless, BSS says precious little in the talk of what such a world would look like, or what reasons we have for believing the conclusion to be true. BSS's argument is largely critical about the problems and constraints of the existing system, with the goal of motivating interest in an alternative. I agree with much of his critique, especially his observation that people are already eagerly fleeing industrial age "paper" technologies in favor of digital alternatives. But the Silicon Valley audience to which the talk is directed might give the impression that a world run by software would benefit primarily those privileged few who are already benefiting from our nascent digital age, as yet another way to widen the gap between the wealthy and the rest. I think this is a misleading impression. A positive story that constructively described how a world run by software would operate would go a long way towards helping people imagine it as a real and plausible alternative, with distinct advantages over the existing order of things. I hear that BSS is planning to publish a more detailed treatment of his views, but while we wait I'd like to add my own thoughts to the discussion.

Because after all, there is lots to say and lots of discussion still to come from many different quarters. We are talking about about a fundamental change of the social order-- a revolution-- that will bring about many changes at many different scales. These changes might manifest in surprising and unpredictable ways, so feedback from everyone is important. The task of integrating diverse perspectives and feedback was not possible (and barely even conceivable) before the advent of digital technologies. We're just beginning to use these tools to organize digital populations at scales that rival nations, and already these digital populations overlap and engage with industrial age political structures in complex and twisted ways. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. There are discussions we must have about how to use the tools and organizations around us to bring about the changes we want, and then there are discussions about what changes we want and what the world will look like when our revolution is complete. There are important things to say about the former, but I want to use this space to speculate on the latter.

Here's what a world run by software looks like:

A world run by software is run on on open-source principles. It is participatory, and encourages experimentation in an open, collaborative development. There's already been a lot written about open source and peer networks. I don't want to just talk about the values of a digital society, I want to talk about the nuts and bolts of how it works. So I'm taking these principles as given. If any Silicon Valley types think a world run by software is a world of tightly controlled walled gardens, I urge you to consider another line of work immediately. (I'll say more about dealing with the libertopian "walled gardens" later in the essay.)

More abstractly, a world run by software is task-oriented. A program performs a function; a world run by software is designed to execute specific functions reliably and on demand. This involves three basic functional parts:

1. Executors, who carry out some specified task,
2. Programmers, who design and optimize the tasks to be carried out
3. Selectors, who select which tasks get carried out

In democracies like the US, the government is typically charged with all three roles, separated somewhat in the three branches, with democratic feedback taking the form of voting for the representatives who ultimately select, program, and execute our political world. Democratic feedback also takes the form of economic and other sociopolitical activity which the representatives consider, but the feedback in both cases is coarse-grained and unreliable. In a world run by software, these roles can all be more widely distributed and participatory to allow individuals a more direct engagement with the the political order.

Consider first, and perhaps most easily, the role of selection. What activities deserve our efforts and attention, and what should should our attitudes towards these topics be? Representative bodies tend to give such questions a very narrow treatment that is susceptible to corruption and divergence from the general will. Digital communities, on the other hand, self-organize into affinity groups and coalitions that regularly broadcast their positions on any number of social issues and policies. This activity can be regularly and automatically harvested for feedback from the community about any topic you'd like, and can be used to represent and anticipate the dynamics of the general consensus of the people. We don't need to set aside time and rituals for voting and participating in a democracy, because every action you take is a vote in a world run by software.

If our policy directions and collective planning is handled automatically by self-organized digital communities, the role of traditional governance looks radically different. In a world run by software, governance is system administration. "Politicians" are no longer elected representatives empowered to make political judgments, they are administrators tasked with maintaining the tools for supporting and maintaining the people's political judgments. This takes the form, on the front end, of maintaining a public and powerful interface for engaging with the machinery of the political system, and on the back end maintaining the protocols and infrastructure that make it all work smoothly together. Politics becomes a form of engineering, of network management, of organizational facilitation. In other words, a digital government consists entirely of open source programmers who contribute to the code bank of governmental procedure.

The last functional role is played by the executors, who carry out the work requested by the people according to the standard procedures instructed by programmers. Thus far the entire system I've described has been horizontal and self-directed, and the executors are no different. They are free to engage with the general will as they see fit, and can use that information to decide what jobs need doing and where their time and skills are best spent. Executors are the "working class" of the traditional caste system, but in a world run by software every worker is guaranteed recognition for the work they do. This will take the form of gamification techniques where people earn "badges" that represent the many dimensions of their skills and mastery. This system of rewards not only motivates work and encourages a competitive atmosphere, but also serves to more efficiently connect requested work with the people in the best position to handle the job. It also frees the executor from any institutional obligations, so they might follow the vocation of their choosing.

A properly implemented system of this sort, where requests are initiated by users and handled by executors and mediated by political facilitators, is sufficient for managing all political and economic activity. Even under improved automation, there will always be human work to do, including physical human labor. But there are more than enough of us to do all that work many times over, including many who want the challenge and recognition of success at even the difficult or "dirty" jobs. This completely obviates the need for paid employment as a means of compensation and distribution of wealth. So in a world run by software we are each free to follow our idle desires. We can pursue our curiosities confident that our needs and requests (including for basic food, shelter, medicine and education) will be provided on request, and that the political infrastructure exists to support any grievances that might arise. There's an opportunity cost to mere idle fantasy in potential badges unearned, but the possibility that our endeavors can bring genuine recognition and success will continue to stimulate innovation and progress.

In a digital world, influence replaces material wealth as the engine of power. The loud voices in strong communities may command disproportionate influence, with no proper authorities to check that power from above. Instead, their power is checked by the wax and wane of digital populations, as they freely settle into the communities of their choosing. This is a power peasants rarely had against their feudal lords, and requires the protections of the people's right to speech and movement. In other words, it means there can be no perfectly walled gardens; all systems must be porous, allowing information to flow in and out in standardized ways. This is the key to understanding the distinction between the libertopian castle doctrine nightmare many people legitimately worry about, and a collectively self-organized digital society. In a world run by software, privacy is a setting not a right. If you aren't providing feedback and aren't transparently documenting your activity and successes, you will not receive recognition from a digital society, and will have difficulty engaging with or accessing any of its benefits. In other words, you are opting out. People should be free to opt out, but at a certain point it means moving off the grid entirely. And given the freedoms of a digitally self-organized society, that's not something people are likely to do.

I've laid out, as briefly as I can manage, some very high-level organizational structures for managing a world run by software, and pointed towards the potential advantages and disadvantaged it might bring. Many people see such a world as a utopian potential in our distant technological future. I don't see anything in the proposal I've offered here that isn't already possible with existing technologies; in fact, many of the ideas suggested here are already in various stages of implementation and discussion in many active online communities already. I'd argue that the theoretical and philosophical dimensions of this proposal are also tractable within existing political and ethical models.

We do not lack for the tools and talent to implement ideas as ambitious and revolutionary as these. We do not lack the political will to seek out and advocate for real alternatives to our political situation. I feel these changes are inevitable and already well underway, whether I advocate for them or not. I hope that the vision of the future that BSS has provoked me to lay out here helps us resolve that future more clearly so we can better prepare for its arrival.

This thread should primarily be about BSS's argument in the lecture and article, and the implications of the ideas presented therein. If you want to insult me or my views, it might be better to just ignore the fact that I started this thread. I hope it is clear from the above that I'm not offering a full-throated endorsement of his view, but I think it deserves some critical engagement nevertheless.

crtl+f class ctrl+f proletariat crtl+f You!

0 of 0

swampman posted:

Do they describe a practical route to secession that does not involve getting immediately jailed by USA cop army?

"dear congress: we're rich and we have records of all your phone calls"

discipline posted:

this idiot has absolutely zero sense of economic geography

a depressingly common travesty in this world

swampman posted:

Do they describe a practical route to secession that does not involve getting immediately jailed by USA cop army?

computer will figure it out

edit: on the cloud using an IpHone APP

drwhat posted:

i think there are a lot, a lot of first world white collar types who really do perceive that there is something wrong with everything

\
is that what you're asking me? 'is there something wrong with anything'?