goes well with the Hospicing Modernity idea of needing to digest the lessons from the current era, and not rush into a new plan/ideology that just recreates the old mistakes
I like Schmactenberger's thinking, even if little of this was new to me, and he didn't leave me seeing much cause for optimism that humanity will break free of this "multi-polar trap". But I was disappointed that he didn't pursue the one exit ramp I could see in the whole discussion, which is that if (in the absence of an ethical compass) everything boils down to game theory, people (event he elites with power) can learn game theory and strategize our way out of the prisoner's dilemma kind of trap that we're in. Sorry that avenue was not pursued as a potential exit, as I didn't perceive any other.
Daniel is an extraordinary thinker, and this presentation is fascinating. I have thought about the need for regulation of new technologies that includes digital technologies across the range of areas of rapid development and deployment, He conceptualizes it well - the closest real world system I would compare it to is prescription pharmaceuticals. The FDA evaluates New Drug Applications for benefits, risks, and side effects, and has an ( ineffective) system for monitoring on an ongoing basis, after a drug is in use, evidence of previously undetected risks, or side effects. It costs (according to PhrMA), over a billion USD to get a new drug approved, so it is not an insignificant evaluation process. Unfortunately, any attempt to regulate for profit technologies is a difficult task, and PhrMa still manages to make profits from medicines that harm public health, or use enormous healthcare resources, without providing meaningful public health benefit. I have no idea if it is possible to create a system that de-monetizes the massive profits involved, given current patent laws. I wonder if that would facilitate a more effective approach to assessing for betterment, as distinguished from progress.
After all, it only took private for- profit entities about 30-40 years to destroy the American healthcare system.
Daniel takes conceptual leaps that I confess leave me a bit dazed and confused. For that reason, I wish he would provide some documentation for some of the anecdotal evidence he uses to support hypotheses. I agree that corporations are de facto "obligate sociopaths". It is true that corporations have tried to acquire and expand their personhood rights for many years. However, I could not find any evidence to support the assertion that the year after the 14th amendment was passed, 350 corporations, used it to try to expand their personhood status. The evidence I found asserted that after the amendment was passed in 1868, there was no further mention of its use regarding corporate personhood until 1886, when a note by the Chief Justice was added to a ruling that stated that the court believed that the 14th Amendment did give corporations personhood rights, and did not want to hear arguments regarding that question. That note, which was not a Court decision, was used as a "precedent" argument for expanding corporate personhood rights, despite a number of dissenting arguments by Court members in later related cases, culminating most recently in the egregious Citizens United decision. I welcome being found wrong. I do believe that when hypotheses are being put forward,, or arguments being made for regulatory processes, that the evidence base will be limited, and it is important to be sure that it is solid. There were a couple other assertions that I would like to see his evidence. However, I agree and support without hesitation the need for regulation of technologies that purport to be beneficial, unless there is a system in place to assess for possible risks, benefits and side effects. It is hard to argue that every technology of the industrial and digital revolutions have been beneficial, given the climate science , and the enormous suffering and death currently ongoing in Africa, India, and Southeast Asia, due to extreme weather events made extreme by climate change, as well as the role that climate and energy instability is no doubt playing in the 2 tragic wars ongoing and threatening escalation. At the same time, it is important to remember the point Chris Keefer made (TGS 123), that the future without some of our technology is not a camping trip. I agree with Chris that an all-cause mortality rate of 50% of children by the age of 5 is a tragedy in any society. We are beginning, Bill McKibbens says, and he knows the issues as well as anyone, perhaps the most important last best 5 years to avoid a much harder, maybe lost, path to a prosperous (wellbeing, betterment, not technology, progress) future.
I thought that when Daniel was talking about Dunbar 1 (communities of 150 or so, where everybody knows, has a relationship with, everyone else), he was onto an important organizing construct for a way to organize such that we make choices to better our lives, rather than just complicate them.
The beginning of your discussion sounds a lot like basic ‘Game Theory’ There is a very interesting discussion of this on the Veritasium YouTube channel.
“The mind that was conditioned by this kind of system can’t avoid making more of this kind of system…”
goes well with the Hospicing Modernity idea of needing to digest the lessons from the current era, and not rush into a new plan/ideology that just recreates the old mistakes
I like Schmactenberger's thinking, even if little of this was new to me, and he didn't leave me seeing much cause for optimism that humanity will break free of this "multi-polar trap". But I was disappointed that he didn't pursue the one exit ramp I could see in the whole discussion, which is that if (in the absence of an ethical compass) everything boils down to game theory, people (event he elites with power) can learn game theory and strategize our way out of the prisoner's dilemma kind of trap that we're in. Sorry that avenue was not pursued as a potential exit, as I didn't perceive any other.
Any hints as to when the paper will be published?
Daniel is an extraordinary thinker, and this presentation is fascinating. I have thought about the need for regulation of new technologies that includes digital technologies across the range of areas of rapid development and deployment, He conceptualizes it well - the closest real world system I would compare it to is prescription pharmaceuticals. The FDA evaluates New Drug Applications for benefits, risks, and side effects, and has an ( ineffective) system for monitoring on an ongoing basis, after a drug is in use, evidence of previously undetected risks, or side effects. It costs (according to PhrMA), over a billion USD to get a new drug approved, so it is not an insignificant evaluation process. Unfortunately, any attempt to regulate for profit technologies is a difficult task, and PhrMa still manages to make profits from medicines that harm public health, or use enormous healthcare resources, without providing meaningful public health benefit. I have no idea if it is possible to create a system that de-monetizes the massive profits involved, given current patent laws. I wonder if that would facilitate a more effective approach to assessing for betterment, as distinguished from progress.
After all, it only took private for- profit entities about 30-40 years to destroy the American healthcare system.
Daniel takes conceptual leaps that I confess leave me a bit dazed and confused. For that reason, I wish he would provide some documentation for some of the anecdotal evidence he uses to support hypotheses. I agree that corporations are de facto "obligate sociopaths". It is true that corporations have tried to acquire and expand their personhood rights for many years. However, I could not find any evidence to support the assertion that the year after the 14th amendment was passed, 350 corporations, used it to try to expand their personhood status. The evidence I found asserted that after the amendment was passed in 1868, there was no further mention of its use regarding corporate personhood until 1886, when a note by the Chief Justice was added to a ruling that stated that the court believed that the 14th Amendment did give corporations personhood rights, and did not want to hear arguments regarding that question. That note, which was not a Court decision, was used as a "precedent" argument for expanding corporate personhood rights, despite a number of dissenting arguments by Court members in later related cases, culminating most recently in the egregious Citizens United decision. I welcome being found wrong. I do believe that when hypotheses are being put forward,, or arguments being made for regulatory processes, that the evidence base will be limited, and it is important to be sure that it is solid. There were a couple other assertions that I would like to see his evidence. However, I agree and support without hesitation the need for regulation of technologies that purport to be beneficial, unless there is a system in place to assess for possible risks, benefits and side effects. It is hard to argue that every technology of the industrial and digital revolutions have been beneficial, given the climate science , and the enormous suffering and death currently ongoing in Africa, India, and Southeast Asia, due to extreme weather events made extreme by climate change, as well as the role that climate and energy instability is no doubt playing in the 2 tragic wars ongoing and threatening escalation. At the same time, it is important to remember the point Chris Keefer made (TGS 123), that the future without some of our technology is not a camping trip. I agree with Chris that an all-cause mortality rate of 50% of children by the age of 5 is a tragedy in any society. We are beginning, Bill McKibbens says, and he knows the issues as well as anyone, perhaps the most important last best 5 years to avoid a much harder, maybe lost, path to a prosperous (wellbeing, betterment, not technology, progress) future.
I thought that when Daniel was talking about Dunbar 1 (communities of 150 or so, where everybody knows, has a relationship with, everyone else), he was onto an important organizing construct for a way to organize such that we make choices to better our lives, rather than just complicate them.
Thank you for this session with Daniel Schmachtenberger. I look forward to the paper his organization is about to release.
The beginning of your discussion sounds a lot like basic ‘Game Theory’ There is a very interesting discussion of this on the Veritasium YouTube channel.
https://youtu.be/mScpHTIi-kM?si=jKABRKretRbx3FuX