Creative Destruction

[GostHacked]

That sounds like today, really. Your level of lifestyle is afforded, today, by how much you can sell yourself into our system. Exactly.

Without the money system you wont be able to afford anything, you will be told what you can and cannot have. The current world is run on money and debt and currency. You cannot get rid of that system without major societal problems. And yes we have to mold ourselves into society instead of molding society to be more in line with the human condition. Humanity is not molding, we are being molded by those who have the power via money and wealth.

No, no... that's just one option. If you listen to the podcast you will understand that no one really knows how this will work out.

I can tell you where the trend is going, and that is complete control through complete ubiquitous technology. That is where we are already heading. Snowden and his leaks speak exactly to the technocracy I speak of. How extensive is the NSA spying? Now we know about the Five Eyes and the wifi snooping from CSEC. Now as you know most don't understand the technology and we have discussed that before. And when described some of the things to you, your stance has changed some. Meaning you are not comfortable with where we are heading. I am not comfortable with it either. More and more it's all about control through technology. Why is cash not used as widely as debit/credit these days? You are already living in this technocracy. It's all around you.

That's even more interesting than the suggestions I offered. Money is replaced with reputation perhaps. Or better yet, money is only used to buy luxury items and basic living is provided for.

But reputation does not really mean anything either. Many leaders we have, have very bad reputations. Obama for one, Putin for another, Harper, Cameron, Key, ect. Their reputation is built on how well they get a long and tow the overall line for what is called 'globalists'. Money is power and can buy you reputation now, so not sure how that works in the future, but I am sure fraudulent activities will take place.

By the way, some of the words you use - technocracy, dictatorship, imply a central authority which is more and more impossible to maintain today. That's how oppression worked in the past, but in the future it will more likely be the omniscient mob.

It will be impossible to maintain simply because of the sheer size of it. Looking at the NSA as an example and the datacenters they are building to store all this information they are gathering. They will crush under their own weight. it's already too big and way out of control. With that we now know we missed the chance to bring in the reigns on this, only because people in power managed to keep it hidden for this long.

We could not combat it for many reasons.

1 - complacency of good people to do nothing <-- biggest reason

2 - the beast got so large before we even knew about it, they kept it under wraps for a long time.

3 - people who did call it out before were thrown into the 'conspiracy' camps, turns out they were right all along.

I may indeed read that one.

I read it when I was about 18 I think, it's a long series if you can handle it. Essentially there is a crisis, which cannot be avoided, however the character Seldon has a plan that can reduce the crisis to only 1000 years instead of 10,000. Much like us today we are heading for a crisis, but how we manage it can mean we pull out of it sooner or we let it destroy us.

Take a look at the global financial market and how shaky it really is. It can all collapse tomorrow instantly. So the question is, what do we do after that crash? How can we prepare ourselves to soften the eventual blow we will take?

Asimov is the grandfather of hard sci-fi and still is considered one of the best ever for sci-fi. Guys like Philip K Dick was inspired by Asmimov as were a whole other slew of great and well know sci-fi writers.

[Michael Hardner]

Without the money system you wont be able to afford anything, you will be told what you can and cannot have.

You're talking about a centralized money system, not a money system. There were possessions before there was money.

I can tell you where the trend is going, and that is complete control through complete ubiquitous technology.

I would argue that they're trying desperately to catch up to new ways of communicating that are outside their control, ie. distributed technology. If we say that the NSA monitors email is proof that they have control, then the factor we're missing is the relative newness of email, texts and so-on, which can be decentralized technologies.

That is where we are already heading. Snowden and his leaks speak exactly to the technocracy I speak of.

Excellent example, of why I think you're wrong that is. A Snowden wouldn't have been able to exist in the 1960s, he would have just defected or would have disappeared and been completely censored.

And when described some of the things to you, your stance has changed some.

My stance changed most recently after Kimmy shed some light on what is being considered as terrorism today, but not from discussing the technology.

The last discussion I had about the technology ended when I explained that it would be possible for the government to provide target searches to service providers, and therefore get what they wanted without having 'all' of the data.

Meaning you are not comfortable with where we are heading. I am not comfortable with it either. More and more it's all about control through technology. Why is cash not used as widely as debit/credit these days? You are already living in this technocracy. It's all around you.

Rest assured that I'm quite comfortable with our discomfort, and I have read extensive academic discussions and historical deconstructions of the relationship between technology and human sense ratios, throughout history and prehistory.

I think understanding the technology is likely not as important as understanding the history of technology, which is not as important as deconstructing the sense ratios of the extensions of man over time.

Money is power and can buy you reputation now, so not sure how that works in the future, but I am sure fraudulent activities will take place.

Well, I don't like to mix my futurism with moralizing, but I'll say that I understand what you're saying here.

It will be impossible to maintain simply because of the sheer size of it. Looking at the NSA as an example and the datacenters they are building to store all this information they are gathering. They will crush under their own weight. it's already too big and way out of control. With that we now know we missed the chance to bring in the reigns on this, only because people in power managed to keep it hidden for this long.

You seem to be saying it will crush under its own weight while saying that we missed a chance to rein them in. I am having trouble reconciling those two sentences: why did we 'miss the chance' if it's all going to crash anyway ? I'm trying to follow ...

Asimov is the grandfather of hard sci-fi and still is considered one of the best ever for sci-fi. Guys like Philip K Dick was inspired by Asmimov as were a whole other slew of great and well know sci-fi writers.

I read a lot of sci-fi when I was young, including Asimov, but not Foundations.

[GostHacked]

You're talking about a centralized money system, not a money system. There were possessions before there was money.

True, but now you need a receipt to prove that it is your possession.

I would argue that they're trying desperately to catch up to new ways of communicating that are outside their control, ie. distributed technology. If we say that the NSA monitors email is proof that they have control, then the factor we're missing is the relative newness of email, texts and so-on, which can be decentralized technologies.

Email and texts are both centralized and decentralized. Centralized in ways of one data center that hosts your email. Decentralized in the sense that this information is duplicated across two or more datacenters. A load balancer would determine if any server is busy and get you on to the one with less traffic. Once that is done, the other datacenters are updated with this new information for replication. It's how Yahoo works, it's how Google and Youtube work.

Excellent example, of why I think you're wrong that is. A Snowden wouldn't have been able to exist in the 1960s, he would have just defected or would have disappeared and been completely censored.

But we did have whistle blowers in the 60s. But you are right, they can disappear. In terms of the Internet , censorship is easier as you can adjust multiple articles across multiple sites with new information.

Along with censorship you have some calling for his head. And those are Pentagon officials. I think that it is becoming more difficult for the powers that be to control the message simply because people are starting to seek out the real facts. What we get mostly from the MSM and even much of the 'alternative' media are distractions. So you can manipulate society into thinking that the leaks from Snowden are traitorous.

The last discussion I had about the technology ended when I explained that it would be possible for the government to provide target searches to service providers, and therefore get what they wanted without having 'all' of the data.

There is enough data in metadata to essentially BE the data. This is a point I keep stressing.

I think understanding the technology is likely not as important as understanding the history of technology, which is not as important as deconstructing the sense ratios of the extensions of man over time.

Sure understanding the history of it is all good too. But you need to understand how the technology is applied and what it actually does in order to have a sense of the impact it has on society and how it is being used on us as a method of control.

Well, I don't like to mix my futurism with moralizing, but I'll say that I understand what you're saying here.

You already brought moralizing into it by questioning the motives and notions of futurists. Moralizing it does need to come into play in order to properly apply technologies that can harm us as well as help us.

You seem to be saying it will crush under its own weight while saying that we missed a chance to rein them in. I am having trouble reconciling those two sentences: why did we 'miss the chance' if it's all going to crash anyway ? I'm trying to follow ...

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. Sure it may crush under it's own wieght, but in the meantime this is a beast that needs to be dealt with head on. If we don't do it this time, when will we ever do it? The government counts on people to be complacent and feel marginalized. Defeatist notions like 'what ya gonna do', or 'it is what it is'.

Let's deal with it before it implodes and causes more damage than what it is doing now.

I read a lot of sci-fi when I was young, including Asimov, but not Foundations.

Another one I highly recommend

Quarantine, - Greg Egan.

[Michael Hardner]

True, but now you need a receipt to prove that it is your possession.

I don't have receipts for my posessions. 9/10 of the law and all that.

Email and texts are both centralized and decentralized.

Yes, you are right.

In terms of the Internet , censorship is easier as you can adjust multiple articles across multiple sites with new information.

...

I think that it is becoming more difficult for the powers that be to control the message simply because people are starting to seek out the real facts.

Now - how can you resolve those two sentences ? Censorship is more difficult today, because every citizen is potentially a website.

There is enough data in metadata to essentially BE the data. This is a point I keep stressing.

Ok. I agree with that - and I think the term 'metadata' is just a smokescreen designed to get another 1 or 2 percentage points of poll support.

Sure understanding the history of it is all good too. But you need to understand how the technology is applied and what it actually does in order to have a sense of the impact it has on society and how it is being used on us as a method of control.

Disagree. The technologists are the fish, the technology is the water, and social theorists are looking at the fishbowl.

You already brought moralizing into it by questioning the motives and notions of futurists.

I'm not against moralizing in general, but if you're doing analysis of cause and effects it is only confusing to add that element.

Moralizing it does need to come into play in order to properly apply technologies that can harm us as well as help us.

McLuhan had a whole part of 'Understanding Media' that criticized that mindset, ie. that technology can be applied with an understanding of its effects. Phio Farnsworth, credited with the invention of television, couldn't have understood that he was providing the battleground for the success of the civil rights movement decades down the line.

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. Sure it may crush under it's own wieght, but in the meantime this is a beast that needs to be dealt with head on. If we don't do it this time, when will we ever do it? The government counts on people to be complacent and feel marginalized. Defeatist notions like 'what ya gonna do', or 'it is what it is'.

Let's deal with it before it implodes and causes more damage than what it is doing now.

Ok, but if it's tipping over already, it's not that hard for people to just give in a final push.

[GostHacked]

I don't have receipts for my posessions. 9/10 of the law and all that.

Unless your home/car is paid for, then you really don't own them. But in the case of a home, it can be taken away for many reasons, mostly eminent domain type deal.

Now - how can you resolve those two sentences ? Censorship is more difficult today, because every citizen is potentially a website.

We can look at examples like North Korea, and China on how things are censored and controlled. Take a look over the past few years where the Internet has went dark in some countries during the Arab spring. Egypt's Internet capacity for some time was either non existent or very very low.

Censorship can happen on a large scale on the Internet. Google does it all the time with how it determines page importance. You can pay to have your page show up at the top. Google's algorithms are extensive and wide reaching.

I admin on another site, and several times the site has been classified by google as a 'security risk site'. When it is on a hosting platform company that many other sites use. So what better way to scare someone off from some real information with telling them that the site may give them a virus.

The attempt with Google+ and moving comments from Youtube to Google+ has caused many great issues. I have seen posts on my videos disappear and then come back when I inquired about it.

Ok. I agree with that - and I think the term 'metadata' is just a smokescreen designed to get another 1 or 2 percentage points of poll support.

I agree there, but it goes back to understanding the technology. At first many could not believe that the spy agencies cloud tap into your phone whenever they wish. I was told it was impossible and that the government is benevolent. Now you know different.

Disagree. The technologists are the fish, the technology is the water, and social theorists are looking at the fishbowl.

As they should be. How else can you observe and not interfere if you are in the bowl?

I'm not against moralizing in general, but if you're doing analysis of cause and effects it is only confusing to add that element.

McLuhan had a whole part of 'Understanding Media' that criticized that mindset, ie. that technology can be applied with an understanding of its effects. Phio Farnsworth, credited with the invention of television, couldn't have understood that he was providing the battleground for the success of the civil rights movement decades down the line.

And as a means to keep people docile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 – March 9, 1995) was an Austrian-American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations".[1] He combined the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud.

He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the 'herd instinct' that Trotter had described.[2] Adam Curtis's award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self, pinpoints Bernays as the originator of modern public relations, and Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine.[3]

....

Stunned by the degree to which the democracy slogan had swayed the public both at home and abroad, he wondered whether this propaganda model could be employed during peacetime. Due to negative implications surrounding the word propaganda because of its use by the Germans in World War I, he promoted the term "Public Relations".[6] According to the BBC interview with Bernays's daughter Anne, Bernays felt that the public's democratic judgment was "not to be relied upon" and he feared that "they [the American public] could very easily vote for the wrong man or want the wrong thing, so that they had to be guided from above". This "guidance" was interpreted by Anne to mean that her father believed in a sort of "enlightened despotism" ideology.[7]

Ok, but if it's tipping over already, it's not that hard for people to just give in a final push.

People are not prepare for what comes after. They are comfortable with the current system as it is all they know. Take any part of that away and you have anxiety and fear because of the fear of the unknown. So many would rather stay in a bad system that they know. The devil you do know and the devil you don't know.

The thing a lot of those people do not understand is that the power lies with them, the people and not the governments. We've been conditioned in some sense to fear the government and to think we cannot make change for the better. Pessimism has been conditioned into us. The ones that are out protesting are the ones who managed to break conditioning to stand up and say something.

[Michael Hardner]

We can look at examples like North Korea, and China on how things are censored and controlled. Take a look over the past few years where the Internet has went dark in some countries during the Arab spring. Egypt's Internet capacity for some time was either non existent or very very low.

That only justifies one of the sentences I questioned, I think. They don't resolve to each other.

At first many could not believe that the spy agencies cloud tap into your phone whenever they wish. I was told it was impossible and that the government is benevolent. Now you know different.

I wouldn't state that the government is benevolent or malevolent.

And as a means to keep people docile.

Your statement both agrees with and disagrees with my point at the same time. Which is it ?

The thing a lot of those people do not understand is that the power lies with them, the people and not the governments. We've been conditioned in some sense to fear the government and to think we cannot make change for the better. Pessimism has been conditioned into us. The ones that are out protesting are the ones who managed to break conditioning to stand up and say something.

Power is channeled. If something changes the current system, it will need someone to stand up and make a case for it, and convince others of the need for, and the benefits for change. It will only happen if enough people talk about what such a change looks like, which is what I focus on with my blogs and my posts.

[GostHacked]

Your statement both agrees with and disagrees with my point at the same time. Which is it ?

Both, it's a duality that exists at the same time. Some of us are in one state, some in the other.

Power is channeled. If something changes the current system, it will need someone to stand up and make a case for it, and convince others of the need for, and the benefits for change. It will only happen if enough people talk about what such a change looks like, which is what I focus on with my blogs and my posts.

Power is channeled via money. Don't expect to run for POTUS without spending about 1 billion for your campaign. I am sure it is the same through out the world. Money is power and those who have the money channel the power for their benefit. Not for the benefit of you or me.

[Michael Hardner]

Both, it's a duality that exists at the same time. Some of us are in one state, some in the other.

You're talking about something else entirely. I'm not even sure you're still on the same point here.

The question that we're steadily drifting away from is the extent to which technology is "applied" to human activity, and the resulting chaotic changes and problems in society that eventually occur.

Television wasn't created to control the masses, and even if the powers that be tried to use it to do so then the 1960s showed that it was impossible for them to succeed.

The point which you don't seem to be getting is that the major effects of media are largely unknowable. But then again, you do seem to acknowledge those points somewhat as well.

I'm just going to move on from this point, though, because your habit of agreeing then trying to provide a counter example is just too confusing for me to follow. My apologies.

Power is channeled via money. Don't expect to run for POTUS without spending about 1 billion for your campaign. I am sure it is the same through out the world. Money is power and those who have the money channel the power for their benefit. Not for the benefit of you or me.

This point is pedestrian. The more interesting question is about the factors that make power more or less attainable for those who want to purchase it. What makes power expensive today, for example - do you have an idea here ?

[Bonam]

This point is pedestrian. The more interesting question is about the factors that make power more or less attainable for those who want to purchase it. What makes power expensive today, for example - do you have an idea here ?

The same thing that always makes power (or anything) expensive... scarcity, that is, supply and demand. Most everyone wants power, but power is the ability to influence/control the lives of others, so by definition not everyone can have it. Therefore when it comes to power, there is always much more demand than supply.

[Michael Hardner]

The same thing that always makes power (or anything) expensive... scarcity, that is, supply and demand. Most everyone wants power, but power is the ability to influence/control the lives of others, so by definition not everyone can have it. Therefore when it comes to power, there is always much more demand than supply.

Ok, well - to lead you down the path to the answer then ... power comes from winning elections, which comes from convincing people to vote for you in a fair system. There's no change in scarcity for opinions, or for power. So what affects the price ?

[eyeball]

Ok, well - to lead you down the path to the answer then ... power comes from winning elections, which comes from convincing people to vote for you in a fair system. There's no change in scarcity for opinions, or for power. So what affects the price ?

Access. Opinions are a dime a dozen compared to access.

Edited February 18, 2014 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

Access. Opinions are a dime a dozen compared to access.

Agreed, and this is where I'm going with this. The advertising industry is in tumult because the channels to access are dissolving under their feet. Attack ads and network news reach an older demographic, and the new access is digital - advertising through social media, YouTube and so on.

That changes the game in many ways.

For one, we're now reaching smaller slices of influence, not broad audiences. It may mean that we're talking about issues in that medium, and not impressions. It also means that a campaign has to have points to address those small audiences.

What else ?

[Michael Hardner]

How about this - give me an issue or two that would have a great online audience, enough to force real change against millions of dollars of television ad funding.

The US bill restricting internet access (last year?) was one of those.