Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Technocracy 2.0

brooklynrail.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Technocracy 2.0

#41

Post by jhbadger »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #37

This piece totally misreads the temperament of actual builders imo. The author confuses a malicious will to power with a genuine, if sometimes naive, optimism that code/crypto can solve human coordination problems.

I think both things can be true simultaneously. Like in the Russian Revolution, there can be a mass of people motivated by a sincere, if naive, optimism in a new way to organize society, but they can get used by people like Lenin and Stalin who were primarily motivated by their thirst for power.

Re: Technocracy 2.0

#42

Post by direwolf20 »

mullingitover wrote: post #34
direwolf20 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this in some cities. They are very clean looking, no litter, no graffiti, very shiny windows. Then you think about how the people must be treated to make this be true.

> Then you think about how the people must be treated to make this be true. People who have all their needs met (food and safety, social, etc) tend to want to make the world around them better. I would wager the nice looking places are more likely to have well-treated people. Places that look like dumps are the ones more likely to be populated by people who are treated poorly.

unrealistic expectation. The city is hyper–clean because anyone who litters is shot.

Re: Technocracy 2.0

#43

Post by anigbrowl »

direwolf20 wrote: post #42
mullingitover wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then you think about how the people must be treated to make this be true. People who have all their needs met (food and safety, social, etc) tend to want to make the world around them better. I would wager the nice looking places are more likely to have well-treated people. Places that look like dumps are the ones more likely to be populated by people who are treated poorly.

unrealistic expectation. The city is hyper–clean because anyone who litters is shot.

Can you be more specific? I guess you're talking about some place like one of the central Asian republics?

Re: Technocracy 2.0

#44

Post by pixl97 »

irishcoffee wrote: post #31
servo_sausage wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarianism doesn't mesh well with reality; the government doing less is part of it, but it also requires a way for people to efficiently protect their property. So you get to a point where mass surveillance is justified by the anti-crime angle; there is no contradiction, libertarianism logic where you can live and let live requires no crime...

> Libertarianism doesn't mesh well with reality; the government doing less is part of it, but it also requires a way for people to efficiently protect their property. > So you get to a point where mass surveillance is justified by the anti-crime angle; there is no contradiction, libertarianism logic where you can live and let live requires no crime... Whatever technical definition of Libertarianism you're using is ve…

>technical definition of Libertarianism

You see, that's the great thing about Libertarinaism, it can be whatever you want, and when there's something you don't like you go "but that's not real Libertarianism"

Re: Technocracy 2.0

#45

Post by pixl97 »

irishcoffee wrote: post #32
like_any_other wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I ask myself every time I hear that Thiel is a "libertarian" _while also_ being the founder of the biggest surveillance dragnet ever created: what about surveillance is libertarian? Surveillance does not directly violate the non-aggression principle, and a myopic adherence to minimal principles without any consideration to where they lead is the central feature of libertarianism.

> a myopic adherence to minimal principles without any consideration to where they lead is the central feature of libertarianism. Your definition, maybe. Redefining that idea and assuming it is accepted as fact is a touch arrogant.

Libertarianism itself it a touch arrogant.

Re: Technocracy 2.0

#47

Post by MattGrommes »

throwway120385 wrote: post #16
nahuel0x wrote: post #9

Technocracy had both socialist proponents like Charles Steinmetz and also anti-communists racists/fascists like Joshua Haldeman (Elon Musk grandfather). In some ways technocracy is the acknowledging of the necessity of economy planning to transcend capitalism but without taking into account class struggle. That way, it can be seen like a good-willed engineer dream that doesn't wants to face social reality or thinks s…

> I think this new version is the latter case, a bad rehearsal used as a veil of the ascent of fascism in the States. I've found over time that one man's utopia is another's hellish nightmare. This is true of every utopia and should be a pretty strong argument against implementing them at all.

The origins of the word utopia are exactly that idea. The original books about utopias almost all showed the negative heart at the center of the idea.

Re: Technocracy 2.0

#48

Post by phs318u »

jhbadger wrote: post #41
lawrenceyan wrote: post #37

This piece totally misreads the temperament of actual builders imo. The author confuses a malicious will to power with a genuine, if sometimes naive, optimism that code/crypto can solve human coordination problems.

I think both things can be true simultaneously. Like in the Russian Revolution, there can be a mass of people motivated by a sincere, if naive, optimism in a new way to organize society, but they can get used by people like Lenin and Stalin who were primarily motivated by their thirst for power.

No idea why you're getting downvoted. That's exactly how it played out. Though the "mass of people" rapidly lost their naivete.

Re: Technocracy 2.0

#49

Post by um1 »

direwolf20 wrote: post #30
throwway120385 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this new version is the latter case, a bad rehearsal used as a veil of the ascent of fascism in the States. I've found over time that one man's utopia is another's hellish nightmare. This is true of every utopia and should be a pretty strong argument against implementing them at all.

I see this in some cities. They are very clean looking, no litter, no graffiti, very shiny windows. Then you think about how the people must be treated to make this be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

TLDR; they built a mouse utopia universe 25 with plenty of food water and space . Eventually some grew violent, others sat and groomed themselves all day, they stopped breeding and died out.

Re: Technocracy 2.0

#50

Post by bigstrat2003 »

direwolf20 wrote: post #33
irishcoffee wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Libertarianism doesn't mesh well with reality; the government doing less is part of it, but it also requires a way for people to efficiently protect their property. > So you get to a point where mass surveillance is justified by the anti-crime angle; there is no contradiction, libertarianism logic where you can live and let live requires no crime... Whatever technical definition of Libertarianism you're using is ve…

It does if you don't want a worse privately owned government. Either the government will stop crime, or Palantir and the Pinkertons will stop anything they seem to be crime, or there never was any crime.

No it doesn't. Libertarianism is just fine with the government working to prevent crimes. That is one of the main roles libertarians feel the government should fulfill!
Post reply on HN