I posed myself the question this afternoon: what is my greatest fear? Reflexively the hideous word 'technocracy" was my first thought. But then the state's monopoly on violence, which has been a long-standing prime fear of mine, came back hot on the heels of technocracy, because were it not for its unmatchable capacity for violence, it would not be able to impose technocracy on us, or if it did, we'd soon wreck it and them as well.
I think I've said it before, or similar, and even if I have, I'll say it again: I believe your commentary is some of the most perceptive, and most important given that technocracy will be all pervasive and all encompassing. Whether it succeeds or not, almost certainly we'll all have to deal with it in one way or another, or many.
"If blockchain technology was waiting in the wings to liberate us all, there would be much more encouraging figures."
There really seems one and only one sensible application for blockchain, and that application is inextricably tied to Bitcoin.
A quote from Saifedean Ammous' book of 2018, The Bitcoin Standard:
"For any trusted third party carrying out payments, trading, or record-keeping, the blockchain is an extremely costly and inefficient technology to utilize. A non‐Bitcoin blockchain combines the worst of both worlds: the cumbersome structure of the blockchain with the cost and security risk of trusted third parties. It is no wonder that eight years after its invention, blockchain technology has not yet managed to break through in a successful, ready‐for‐market commercial application other than the one for which it was specifically designed: Bitcoin."
"Whether it succeeds or not, almost certainly we'll all have to deal with it in one way or another, or many."
To me this is the most important point. The technocracy isn't a far-flung hypothetical risk, it's already here in various forms. A lot of important ground has already been ceded to top-down technological control, which is why I think it is so crucial to accurately assess the wide variety of negative impacts these tools have on people's lives.
I am the furthest thing from "we just have to never use tech again" but you can't argue against that be blindly ignoring all the incredibly concerning points that camp raises.
You're reading my mind again, Gabriel. Keep that up! I've been ruminating on an episode called Flim Flam Scams looking at all the ways we're left vulnerable and end up blaming ourselves for being fools, rather than blaming the system that fails to protect us. I'll save the many stories for that.
Here's my take on the problem. When people use the word 'decentralize,' they think of the individual level. But that's clearly not possible. To set up a global network of individuals is centralized by definition, even if that's by a technology that's programmed by someone. The Intranet that I'd like to see is one that exists only in my commonwealth of 10-30K people and doesn't allow commercial sites. The responsibility of that Intranet is to protect its members freedom of information and communication while networking with other Intranets to identify scams.
When scams are identified, their commonwealth location is notified and given the opportunity to remedy the situation. If repeated scams come from there, and the surrounding commonwealths, Intranets may choose to ban the whole region or prevent any financial transactions.
Things are changing so fast, I don't think there's any way to protect ourselves as individuals. And do you want to be the last person with a lifeboat when the Titanic sinks? What a horrible way to live. I agree that we need to change the systems, economic and technological. Thanks, Gabe.
I wrote this post partly because I've been frustrated by the false dichotomy between cryptocurrency & CBDC. I hope to revisit that topic head-on and I realized that I may need to quote your book "How to Dismantle an Empire" precisely because I see network states / hypertokenization as the digitization of open-bid empires.
This took me a long time to learn, but I've realized that it's people's very (natural) desire to feel "safe" is what's weaponized against them. Not merely their empathy, greed, or rage, but that people's own desire for self-preservation is twisted into self-harm by opportunists and tyrants alike. It's wild just how differently many schemes look when one accepts that they'll never be able to guarantee the "safe" the mind craves.
I was just pushing back against Kevin Barrett who said women had power in Morocco because they determined who could marry who. I said that power is property. And I think the phrase 'Home is where the heart is' fits right in with 'You will own nothing and be owned by us.' If we don't have homes, we don't own our lives.
The problem is most people (a) don't know what technocracy is or means. And (b) even if you did explain it to them they would think "wow that sounds so convenient and easy".
Edit: we need to offer alternatives that are just as simple, just as easy, just as convenient, and just as popular.
I posed myself the question this afternoon: what is my greatest fear? Reflexively the hideous word 'technocracy" was my first thought. But then the state's monopoly on violence, which has been a long-standing prime fear of mine, came back hot on the heels of technocracy, because were it not for its unmatchable capacity for violence, it would not be able to impose technocracy on us, or if it did, we'd soon wreck it and them as well.
I think I've said it before, or similar, and even if I have, I'll say it again: I believe your commentary is some of the most perceptive, and most important given that technocracy will be all pervasive and all encompassing. Whether it succeeds or not, almost certainly we'll all have to deal with it in one way or another, or many.
"If blockchain technology was waiting in the wings to liberate us all, there would be much more encouraging figures."
There really seems one and only one sensible application for blockchain, and that application is inextricably tied to Bitcoin.
A quote from Saifedean Ammous' book of 2018, The Bitcoin Standard:
"For any trusted third party carrying out payments, trading, or record-keeping, the blockchain is an extremely costly and inefficient technology to utilize. A non‐Bitcoin blockchain combines the worst of both worlds: the cumbersome structure of the blockchain with the cost and security risk of trusted third parties. It is no wonder that eight years after its invention, blockchain technology has not yet managed to break through in a successful, ready‐for‐market commercial application other than the one for which it was specifically designed: Bitcoin."
I really appreciate your encouragement!
"Whether it succeeds or not, almost certainly we'll all have to deal with it in one way or another, or many."
To me this is the most important point. The technocracy isn't a far-flung hypothetical risk, it's already here in various forms. A lot of important ground has already been ceded to top-down technological control, which is why I think it is so crucial to accurately assess the wide variety of negative impacts these tools have on people's lives.
I am the furthest thing from "we just have to never use tech again" but you can't argue against that be blindly ignoring all the incredibly concerning points that camp raises.
You're reading my mind again, Gabriel. Keep that up! I've been ruminating on an episode called Flim Flam Scams looking at all the ways we're left vulnerable and end up blaming ourselves for being fools, rather than blaming the system that fails to protect us. I'll save the many stories for that.
Here's my take on the problem. When people use the word 'decentralize,' they think of the individual level. But that's clearly not possible. To set up a global network of individuals is centralized by definition, even if that's by a technology that's programmed by someone. The Intranet that I'd like to see is one that exists only in my commonwealth of 10-30K people and doesn't allow commercial sites. The responsibility of that Intranet is to protect its members freedom of information and communication while networking with other Intranets to identify scams.
When scams are identified, their commonwealth location is notified and given the opportunity to remedy the situation. If repeated scams come from there, and the surrounding commonwealths, Intranets may choose to ban the whole region or prevent any financial transactions.
Things are changing so fast, I don't think there's any way to protect ourselves as individuals. And do you want to be the last person with a lifeboat when the Titanic sinks? What a horrible way to live. I agree that we need to change the systems, economic and technological. Thanks, Gabe.
Seems like the mind-reading is going two-ways!
Local intranets are a crucial tool that are frustratingly absent from the discussion.
I can't tell if it's just apathy or defeatism but I tried to reintroduce the topic In Operation Hearth. (https://libresolutionsnetwork.substack.com/p/operation-hearth)
I wrote this post partly because I've been frustrated by the false dichotomy between cryptocurrency & CBDC. I hope to revisit that topic head-on and I realized that I may need to quote your book "How to Dismantle an Empire" precisely because I see network states / hypertokenization as the digitization of open-bid empires.
This took me a long time to learn, but I've realized that it's people's very (natural) desire to feel "safe" is what's weaponized against them. Not merely their empathy, greed, or rage, but that people's own desire for self-preservation is twisted into self-harm by opportunists and tyrants alike. It's wild just how differently many schemes look when one accepts that they'll never be able to guarantee the "safe" the mind craves.
Well if you MUST quote my book, you MUST ;-)
Operation Hearth is a great name. We think alike again: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/home-is-where-the-hearth-is.
I was just pushing back against Kevin Barrett who said women had power in Morocco because they determined who could marry who. I said that power is property. And I think the phrase 'Home is where the heart is' fits right in with 'You will own nothing and be owned by us.' If we don't have homes, we don't own our lives.
The problem is most people (a) don't know what technocracy is or means. And (b) even if you did explain it to them they would think "wow that sounds so convenient and easy".
Edit: we need to offer alternatives that are just as simple, just as easy, just as convenient, and just as popular.