What you describe is in many ways what we are already living through. Witness local councils being unable to stop the government from building all over their green fields.
And during the Covid 19 saga, there was lot of moral pressure to do the 'right thing'. Technology will only facilitate the plans that have been around for a long time.
I find it stifling but am interested in your comment "In contrast, a cybernetically-managed governance system would continuously self-correct, adjusting policies in real-time based on algorithmic predictions of dissent". Does that mean that if enough of us dissent, they will change their plans? Or just bide their time and manipulate opinion?
> Does that mean that if enough of us dissent, they will change their plans
well, that depends on how far the implementation has advanced. if you're stuck in a 15 minute city with CBDCs, a social credit system and so forth, then you've already lost.
Great analysis, as always. Global techies and billionaires trying to increase their control, aim their 'ethics' at middle classes, the salaried and literate. They are oblivious to the lives, needs and reality of the very poor, the resource-diggers, the illiterate and powerless. That is why their plans will come to nothing; the middle classes don't agree to being bossed about and the very poor are outside the 'ethics' paradigm.
De Chardin's Omega point sounds like the promised Workers Paradise which resorts to force when it does not come as promised. So give up your agency and be downtrodden forever.
A couple of days ago I asked another Substack author, one whose specialty is ‘narcissism’, who wrote a post about someone who asked her something she didn’t like.
She had commented about knowing the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ leadership or something along those lines.
A commenter asked her
‘How do you define that’
She glitched.
Yet nothing is more important than defining your terms.
oh or hermann cohen's interpretation of the universal moral framework. see, under normal circumstances you'd expect that either you live up to it, or you don't. ergo, your compliance will be somewhere in the 0..1 range, where 1 meant you adhere.
but cohen reframes that to a 'positivistic' ethic, where 0 means compliance, and 'your personality' means >0.
but if you're <0 then you do not adhere to the universal moral framework, and you deserve no rights whatsoever. it's just so insanely deceptive, because if anything, that's definitely no positivistic take.
ie, if you do not adhere to the 'moral obligations' then you deserve no 'human rights'. see how it works?
incidentally, the baha'i have the same concept... and they were the very first to float a 'declaration on rights AND responsibilities' (though framed around obligations)
> No social body, whatever its form, has power to maintain essential human rights for persons who have repudiated their moral obligation and abandoned the divine endowment distinguishing man from beast
What you describe is in many ways what we are already living through. Witness local councils being unable to stop the government from building all over their green fields.
And during the Covid 19 saga, there was lot of moral pressure to do the 'right thing'. Technology will only facilitate the plans that have been around for a long time.
I find it stifling but am interested in your comment "In contrast, a cybernetically-managed governance system would continuously self-correct, adjusting policies in real-time based on algorithmic predictions of dissent". Does that mean that if enough of us dissent, they will change their plans? Or just bide their time and manipulate opinion?
> what we are already living through
yeah i've stressed that repeatedly
> Does that mean that if enough of us dissent, they will change their plans
well, that depends on how far the implementation has advanced. if you're stuck in a 15 minute city with CBDCs, a social credit system and so forth, then you've already lost.
Great analysis, as always. Global techies and billionaires trying to increase their control, aim their 'ethics' at middle classes, the salaried and literate. They are oblivious to the lives, needs and reality of the very poor, the resource-diggers, the illiterate and powerless. That is why their plans will come to nothing; the middle classes don't agree to being bossed about and the very poor are outside the 'ethics' paradigm.
De Chardin's Omega point sounds like the promised Workers Paradise which resorts to force when it does not come as promised. So give up your agency and be downtrodden forever.
oh its rampant scientific socialism. youll eat nothing and be unhappy.
So many words to say something so simple.
People who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
So let me ask the critical question.
What’s your argument against this?
I asked you straight up to cut out your transparent games - and you doubled down.
Muted. You're not wasting my time with your guessing games.
It’s not a game. It’s a simple question.
A couple of days ago I asked another Substack author, one whose specialty is ‘narcissism’, who wrote a post about someone who asked her something she didn’t like.
She had commented about knowing the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ leadership or something along those lines.
A commenter asked her
‘How do you define that’
She glitched.
Yet nothing is more important than defining your terms.
So what are they?
So you mean that it is a lie like owning nothing (including yourself) and being happy.
well, usually i assume whatever they say is an aesopian term.
like "leave no-one behind". it's not that they care. it's that they don't want you to escape the system they have planned for you.
or 'right to a healthy environment', which is prefixed 'regardless of impact on humans'
or 'rights and responsibilities', which broadly means 'you have the responsibility to uphold the collective right of others'
oh or hermann cohen's interpretation of the universal moral framework. see, under normal circumstances you'd expect that either you live up to it, or you don't. ergo, your compliance will be somewhere in the 0..1 range, where 1 meant you adhere.
but cohen reframes that to a 'positivistic' ethic, where 0 means compliance, and 'your personality' means >0.
but if you're <0 then you do not adhere to the universal moral framework, and you deserve no rights whatsoever. it's just so insanely deceptive, because if anything, that's definitely no positivistic take.
ie, if you do not adhere to the 'moral obligations' then you deserve no 'human rights'. see how it works?
incidentally, the baha'i have the same concept... and they were the very first to float a 'declaration on rights AND responsibilities' (though framed around obligations)
https://www.bic.org/statements/bahai-declaration-human-obligations-and-rights?utm_source=chatgpt.com
> No social body, whatever its form, has power to maintain essential human rights for persons who have repudiated their moral obligation and abandoned the divine endowment distinguishing man from beast