Of course that is why we advocate literally almost every single article, that we need to build our own tools - specifically high trust systems - to fix this. A violent revolution is not ethical if a non violent way is possible. Subversion works a lot better if we organize against it.
Revolution is not something generally done at a keyboard. Sure it can make changes faster but it causes a lot of harm.
Like the Author suggests it would make a lot more sense to prepare replacements systems, in advance is better, so that should a revolution occur they would be in place to continue civil society and not have to spend decades digging our way out of the wild west.
Very few people are prepared or even desirous to live in a world where in a few hundred km radius around every derelict nuclear power station there is a Chernobyl style exclusion zone for thousands of years simply because the revolution damaged the power grid.
Spent nuclear fuel needs water storage baths for 300 years for the most active elements to decay. If the fuel is trapped inside a reactor then the cooling water has to be continuously circulated. Failure in this can cause thermal meltdown and volatile escape, ground water contamination or even pressure vessel explosions.
We do not want civil society to collapse and this is not part of any rational plan.
Think of the wild west where the law is at the end of the barrel of a gun, no more internet.
I would rather that enough alternate systems were designed, tested and prepared so that people can see an ALTERNATIVE exists and moving over to the alternative the legacy systems become ineffectual.
While bitcoin may not be the final answer it highlights the real choke point in power/control that the fake/fiat currency has on society.
I don't think the system can be de-corrupted. As long as you still have government where they are the masters and the public are the slaves, corruption will rear its ugly head. That is because there will be no remedy for the masters as they will all be corrupted by the system that allows them to be.
I don't think we would function well being leaderless, but I think the leaders should change every 6 months or a year. Maybe one person from the old group stay on in the new group for continuity.
What is this based on? Have you seen a leaderless system run? What about one simply guided by the people? At the very least shouldn't the representatives know what we the people actually think? We can at the very least aggregate that.
my thinking is based on leaderless groups that I have been part of. In the end someone ended up taking the leadership role and not always for the better. I prefer that the leadership role be consciously chosen by whoever is being led. I do think it is important that representatives know what we the people actually think. Representatives should actually be part of we the people with the leadership role being temporary.
These questions are in reference to the leaderless group you are in already, Susan. Also thank you for the response.
Your simple idea of the representatives should know what the people think is exactly right. We need to show them on a system. A high trust, transparent and decentralized system. A system that starts with the problem then we all use creativity and experience and conjectures to try to solve the problem in a group. This makes the system almost impossible to corrupt. (The system we are building is a collective intelligence system and you can read more at SwarmAcademy.ai).
Also we can do confidence scores. We can come up with answers and be like “we the people - all 200 million of us on this platform - think this is the best solution with a 97% confidence score. So if government doesn’t agree with us then we want to test our theory against the current one and base which system we choose to use going forward based simply on results.”
This is how government should work everywhere. Results based. Transparent and decentralized and therefore trustworthy (don’t trust, verify). And willing to allow changes to the system and error correction and the ability for new competing theories to arise. But the most important ingredient here is the direction flow of the solutions. They can no longer come from the top-down. We the people need to be part of the solution. From the bottom up. Harnessing the most powerful force in the known universe: collective intelligence and collective imagination
What system are you using to aggregate answers from the crowd? How has the crowd been trained to work as a collective intelligence team? What is the code that the leaderless group adheres to? What is the epistemology of the group when they go to solve problems or make decisions - what is the order of problem solving operations? What is the best way to solve a problem - what type of solution is the group usually looking for?
If you cannot answer these questions then it wasn’t being done right. You should ask the group if they are open to using an app to help run the group. Then we can send one of our coaches over to teach the group how to swarm properly
These are all great ideas in an ideal world, but they would put many people off being part of such a group and then not much would ever get done. There are probably several best ways to solve most problems. Most of the time, it is just necessary to chose a way and get on with it.
You cannot fix a broken system with its own broken tools. Participation is perpetuation. Only subversion or revolution are ethical.
Of course that is why we advocate literally almost every single article, that we need to build our own tools - specifically high trust systems - to fix this. A violent revolution is not ethical if a non violent way is possible. Subversion works a lot better if we organize against it.
Haven't you ever heard 'the pen is mightier than the sword'?
Revolution is not something generally done at a keyboard. Sure it can make changes faster but it causes a lot of harm.
Like the Author suggests it would make a lot more sense to prepare replacements systems, in advance is better, so that should a revolution occur they would be in place to continue civil society and not have to spend decades digging our way out of the wild west.
Very few people are prepared or even desirous to live in a world where in a few hundred km radius around every derelict nuclear power station there is a Chernobyl style exclusion zone for thousands of years simply because the revolution damaged the power grid.
Spent nuclear fuel needs water storage baths for 300 years for the most active elements to decay. If the fuel is trapped inside a reactor then the cooling water has to be continuously circulated. Failure in this can cause thermal meltdown and volatile escape, ground water contamination or even pressure vessel explosions.
We do not want civil society to collapse and this is not part of any rational plan.
Think of the wild west where the law is at the end of the barrel of a gun, no more internet.
I would rather that enough alternate systems were designed, tested and prepared so that people can see an ALTERNATIVE exists and moving over to the alternative the legacy systems become ineffectual.
While bitcoin may not be the final answer it highlights the real choke point in power/control that the fake/fiat currency has on society.
nailed it just on the headline alone.
Terrific videos.
I don't think the system can be de-corrupted. As long as you still have government where they are the masters and the public are the slaves, corruption will rear its ugly head. That is because there will be no remedy for the masters as they will all be corrupted by the system that allows them to be.
In a decentralized system there are no rulers, only rules.
Rules = Agreements. Like a contract with each other?
I don't think we would function well being leaderless, but I think the leaders should change every 6 months or a year. Maybe one person from the old group stay on in the new group for continuity.
What is this based on? Have you seen a leaderless system run? What about one simply guided by the people? At the very least shouldn't the representatives know what we the people actually think? We can at the very least aggregate that.
my thinking is based on leaderless groups that I have been part of. In the end someone ended up taking the leadership role and not always for the better. I prefer that the leadership role be consciously chosen by whoever is being led. I do think it is important that representatives know what we the people actually think. Representatives should actually be part of we the people with the leadership role being temporary.
These questions are in reference to the leaderless group you are in already, Susan. Also thank you for the response.
Your simple idea of the representatives should know what the people think is exactly right. We need to show them on a system. A high trust, transparent and decentralized system. A system that starts with the problem then we all use creativity and experience and conjectures to try to solve the problem in a group. This makes the system almost impossible to corrupt. (The system we are building is a collective intelligence system and you can read more at SwarmAcademy.ai).
Also we can do confidence scores. We can come up with answers and be like “we the people - all 200 million of us on this platform - think this is the best solution with a 97% confidence score. So if government doesn’t agree with us then we want to test our theory against the current one and base which system we choose to use going forward based simply on results.”
This is how government should work everywhere. Results based. Transparent and decentralized and therefore trustworthy (don’t trust, verify). And willing to allow changes to the system and error correction and the ability for new competing theories to arise. But the most important ingredient here is the direction flow of the solutions. They can no longer come from the top-down. We the people need to be part of the solution. From the bottom up. Harnessing the most powerful force in the known universe: collective intelligence and collective imagination
Ah - "The Internet State" - Balaji? (I always struggled with his name)
What system are you using to aggregate answers from the crowd? How has the crowd been trained to work as a collective intelligence team? What is the code that the leaderless group adheres to? What is the epistemology of the group when they go to solve problems or make decisions - what is the order of problem solving operations? What is the best way to solve a problem - what type of solution is the group usually looking for?
If you cannot answer these questions then it wasn’t being done right. You should ask the group if they are open to using an app to help run the group. Then we can send one of our coaches over to teach the group how to swarm properly
These are all great ideas in an ideal world, but they would put many people off being part of such a group and then not much would ever get done. There are probably several best ways to solve most problems. Most of the time, it is just necessary to chose a way and get on with it.
There are those of us who refuse to "app" at all. Ever.
For example.