Thanks. I was mainly trying to be snarky, but I kind of believe what I said there. I would be interested in the slides.
I like supporting human rights, but part of the issue was summed up by Brecht "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral." If you are starving, a lot of the rights are luxuries. I remember a colleague who was horrified when everyone in Centrafrique was talking about the good old times under the dictator Bokassa. Also, progress is relative in different cultures. I have noted that for many people, it just means maintaining their place in the dominance hierarchy. The USA is a case in point. On 6/3/20 7:12 PM, Robert Mathews (OSIA) wrote: > > On 6/3/20 6:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> Subject: >> Re: [liberationtech] "The Nine Most Terrifying Words In The English >> Language", Pre-dates Reagan... >> From: >> Richard Brooks <[email protected]> >> Date: >> 6/2/20, 1:48 PM >> >> To: >> [email protected] >> >> >> This begs the question as to what a more desirable >> society would be. > > Thank you for making this statement as clearly as you have, Richard. I for > one, appreciate it much! > > >> In reality, our social structures are engineered to >> maintain a primate dominance hierarchy that uses >> signaling of varying kinds (class, monetary worth, >> ethnic group) to determine which group of people >> dominates. > > If I may be permitted, I shall very much like to say the following. > > Your statement above is perhaps the most direct and clarified positional > statement on the human condition that I have heard - in some time. In > our time, the PLAGUE that afflicts the scientific community equally, as > it does others, is the general professional and personal proclivity for > all to be dis-honest in the manner we assess and represent the scope of > our problems, which in turn, widely TAINTS the natures and textures of > the human condition itself. > > Merely to establish context, it is worth noting, that in the past 7 > years, professional research on 'institutional states in future > societies', conducted by me and my team of scientists, have involved > consultations with heads of states; government functionaries; > industrialists; constitutional scholars; scholars & practitioners in > laws; institutional heads of banking/finance; transportation; > utilities; manufacturing; and organizations in other sectors that are > foundational to our societies too. From the extensive consultations > over many years, I have been able to surface ONE rather general > deduction. That is: the future (of functioning systems, broadly) is > less knowable, and therefore, adaptability to variances/stressors is > less possible, than at any time before. > > Less generally, and more specifically, we deduce that societies with > existing structural foci on "Law and Order", exhibit having reached, or > arriving to that juncture of exceeding capability/performance > characteristics; where going forward, the structures that are in place > - could not be expected to meet original purposes. > > Given the intent behind this exchange, a personal thought in this vein > is, that, OUR concentrations (in multiple areas) ought to DRAMATICALLY > shift from maintaining a "Law and Order" focus, to that of "Human & > Individual RIGHTS" based orientations. I emphasized the need for this > in a late 2017 writing > [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12553-017-0211-5 ]. In the > writing, *I had proposed that we think, think HARD, and think > FRUITFULLY* -- along the lines of those crucial principles ( UDHR > https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/UDHRIndex.aspx ) to which UN Member > States subscribed in 1948. > > Yet, during the peer-review process, the value of such a proposition, as > it was presented in the article - was questioned by the reviewers. The > chief complaint was that the UDHR was NOT a legally enforceable > document. Yes, the UDHR is NOT a legal document. However, it IS A > STATEMENT of principles to which UN Member States acceded. That is, and > remains, the basis for collective ACTION today. We should not forget > that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) > and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights > (ICESCR) are derived and delegated legal instruments/agreements that > rose out of the UDHR, and ARE indeed, ENFORCEABLE. Through these > instruments, it is possible to evolve. However, at present, the > questions we must ask are: 1) ARE WE evolving?... 2) WHY NOT, and 3) HOW > do we actively proceed?... > > >> Current technologies are well designed for maintaining >> these structures by advertising the different >> social signals. > > I could NOT AGREE, MORE! *This is so "spot-on"....!* > > In my humble view, this consideration as you have brought to the > surface, remains the RELEVANT challenge before "this group". "WHERE", > "HOW" and "WHAT from", shall an "OFF-RAMP" be designed and implemented, > _which takes us away from_ this PERILOUS highway that we are on, and on > to a dramatically IMPROVED and BENEFICIAL one..... > > >> If anyone has an alternative type of society, I am >> interested. > > Well, I would submit that there is NO SUCH thing as an *NESCAFE'/FOLGERS > - Instant - "alternative"* society that we might manifest.... BUT, an > alternative, CAN, and SHOULD be born. It is hard work! > > The BIGGEST problem that I foresee in this area, was once spotlighted by > Cartoonist Walt Kelly, who said: "we have met the enemy, and he is us" > [ > https://www.worldcat.org/title/pogo-we-have-met-the-enemy-and-he-is-us/oclc/356970 > ] > > We wastefully and cavalierly refer to the phrase "_information age_", > often, and also amplify that we are living in "the information age". > Yet, to the trained and observant eye, what is seen, and significantly > notable (for e.g., in the production areas) is _HOW WE ARE NOT prepared_ > to either live, or work, in the "information age". > > A significant CHUNK of societal problems in the area of > information/information systems' security & privacy, "originate with" > the users of information technology, who are neither adept or proficient > in uses... > > Therefore, ANY alternative society that is conceived and instrumented > MUST build/show a way to SCALE this huge area of difficulty. I > discussed this core problem within a keynote presentation last year, at > a conference in Melbourne, Australia. [ > https://twitter.com/lawtechconf?lang=en / > https://twitter.com/LAWTECHCONF/status/1110788634049945601 ] I am > _happy to SHARE that slide-deck_ with anyone who may have an interest in > the subject. Just let me know, and I shall share a link with you, > individually. > > But, *_we need to collectively work_* on SCALING (climbing-over) this > area of significant insufficiency... > > >> Insect instead of primate? Matriarchy >> leveraging pheromone signals to replace primate >> patriarchy and threats of violence as signals. >> That would be one alternative that we have not >> tried. > > Is it not Robert Fulghum who once wrote, "All I Really Need to Know I > Learned in Kindergarten"? > I was taught very early on, that observing and learning from NATURE, WAS > quite important... :-) > > Thank you, Richard, for your pointed thoughts! > >> =================== R. R. Brooks Professor Holcombe Department of >> Electrical and Computer Engineering Clemson University > -- > -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing [email protected].
