Re: Algorithmic / Biometric Governmentality

2017-11-03 Thread charlie derr
On 11/02/2017 02:00 PM, Vincent Van Uffelen wrote:
> Hmm, their team is a prime example of white, male, and non-diverse
> "singularity".
>
> Are blockchain ICOs really spreading the control and wealth to the
> many? It's difficult to know, but considering the hurdles that have to
> be crossed to be able to gain access to the blockchain (to have
> internet access, a credit card or bank account, the knowledge and
> desire, and the money to invest) the vast majority of wealth generated
> went most likely into the pockets of the global top 2%. I've my doubt
> that much of this will start trickling down.
>
> If the COIN has not the tackling of problems to the greater good in it
> genes, pardon me contracts, it will most likely not happen. Of course
> the platforms in creation could be very helpful (as Facebook is for
> many NGOs) but I don't have hope that the free coin markets will steer
> things into better places than the free financial markets did.
>
> \\vincent

Vincent,

Your first point is well taken. I try to keep my eyes open to these
things whenever I can, but apparently the fact that I am myself a white
male helped to blind me to the reality you pointed out in this respect.
While I'm aware of women and PoC playing roles in the project, it is
definitely a fact that the founders all appear to be white men (albeit
from a diverse collection of geographical locations). Thank you very
much for bringing this to my attention (and shame on me for not
realizing it on my own).

I don't disagree with your contention about existing ICO blockchains
having a limited effect so far (and most of the benefit being directed
to those who already have the most agency in our societies). But as I
understand the goals of the singularityNET project, I don't see it
operating in that same space. Their aim appears to be to build a
structure that will support individuals who would otherwise be without
the resources to compete with the larger players in the AI universe
(which is the original point you were making that I specifically
responded to). Yes it's true that internet connectivity will be
necessary in order to participate but I have hope that the expressed
goals of the project to provide access and opportunity to folks with
limited means around the world are based on the core values of the
founders rather than being window-dressing cynically used for marketing
purposes. They are certainly seeking investors with deep pockets to help
facilitate the effort but if it succeeds, I think it will provide a
great opportunity for individuals (and groups) with great ideas (in
terms of AI algorithms of potential use to us all) but minimal financial
resources.

The promise that blockchain technology holds in terms of providing
verifiability and transparency as well as it naturally fitting in with
operating in a decentralized way is what excites me about it. The fact
that it originated in the realm of crytocurrency doesn't (in my mind)
condemn it to only ever being used in that arena. While the
singularityNET folks are incorporating a token into their platform, I
don't see it primarily as a cryptocurrency effort. Their stated intent
to open source all their code and the goal to provide an avenue for AI
researchers to gain access to a global market puts them in another (new)
realm (in my opinion).

    be well,
    ~c



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

From Gut to Gaia: The Internet of Things and Earth Repair

2017-11-03 Thread nettime's avid reader
The following text appears in the inaugural edition of Ding, a new
magazine about the Internet and things, published by the Mozilla
Foundation. Ding will be launched at MozFest in London on 27-29 October.


John Thackara

https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/from-gut-to-gaia-the-internet-of-things-and-earth-repair/2017/11/03


On a recent visit to @IAAC in Barcelona, I was charmed by their Smart
Citizen platform that enables citizens to monitor levels of air or noise
pollution around their home or business.

The system connects data, people and knowledge based on their location;
the device’s low power consumption allows it to be placed on balconies
and windowsills where power is provided by a solar panel or battery.

Smart Citizen is just one among a growing array of devices that can
sense everything from the health of a tomato in Brazil, to bacteria in
the stomach of a cow in Perthshire – remotely.

Low-cost sensing technologies allow citizens to assess the state of
distant environments directly. We can also measure oil contamination in
our local river with a smartphone. Thousands of people are monitoring
the air they breathe using Air Quality Eggs.

This innovation is intriguing, but leaves a difficult question
unanswered: Under what circumstances will possession of this data
contribute to the system transformation that we so urgently need?
Info-Eco Scenarios

When we first posed that foundational question at our third Doors of
Perception conference in 1995,  when our theme was “Info-Eco”,
ecological monitoring and remote sensing were the most popular scenarios
to be proposed.

Twenty two years later, the proliferation of tools and platforms is
glorious – but our journey is only half complete. Remote sensing and
monitoring have turned not, on their own, to be agents of system change.

Or not yet. Twenty two years is not that long when compared to the scale
of transformation we are embarked on.

Over centuries, our cultures have been rendered cognitively blind by a
metabolic rift between people and the earth. Paved surfaces, and
pervasive media – developed over generations – now shield us from direct
experience of the damage we’re inflicting on soils, oceans and forests.

This metabolic rift explains how we’re able put the health of ‘the
economy’ above all other concerns. We invest immense effort and
resources in a quest for speed, perfection and control but, because we
inhabit an abstract, digitally diminished world, we’re blind to the true
costs of our activities.

The energy we use  is literally invisible. The destructive impacts
caused by resource extraction are usually felt by other people,
somewhere else.

For the philosopher John Zerzan our planet-wide dissociative mental
state began when we placed language, art, and number above other ways of
knowing the world. Every representation, he argued, both simplifies, and
distances, earthly reality. Our reliance on data underpins a concept of
progress in which embdied, analogue local knowledge is downgraded and
often disregarded.
Vital knowledge

We once knew better. For much of human history, the idea that the world
around us is ‘vital’ was literally common knowledge. Greek philosophers
known as ‘hylozoists’ made no distinction between animate and inanimate,
spirit and matter. Roman sages thought likewise.

In his epic work On The Nature of Things, the poet Lucretius argued that
everything is connected, deep down, in a world of matter and energy.
Chinese philosophers, too, believed that the ultimate reality of the
world is intrinsically connective; in the Tao, everything in the
universe, whether animate or inanimate, is embedded in the continuous
flow and change.

Buddhist texts, too, evoke a universe that’s in a state of ceaseless
movement and connection. And as recently as the seventeenth century, in
Europe, the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza conceived of existence as a
continuum, an inseparable tangle of body, mind, ideas and matter.

The belief that matter matters, so to speak, was then obscured – for two
intense centuries up until about now  – by two developments: the fire
and smoke of the thermo-industrial economy, and, more recently,  by
global communication networks.

Now, as this self-devouring system unravels, the healing idea that that
we are part of a world of living things, not separate from it, is
resurfacing.

This reconnection with suppressed knowledge is not superstitious.
Developments in science are confirming confirm the understanding in
wisdom traditions that no organism is truly autonomous.

In systems thinking and resilience science, and from the study of
sub-microscopic viruses, yeasts, bacteria in our gut, ants, mosses,
lichen, slime moulds and mycorrhizae, trees, rivers and climate systems,
old and new narratives are converging: our planet is a web of
interdependent ecosystems.

These natural phenomena are not only connected; their very essence is to
be in relationship with other things –