Technocracy: Difference between revisions

Line 30:

But, call to mind [[JC]]’s [[Malmsteen paradox]]:

{{quote|

Just because advances in guitar technology ~~means~~ you ''can'' play 64<sup>th</sup> note flattened Mixolydian arpeggios at 200 beats per minute, this doesn’t mean you ''should''.}}

Just because advances in guitar technology mean you ''can'' play 64<sup>th</sup> note flattened Mixolydian arpeggios at 200 beats per minute, this doesn’t mean you ''should''.}}

Development in network technology — packet switching, routing, the [[end-to-end principle]], [[Substrate-neutral|substrate neutrality]] of data, and latterly machine learning, large language models and so on — made the information transmission needed for centralised decision-making feasible: infinite fidelity, infinite speed, minimal cost.

This did not address substantive concerns that laissez-faire addressed: that the person on the ground was best placed to make difficult decisions whose outcome disproportionately affected her over anyone else, but that was increasingly assumed away: major moral and social questions had finally been resolved — [[The End of History and the Last Man|liberal democracy had won]]! — meaning there ''weren’t'' any moral decisions to be made. There were only practical decisions, but these were in principle soluble by calculation.

The fashion became not [[anthropomorphism|discussing technology in human terms]] as much as [[robomorphism|evaluating humans against technology benchmarks]] and finding the [[meatware]] wanting: humans were, it transpired, irrational, illogical, inconstant, prone to bias, and they took up space, needed holidays and cost a lot of money.

~~s - specifically~~ the ~~rise~~ of ~~networks~~, ~~data collection~~, and ~~algorithms - that made centralized decision-making appear more feasible and efficient than before.~~

In the name of efficiency, everything could be managed by algorithm was assigned to computers, and so it came to pass we were progressively relieved of the inconvenience of making our own decisions.

~~This technological shift created a foundation for increased central control in two ways:~~

~~1. It addressed~~ the ~~practical "capability" problem~~ of ~~central planning (through better monitoring and optimization)~~

2. ~~After the Cold War, there was a belief that major moral questions had been resolved, reducing concerns about centralized moral decision-making~~

The current backlash against this system is different from the 1980s free-market movement. Rather than being led by academics with theoretical arguments about economic efficiency, it's more populist and focused on concrete personal freedoms, especially free speech. This backlash is gaining momentum as people recognize how much individual autonomy has been eroded by technocratic control.

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 But, call to mind [[JC]]’s [[Malmsteen paradox]]:
 {{quote|
-Just because advances in guitar technology means you ''can'' play 64<sup>th</sup> note flattened Mixolydian arpeggios at 200 beats per minute, this doesn’t mean you ''should''.}}
+Just because advances in guitar technology mean you ''can'' play 64<sup>th</sup> note flattened Mixolydian arpeggios at 200 beats per minute, this doesn’t mean you ''should''.}}
+Development in network technology — packet switching, routing, the [[end-to-end principle]], [[Substrate-neutral|substrate neutrality]] of data, and latterly machine learning, large language models and so on — made the information transmission needed for centralised decision-making feasible: infinite fidelity, infinite speed, minimal cost.
+This did not address substantive concerns that laissez-faire addressed: that the person on the ground was best placed to make difficult decisions whose outcome disproportionately affected her over anyone else, but that was increasingly assumed away: major moral and social questions had finally been resolved — [[The End of History and the Last Man|liberal democracy had won]]! — meaning there ''weren’t'' any moral decisions to be made. There were only practical decisions, but these were in principle soluble by calculation.
+The fashion became not [[anthropomorphism|discussing technology in human terms]] as much as [[robomorphism|evaluating humans against technology benchmarks]] and finding the [[meatware]] wanting: humans were, it transpired, irrational, illogical, inconstant, prone to bias, and they took up space, needed holidays and cost a lot of money.
-s - specifically the rise of networks, data collection, and algorithms - that made centralized decision-making appear more feasible and efficient than before.
+In the name of efficiency, everything could be managed by algorithm was assigned to computers, and so it came to pass we were progressively relieved of the inconvenience of making our own decisions.
-This technological shift created a foundation for increased central control in two ways:
-. It addressed the practical "capability" problem of central planning (through better monitoring and optimization)
-. After the Cold War, there was a belief that major moral questions had been resolved, reducing concerns about centralized moral decision-making
 The current backlash against this system is different from the 1980s free-market movement. Rather than being led by academics with theoretical arguments about economic efficiency, it's more populist and focused on concrete personal freedoms, especially free speech. This backlash is gaining momentum as people recognize how much individual autonomy has been eroded by technocratic control.