undefined | Better HN

0 pointsunclebucknasty12y ago0 comments

>I personally feel happy that this effect is increasing

Well, it's all good until it isn't. If the priorities of a few people impact so many (including you) and you no longer agree with them, then what do you do?

>I hope to be the part of this small group at some point.

I think it's actually a shame that you'd need to be a part of the "small group" in order to have a voice. Ideally, we'd all have at least the capacity to participate in our world without first requiring the blessing of a handful of gatekeepers.

And, the irony is that's the thing: It's actually harder for you to make it into the small group sans the blessing of the few who are in it. For instance, where is the real democratizing effect of the Net? For a recent, specific example, look at Bitcoin. What was once a libertarian's dream has already been co-opted by the same VCs and interests such that they will now provide the services and "real infrastructure" to grow wealthy from what was once considered an almost subversive concept. Business as usual.

>majority of humans just doesn't give a crap about anything that's further than 10cm from the end of their noses

That's true, but I think that's due to the quite purposeful orientation of our society towards mass distraction, which seems to be part of an apparent desire to limit critical thought. Witness the U.S. education system which emphasizes rote-memorization and the creation of "cogs for the machine". I actually think it's endemic to the wealth/income polarization problem. That is, such a societal structure that seeks to create a consumer class that serves as mere unthinking cogs works to someone's benefit.

>Just look at internal politics of every democratic state

I'm not sure how many truly democratic states there are. The "shining example" (US) is controlled by a relative few people through special interests, insane campaign funding laws, and revolving-door civil-servants/lobbyists. Again, all of these examples point back to the very discomfort I have: the increasing concentration of power and wealth away from "the masses" into the hands of a few whose agenda and priorities shape our world.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

TeMPOraL12y ago· 1 in thread

> Well, it's all good until it isn't. If the priorities of a few people impact so many (including you) and you no longer agree with them, then what do you do?

You have a good point here, but...

> I think it's actually a shame that you'd need to be a part of the "small group" in order to have a voice.

> It's actually harder for you to make it into the small group sans the blessing of the few who are in it.

... but I don't think it works like that. The "small group" I'm talking about is not a group of special people, either born into it or allowed to join. I'm thinking about a subset of humanity that actually gives a damn, and works towards a change. It seems that the entry exam for joining this "small group" is just getting out and doing anything - starting a company, starting a movement, starting a research project, etc. Because most people don't do anything, you can join the minority by just trying to fix something.

Actually, it's the whole Snowdengate thing that got me thinking about this issue. There's a popular meme here that "the solution must be political in nature, not technological", a statement I strongly disagree with. I've come to realize that an effective solution will have to be technological in nature, because politics means lots of talking that never gets you anywhere, while a simple technological solution can simply shift the problem landscape under people's feet. You don't have to ask anyone; you deploy, and they'll have to cope. It's exactly the kind of thinking you're worried about, but I can't really see any alternative.

You see, the world is full of short-sighted, uncaring, or sometimes outright stupid people who, if given the chance, will burn this planet down to the ground thanks to their sheer incompetence. I would love them to have the freedom and the equal influence over the world's priorities, but I also don't want my future kids to die a painful death because of a combination of stupidity and democracy.

unclebucknastyOP12y ago

>The "small group" I'm talking about is not a group of special people, either born into it or allowed to join. I'm thinking about a subset of humanity that actually gives a damn, and works towards a change.

Yeah, I think we're talking about two different groups. The group I'm talking about is specifically those with capital/wealth--in part, the "investor class" if you will. This group does materially dictate the world's various agendas/priorities.

OTOH, I would say that you're already a member of "your group" (i.e. the group that gives a damn), just by virtue of the fact that you seem to give a damn. So, when you mentioned that you hoped to join the "small group" at some point, I took that as an acknowledgment of my position: that is, giving a damn and having your own priorities is not enough, without the capital/access to actually do something.

>There's a popular meme here that "the solution must be political in nature, not technological"

I'd say legal in nature, not technological. And, that's purely a practical matter. That is, it's not that I'm overjoyed about the state of our legal system. It's more that I don't think it's practical to play technological cat-and-mouse with our own government and expect to win. So, IMO, if we don't at least attempt to constrain the government legally, then we've lost hope.

But, I digress. To your bigger point, yes, seeking legal redress does have political implications. And there's no doubt that we need to fix our politics, but again, I think the problems are one and the same: the few moneyed interests I mentioned dictate our agenda, in part through our politics. So, while our politics appear to be broken due to sheer incompetence, they actually are not. They simply serve an agenda that is not "for the people", while attempting to maintain the facade that they are.

>...will burn this planet down to the ground. I would love them to have the freedom and the equal influence over the world's priorities, but I also don't want my future kids to die a painful death because of a combination of stupidity and democracy.

Well said and I agree to some extent. Beyond mere politics though, I'm lamenting the access to power to all but a few. That is to say, there are certainly also many thoughtful, caring people in the world whose ideas/actions could help to shape it and make it a better place for all. In other words, it's not simply a world of a few moneyed people who know what's best for everyone on one side vs. a slew of completely ignorant, incompetent, malicious dullards on the other. There are many in the middle whose priorities also deserve the light of day. I would imagine that you and I, as well as many others who post here fall somewhere on that spectrum.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse