Nice, Andrew Sullivan published a comment I sent him in full (Thanks Andrew!).
Here’s the comment:
You have quite clearly mischaracterized Morozo’s argument. Morozo’s point is that technology does not INHERENTLY lead to democracy. It may well be that technology helps enabled people with reformist and democratic ideals to organize and communicate. That is not the same thing as what many people presume, that technology will free people.
Morozo’s presentation actually missed the most devastating argument available to him, which is the juncture of two of his other arguments. Repressive regimes may have a favored lever of control, but they certainly have no compunction about using any and every tool available to them. The most devious thing that a regime like china can do is to *both* cultivate blog networks and subcultures which agree with the regime, *and* use the networking property of the internet to identify and shut down networks which are critical.
In doing so, they can claim that there is a legitimate and independent community which they had no hand in creating (literally true), and the predominance of those voices will eventually develop a self-sustaining critical mass, if they are the only voice available to hear. This is about incubating your own virulent crazies by protecting them from counter-arguments.
This is a modus operandi that should look familiar. It’s about controlling the means of distribution, and you can still do it in the age of the internet.
In fact, that is exactly what the USA is trying to do to combat Islamic extremism. They are trying to identify and target extremist networks online, and, in the middle east, prop up and promote organizations and politicians who purport to have ideals concordant with our own.
Technology is just a tool. We, the users, provide its values. There are many aphorisms that are appropriate to this situation. First, that the strongest cage is the one which you build for yourself. Second that Technology may change the terrain upon which we do battle, but the real war is waged within the hearts and minds of men.
In retrospect reading the comment makes me realize two things. The first is that I need an editor (heh). Also that I left out a deeper discussion for the sake of brevity, which i think i will expound upon further.
These are a hilarious sort of pun. And the commentors on the NYT blog have produced some real gems:
“Oh I dropped my toothpaste behind the sink,” he said, crestfallen.
This piece is so fundamentally naive that it’s really not worth considering. The author clearly does not understand evolution, or the nature in which humans participate in evolutionary, or economic systems (i know, the author is in neuroeconomics. I’m surprised too).
First, humans manipulate evolutionary systems for our benefit. Livestock and plant husbandry have served us well over several thousand years, and are really quite integral to individual survival and our survival as a species. Additionally there are a number of animals which have co-evolved with us, and have influenced and been influenced by our evolutionary trajectory (dogs, cats, mosquitoes, etc).
Second, economic systems are not like evolutionary systems, in that we have goals and objectives that our economic systems are supposed to meet. Survival of the fittest business is inappropriate if the fittest do it by turning people into soylent green.
Third, the premise that regulation can only stifle fitness in an economic system is simply and grossly incorrect. If you wish to preserve diversity in an economy then you want regulations that break up monopolies. You want regulations that tell telecom companies that they must lease their phone lines to competitors.
Fourth, there are cases where we simply must demand for the bar for economic fitness to be raised. It is in our collective best interest to ensure that banks are properly capitalized and are able to pay their debts. In fact, it’s of vital interest to the entire economic system, as the past year has demonstrated.
This article is frustrating/misleading/incorrect, and frankly i expected better, both out of a neuroeconomist, and a magazine called Psychology Today.
Frustrated; Demoralized; Tired of arguing
I am described by all of these things. A lot of interesting things have been said over the past two weeks. A lot of horrible things have been said too. There is no community consensus. Instead we have what political pundits refer to as a “circular firing squad.” Its not even that the community is divided into separate camps, we can’t even agree on what the terms of the debate are. At this point, no forward progress is being made.
There is more, much more, to be said about gender and the tech world. I personally have things to say about the subject. But right now, there’s not a lot of listening going on. Everyone doing the talking has dug in, and are now just slinging recriminations.
Nick Sieger suggests that we should stand up and speak when we see objectionable behavior. He is absolutely right. We should talk with our friends and colleagues, and make clear what we think. But, we shouldn’t stop there. We can and should do one better. We should do what agile, DYI flash mobs do best. Let’s channel our efforts into making the world a better place.
Go out and help someone. If you think it’s important to recruit women in the Ruby world, do it. It’s good that we’re expressing our opinions, but it’s more important to make the world a better place, not just wish that it were.
Personally, i’ve offered to teach about Sphinx and full text searching.
What are you going to do?
Totally awesome, and totally freaky. Lungs kept alive for like 12 hrs outside of the human body (massive benefit for lung transplants and the like)
Twitter Riots by David Donar, Donklephant.com - 04/11/2009 A cool if conceptual editorial cartoon
I can’t find enough pejoratives to describe the ways in which the Bush administration has reinvented the executive branch. They created a shameful, callous, uncaring, soul-eating machine, built to serve their ideology. A device with no regard for the lives it destroyed, any notion of justice, or question of efficacy. Every time i think that i’ve become inured to the rank and unfettered injustice perpetrated by the Bush Administration, some new low comes to my attention and it is sad that this information has only come to light now, after the Bush administration has left office.
The behavior of Immigration & Customs Enforcement as described by the NYT is a damning example.
They have made me ashamed to be an American. How sad is it that 26 year olds have begun lamenting the loss of nation we used to be?
Here’s a link to an earlier NYT article regarding a Chinese man who was detained, developed cancer and a fractured spine, and was denied treatment because officials thought he was “faking” until 5 days before his death, when he was taken to a hospital, “his spine fractured and his body riddled with cancer that had gone undiagnosed and untreated for months.”
This Washington Post piece is extremely well put together. These are tragic stories, evocatively and heart-wrenchingly explained. More importantly though, the piece does an effective job of discussing the cognitive (even momentary distraction can have horrible implications) and sociological (this can happen to anybody from any background, and does happen).
WELL worth the read.
