See this poll on: https://poll.fm/5184493/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
Barring a near-term hard-takeoff singularity that results in a singleton, I see the greatest emerging influence in the world as distributed "innovation" - controllable, tested processes designed to reveal emerging expectations and satisfy customers' unmet desires in ways that earn a profit. I think most of the technological advancements we want to see become available will increasingly be brought to the market by such processes (especially through start-ups, including socially conscious start-ups) as opposed to hit-or-miss "creative" ones, and through DIYbio, Open Manufacturing, and other distributed scientific and technological development we may gradually see peer-to-peer sharing and free/cheap dissemination of innovations in ways that skip the market, like free open source software. At the same time, knowledge and skills to innovate useful products and services will disseminate through society via hobbyist groups and because those will be the areas in which there will remain jobs. The Conservative/Libertarian base is too strong and deeply entrenched for a Progressive vision of global governance to be realized, but as the state withers resources for mutual aid may grow and we may transition from scarcity-based economies to societies of abundance. A high Georgist land value tax with a distributed citizen's dividend (other basic incomes will be eaten up by increased rents) would make the transition more humane and would make land more productive, keeping more people employed, but sadly it is not on the mainstream political radar these days (aside from some figures like Nader and Bill Moyers - though people on the Right like Churchhill also supported it, as do many contemporary Libertarians like Dan Sullivan).
Global warming is horseshit.
The poll has leading bias, (as always here at IEET), towards the need for progressive global governance, which is fine, because it's what I wish for too. But is it merely wishful thinking?
Emerging technologies are still best placed to "force" the hand of incompetant and lazy global governance, assuming some global catastrophe does not precede the fabulous future?de the fabulous future?
I chose the first option (factor), as I believe it at least potentially could be the biggest and most decisive. However, while I am increasingly optimistic about the consequences IF this happens (technology "explodes" in development, especially with AI, nanotech, longevity/life extension/bio-immortality/transhumanist fusion), I am increasingly pessimistic about whether it WILL happen in the next few decades, thanks to economic, political, and sociological disturbances. I fear that ecological disruptions are already starting to be a significant factor as well, with freakish weather changes only being the proverbial tip of the iceberg, and that it will continue to decline long before it improves. Some type of constructive global governance might be nice, but I am even more pessimistic about that, given the currently ultra-conservative reaction in the US to the only-slightly-more-liberal-than-Clinton President Obama, and the overwhelming success of rightist/pro-market politicians across the world in elections these past two years. And yes, I guess there is even just a little bit of paranoid conspiracy theorist in me when it comes to universal international law and such, but I might be willing to extinguish it if the benefits far outweigh the risks.
Despite I did choose the second option, it doesn't mean that we (humankind) are geeting into the point-of-no-return conditions already. We are facing the initial change conditions of several complex conflicts and systems (natural and human-built) disturbances. Unmanageable effects of a ill economic and ecological complexity interaction driven by our economy theory is one major human-driven effect. The unsustainable economy will implode at some point, and global warming is past the point of no return if we do not do something decisive.
From a system point of view, we (humans) exert forces that comes from our economic rationality and the way we govern ourselves. We must fix thos key aspects first. As I have mentioned in other posts, science has a lot to do tryng to constrain those human "forces". Science and technology alone are not a feasible solution. We need a renewed ethics and planetary goals to be faced by us.
By the way, how could I be part of your discussions, projects and other IEET activities. How many southern scientists work with you? Are the scientists that come from the south interested in this kind of subjects or they are only working towards his(her) traditional PhDs?
Regards,
I chose the second option, though I consider the wording dubious. We need ways of working together that escape the paradigm of governance and the absurdity of finance.