Re-reading parts of The Sovereign Individual for the critique I'm writing about Davidson and Rees-Mogg's arguments, and the thing that really stands out at me -- and I think this is also a problem that the hyperbitcoinization crowd suffers from -- is this almost religious belief in technological determinism, as the way to predict the future.

Technology is a powerful driver of culture, and in some respects can just be considers part of culture, so it goes without saying that technology helps shape and influence society. I'd never argue against a thing. But I would generally argue against any thinking that views culture and politics as *downstream* of technology. It's a complex interplay between human nature, individual and group differences, economic conditions, political climate, etc. These things interact with each other. Technology doesn't just drive all the others towards some deterministic end. I think that's actually silly!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Great thought.

As a thought, experiment, have you ever stack ranked what is most influential?

It would be interesting to think though.

La technologie dans sa globalité est la 6 ème création de l'homme pour l'instant.. En lisant cette note j'ai envie de vous renvoyer à un de mes livres de chevet de Jared Diamond et qu'est Le 3eme Chimpanzé. Toutes nos créations peuvent nous être utiles ou nous mener à notre perte mais pas seulement que du point individu...

This reminds me of a course I took in college where the professor basically tried making a case for Darwinism in technology -- that there was a kind of natural and evolutionary engine for how technology developed and was adopted over time. Which yes, I guess you could superimpose onto history and show as a logical progression. But I think it's an oversimplification and winds up ignoring all the missteps, power structures, and external factors that end up pushing us in one direction or another

The non straw man point is that new tech can’t be uninvented. Culture must accommodate it and is changed by it. The reverse is not true

a lot of tech was lost after the fall of rome

That’s all you’ve got? It’s “silly”?

Why did completely isolated feudal Japan look identical (from a social organization standpoint) to feudal Europe?

not all technology. just the super important asymmetric pieces of technology like gun powder and encryption. hard to escape those consequences.

It doesn't really matter what the technology is. At the end of the day, all technology is serving a purpose. That derives from human values and preferences. Technology is always used in an instrumentalist frame relative to its use -- which is always to serve a human end. This is basically just another way of repeating David Hume's famous insight, "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions".

The key to understanding this insight is understanding that any logical or rational system always serves a normative goal (a human passion). In other words, we don't do advanced industrial farming because the technology availed itself to us. We do it, because we want to eat more food, and the technology improved the fulfillment of that passion.

If you recognize this insight, you should be skeptical of ALL technological deterministic reasoning. The Sovereign Individual, Hyperbitcoinization, AI apocalypses, etc. Some of these things may have grains of truth in them, on a first principles basis about what social orders could be *possible* given these technologies. But possibility space is just that. The other part of the equation is the probability of outcomes within that probability space. So, when we ask ourselves, based on everything we know about human nature, culture, economics, do we think that these scenarios that the possibility space opened up by these technologies is a probable future?

I think the answer is no! No, it's not. Mainly because the entire conclusion rests on a technological deterministic argument! Which just doesn't epistemically make sense!

What of the unforeseen externalities of technological development? Our passions dictate what we seek to invent/development, but often times what we believed were to be their only use cases, are not what they end up being used for. Wouldn’t these unforeseen use cases then change the political/social landscape with unintended, and sometimes, dire consequences? So isn’t it both?

Human nature is also highly deterministic (evolutionary biology, game theory)

Human nature + technology = deterministic outcomes

yes, tech plays a significant role but never a sole determinant. Humans by nature are survivors and can live without tech. But humans are also adaptors and can assimilate quickly which is why leveraging similar tech from a more advanced country to a less advanced country is not complex in terms of establishing entrepreneurs/creators/makers or educating users. The complexity arises from governments and governing laws.

Ideally aka libertarian views - it would be nice to remove pain points aka gov'ts - but in reality the human dependency for direction is missed out - which is why sometimes the idea of "benevolent dictator" supersedes average political ideologies (but we can all agree dictatorship on its own draws high risk for abuse)

I think the most we would be able to do in this lifetime is to create exposures to people and empower people.

Someone growing up in the 60s in rural Cambodia would not know there is world outside of their country and were massively killed, but kids today with the access of internet, grow up with diff perspective awareness, and are familiar with digital marketing and sales, both of which drives economy.

A few years back I gave a talk in Phnom Penh for some UN entrepreneurship convention and it was my first encounter in realising policies for change was doctored and my purpose there was useless.

So i spent more time around the areas - and just next to the fancy hotels we stayed in, were large groups of homeless people, kids sleeping in the rain. It was one of the most heartbreaking moments for me. Homes were still torn apart from Khmer Rouge days and never fixed.

There remains a large group of handmakers with traditional crafts as main economy driver for the state. There is only so much traditional craft anybody can want, but, if we can extract that element of creativity and entrepreneurship and expose modern tech, then its going to empower them to find ways to creatively build up their economy.

Many a times, its the use cases that carries significant value - and who more can tell you what their communities needs then themselves, especially after being exposed to modern tech.

If this modern tech can somehow bypass crazy governments who have been the biggest pain points over the years, then maybe people have better chances in uplifting themselves.

That's just one example. Every country is different. But empowering the people and exposing them to tech could have similar approaches and might be easier to replicate.