[liberationtech] "The Nine Most Terrifying Words In The English Language", Pre-dates Reagan... (LT Digest, Vol 30, Issue 1)

[Robert Mathews (OSIA)]

On 6/3/20 6:00 AM, lt-request at lists.liberationtech.org wrote:
> Subject:
> Re: [liberationtech] "The Nine Most Terrifying Words In The English
> Language", Pre-dates Reagan...
> From:
> Richard Brooks <rrb at g.clemson.edu>
> Date:
> 6/2/20, 1:48 PM
>
> To:
> lt at lists.liberationtech.org
>
>
> This begs the question as to what a more desirable
> society would be.

Thank you for making this statement as clearly as you have, Richard.  I for one, appreciate it much!


> In reality, our social structures are engineered to
> maintain a primate dominance hierarchy that uses
> signaling of varying kinds (class, monetary worth,
> ethnic group) to determine which group of people
> dominates.

If I may be permitted, I shall very much like to say the following.  

Your statement above is perhaps the most direct and clarified positional
statement on the human condition that I have heard - in some time.  In
our time, the PLAGUE that afflicts the scientific community equally, as
it does others, is the general professional and personal proclivity for
all to be dis-honest in the manner we assess and represent the scope of
our problems, which in turn, widely TAINTS the natures and textures of
the human condition itself.

Merely to establish context, it is worth noting, that in the past 7
years, professional research on 'institutional states in future
societies', conducted by me and my team of scientists, have involved
consultations with heads of states; government functionaries;
industrialists; constitutional scholars; scholars & practitioners in
laws;  institutional heads of banking/finance; transportation;
utilities; manufacturing; and organizations in other sectors that are
foundational to our societies too.  From the extensive consultations
over many years, I have been able to surface ONE rather general
deduction.  That is:  the future (of functioning systems, broadly) is
less knowable, and therefore, adaptability to variances/stressors is
less possible, than at any time before. 

Less generally, and more specifically, we deduce that societies with
existing structural foci on "Law and Order", exhibit having reached, or
arriving to that juncture of exceeding capability/performance
characteristics;  where going forward, the structures that are in place
-  could not be expected to meet original purposes.

Given the intent behind this exchange, a personal thought in this vein
is, that, OUR concentrations (in multiple areas) ought to DRAMATICALLY 
shift from maintaining a "Law and Order" focus, to that of "Human &
Individual RIGHTS" based orientations.  I emphasized the need for this
in a late 2017 writing
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12553-017-0211-5 ].  In the
writing, *I had proposed that we think, think HARD, and think
FRUITFULLY* -- along the lines of those crucial principles ( UDHR
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/UDHRIndex.aspx ) to which UN Member
States subscribed in 1948. 

Yet, during the peer-review process, the value of such a proposition, as
it was presented in the article - was questioned by the reviewers.  The
chief complaint was that the UDHR was NOT a legally enforceable
document.  Yes, the UDHR is NOT a legal document.  However, it IS A
STATEMENT of principles to which UN Member States acceded.  That is, and
remains, the basis for collective ACTION today.  We should not forget
that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) are derived and delegated legal instruments/agreements that
rose out of the UDHR, and ARE indeed, ENFORCEABLE.  Through these
instruments, it is possible to evolve.  However, at present, the
questions we must ask are: 1) ARE WE evolving?... 2) WHY NOT, and 3) HOW
do we actively proceed?...  


> Current technologies are well designed for maintaining
> these structures by advertising the different
> social signals.

I could NOT AGREE, MORE!   *This is so "spot-on"....!*  

In my humble view, this consideration as you have brought to the
surface, remains the RELEVANT challenge before "this group".  "WHERE",
"HOW" and "WHAT from", shall an "OFF-RAMP" be designed and implemented,
_which takes us away from_ this PERILOUS highway that we are on, and on
to a dramatically IMPROVED and BENEFICIAL one.....


> If anyone has an alternative type of society, I am
> interested. 

Well, I would submit that there is NO SUCH thing as an *NESCAFE'/FOLGERS
- Instant - "alternative"* society that we might manifest....  BUT, an
alternative, CAN, and SHOULD be born.  It is hard work!

The BIGGEST problem that I foresee in this area, was once spotlighted by
Cartoonist Walt Kelly, who said: "we have met the enemy, and he is us" 
[
https://www.worldcat.org/title/pogo-we-have-met-the-enemy-and-he-is-us/oclc/356970
]

We wastefully and cavalierly refer to the phrase "_information age_",
often, and also amplify that we are living in "the information age". 
Yet, to the trained and observant eye, what is seen, and significantly
notable (for e.g., in the production areas) is _HOW WE ARE NOT prepared_
to either live, or work, in the "information age".

A significant CHUNK of societal problems in the area of
information/information systems' security & privacy, "originate with"
the users of information technology, who are neither adept or proficient
in uses...

Therefore, ANY alternative society that is conceived and instrumented
MUST build/show a way to SCALE this huge area of difficulty.   I
discussed this core problem within a keynote presentation last year, at
a conference in Melbourne, Australia.  [
https://twitter.com/lawtechconf?lang=en  / 
https://twitter.com/LAWTECHCONF/status/1110788634049945601 ]   I am
_happy to SHARE that slide-deck_ with anyone who may have an interest in
the subject.    Just let me know, and I shall share a link with you,
individually.

But, *_we need to collectively work_* on SCALING (climbing-over) this
area of significant insufficiency...


> Insect instead of primate? Matriarchy
> leveraging pheromone signals to replace primate
> patriarchy and threats of violence as signals.
> That would be one alternative that we have not
> tried.

Is it not Robert Fulghum who once wrote, "All I Really Need to Know I
Learned in Kindergarten"? 
I was taught very early on, that observing and learning from NATURE, WAS
quite important...  :-)

Thank you, Richard, for your pointed thoughts!

> =================== R. R. Brooks Professor Holcombe Department of
> Electrical and Computer Engineering Clemson University
-- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/lt/attachments/20200603/2d336757/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sig-A.png
Type: image/png
Size: 253928 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/lt/attachments/20200603/2d336757/attachment.png>