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

[Richard Brooks]

Thanks. I was mainly trying to be snarky, but I kind of
believe what I said there. I would be interested in the
slides.

I like supporting human rights, but part of the issue
was summed up by Brecht "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann
kommt die Moral."

If you are starving, a lot of the rights are luxuries.
I remember a colleague who was horrified when everyone
in Centrafrique was talking about the good old times
under the dictator Bokassa.

Also, progress is relative in different cultures. I have
noted that for many people, it just means maintaining
their place in the dominance hierarchy.

The USA is a case in point.

On 6/3/20 7:12 PM, Robert Mathews (OSIA) wrote:
> 
> 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
> -- 
>