Hacker News Reader

Comment by stanfordkid | Hacker News Reader

The real problem is that scientists & technologists are not inherently power hungry.

This has been true throughout human history. The second that technologists realize that it serves the human race for us to be power hungry (at the grandest scale -- not the ego-driven "I launched Instagram" scale) ... society will undergo rapid transformation.

A unified, noble, technocracy is the future of human government... but it requires a new form of revolutionary indoctrination.

EDIT: maybe I should replace "power hungry" with: wanting to be the ones calling the shots. Especially with regards to things like foreign policy etc. Most of us have strong pacifist views but seldom do we actually do anything that enables us to stop constant war. Constant war is culturally ingrained in our governments, which is why it continues to happen. One only needs to look at the history of the CIA, then compare that to what they are doing now to see this.

View on HN

Here's how I fear it would play out:

A good-hearted techie becomes a singular ruler of the country. By some luck they aren't immediately deposed due to their inability/unwillingness to play internal politics. Soon they discover that just keeping that country from getting invaded by neighbours, or economically sabotaged by others, requires getting ready for war and nurturing - or even employing - the ability to project force.

Say they think "fuck it" and through smarts and few surgical strikes, they take over the world. We have one government on the planet, with one ruler. But how long will that survive, given that there will be people sowing dissent? How long will it take before the governance either dies, or turns into a dystopian story straight from Black Mirror? What will happen when the Mars colony decides to declare independence (a tech person is in charge, there will be a Mars colony)?

Or another scenario - let's say multiple techies take over the world; how fast will the planet turn into a glass desert, forever testifying to the holy war between Emacs and Vim, or JavaScript versus basic sanity?

My point is, I don't believe techies are suited to rule humanity. I don't believe anyone is. And I have no idea if a civilization-scale governance that is stable, universally good, and that would survive more than few decades, is even possible.

>And I have no idea if a civilization-scale governance that is stable, universally good, and that would survive more than few decades, is even possible.

I would agree, insofar as the requirements for such a stable (and dare I say peaceful) government will require a letting-go of our basic nature to let Power corrupt us. It might work for a little while though as you say, which would be pretty good considering our track record...

I think the ultimate ideal that humans should strive to is to learn to live without a ruler. If that's impossible then learn to live under the rule of an automaton. I guess what I am trying to say is that we need to move away from our current thinking and consider the possibility of governance without an ultimate authority.

> If that's impossible then learn to live under the rule of an automaton.

I guess you mean some kind of computer/AI? Then who rules (programs) the AI, rules the world. This is definitely no anarchy. Ceding authority to a machine only serves to hide the real rulers.

Check This Perfect Day by Ira Levin, for a perspective on what kind of world this could lead to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Perfect_Day

Yes, I considered the problem of who programs the automaton. But I was hoping by the time we cede control to the machine, our species will be enlightened enough to come up with a set of rules that are "reasonable" enough. The important thing here is not the automaton but reaching that enlightened state.

This is actually the future I see: any smart and noble ruler would seek to reach this society and would enact systems that make them obsolete. A good CEO builds something without him there and I think the optimistic view of a singular ruler is that they would empower people enough over the period of their rule that distributed rule would be possible and we would no longer have bloated centralized governments.

The problem is, that singular noble ruler would have to survive long enough to implement their plan fully, probably facing organized opposition throughout it all.

(Related to Maciej's talk - I vaguely remember the Bible saying something about a good ruler dying, and his work being undone by a clueless son; I can't find the passage now, though.)

BTW. I see you implying that smart and noble ruler would implement a one-time solution that forever relieves us from the need of organized governance. That's very similar of what the Friendly-AI Problem crowd talks about - you get only one shot at this, and if you screw it up, you screw up everything, forever.

Why is Javascript always trashed? Nobody forced you to use it, and there are plenty of alternatives out there...

Imo, it's (or at least was) a great simple language to get started in programming: you can get results fast, stay engaged, and enjoy the process of learning with it, while creating cool stuff.

I feel like sometimes people lose sight of the fact that languages are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. If you love to write perfect lines of beautiful code in Rust and that's enough for you, that's great, but why do you need to bash people enjoying themselves with a tool they're comfortable with to create things?

</rant>

> why do you need to bash people enjoying themselves with a tool they're comfortable with to create things

Isn't that part of the theme of the post? Javascript doesn't care that it's being used for evil, but the things people create in Javascript often turn that way. They harvest personal data, drain battery life, and litter the internet with obtrusive advertisements. And that's when it doesn't just fail and break the website.

So go ahead. Create kind and beautiful things in Javascript. Just don't be surprised that people blame the language for the dreadful things it's brought us.

Many reasons, a lot of them related to its ecosystem.

But the thing is, you just fell for my bait, thus proving my point. If we were countries, we might just start exchanging stern diplomatic notes.

And then a third country with a strong opinion on the topic comes along and escalates.

;).

I was suspecting this was bait, but I just had to bite on this one, it really annoys me to see these "thought movements" go in motion where, in the end, people don't even know why they're saying what they're saying and it becomes fashionable to trash one side or another... (And this might not be you but since you baited me, you're the target of this argument now.)

So there's my diplomatic note for you. Who wants to escalate this?

> Nobody forced you to use it

Javascript is one of the very few languages that people are actually forced to use.

> Why is Javascript always trashed?

It's the combination of two adages:

-Build a tool that fool can use, and only fools will use it.

-Every time you make something fool proof, God invents a better fool.

These are mutually recursive.

I don't think this really holds up under even very light scrutiny. Most people in general aren't all that interested in calling all the shots but there've been plenty of technically and scientifically trained politicians all over the world in all sorts of political systems. One leads Germany today, among others.

Most of us have strong pacifist views but seldom do we actually do anything that enables us to stop constant war.

Scientists actively initiated the development of the weapons that define post-ww-2 geopolitics. Subsequently, many were deeply involved in related internal and foreign policy. It doesn't get more 'doing something' than that.

>> This has been true throughout human history. The second that technologists realize that it serves the human race for us to be power hungry (at the grandest scale -- not the ego-driven "I launched Instagram" scale) ... society will undergo rapid transformation.

One of the many problems with this idea is that to do science you have to do science and to do politics you have to do politics. Both take an insane amount of work to keep practicing, let alone to be successful at, so it's really hard to combine the two and be equally successful in both.

So the power hungry science becomes a power hungry politican, after a while. What did we gain? We have power hungy politicians right now.

I think there's an important distinction between being power hungry and recognizing the need for active participation in society, taking responsibility for how our work is deployed, and using democratic technology as a counterweight against the influence of despots and corporate oligopolies. The world needs more power hungry people like I need a hole in my head.

Username checks out

This sounds like the plot of Persepolis Rising...

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28335696-persepolis-risi...

A "noble" anything is the future of human government.

I'm not betting on it happening during my lifetime.

For now I'd prefer us to have better systems for using human flaws for good government (greed, fear, narcissism & pride, etc.).

The problems of political relations are shaped by the dynamics of the system, not by the inherent character flaws of the people operating that system.

And the problem with that was identified by Lord Acton in 1887 (https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html): "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Your technocrats may be noble, but they are also human. Give them enough power and they will swiftly lose their nobility.

Even earlier than that, Plato had somethings to say about philosophers and kings.

Of course, we shouldn't dole out arbitrary power to scientists. The founding fathers did a great job several centuries ago at building a balanced system... but who is to say that there isn't something better, that has technology as a foundational layer.

> "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

There's a corollary here.

I think a probably-more-precise description is that corruption isn't just caused by the presence of power, it's the result of the disparity between power and wisdom.

If you increase power without increasing wisdom, you'll see more corruption. If you have absolute power, you probably don't also have absolute wisdom (if such a thing is even conceptually possible).

There's a second corollary here: Power doesn't only corrupt the one that wields it. Its mere presence can sour others. (Envy, greed, etc.)

In a similar vein, people also love to say that knowledge is power, but I think "information asymmetry" fits better.

(Also, power is inherently temporary.)

It's not simply the holding of power that corrupts. 10 years ago I was a tech Director at an investment bank. The politics were brutal, so I quit. I returned a couple of years later as a contractor, and found some people treated me differently. They were no longer interested in chatting, and didn't laugh at my lame jokes. Other people treated me the same; they were my real friends. When you have power and influence, even if relatively minor, people will suck up to you. You may not be aware of it happening. It's insidious, and it will corrupt you if you're not on your guard. Some people enjoy it; in my experience they're often dangerous.

> They were no longer interested in chatting, and didn't laugh at my lame jokes.

Was this because:

  A. They never liked your "lame jokes" in the first place and were
     behaving without integrity in the past?
  B. The politics got to them and they ceased to enjoy the finer things in life?

I like puns. When I was depressed years ago, I had a hard time laughing at any jokes, even really clever puns. I also became quieter and more reserved.

It's very likely you've got anecdotes that would support A over B, but as an outsider, I'm cautious to assume. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com