Tossitto

I'm speaking less about the leaders, but more of the mass. Silicon Valley has practically been deified as the brain capitol of the US, if not the world, but they're unable to meaningfully address the question? I think not, they're not addressing it, but with a sleight of hand pretending action to subdue their consumer base with a sense of security and imply a democratic process. An act of vanity, which I hope will be seen through.

This is a brilliant post, thank you for your contribution.

I just wonder what kind of alternatives we have that could be effective. Something government sponsored but administered by a third party with a strict constitution regarding moderating only the extremest content? A system of self-moderation in place that isn't destructive, but rather hides content to prevent congestion? I feel like voluntary identification is also a must.

I don't know, it's hard to say.

I don't believe so. The state by its nature wants to find equilibrium like practically every other system. One of the paths of least resistance is the manipulation of the public into an unthinking, docile, and generally inert individual. This makes everything much more predictable and controllable, which brings it closer to equilibrium.

You could intuit this sort of outcome, perhaps, from a reading of "Thinking, Fast and Slow". Humans don't really do well with probability, we want definitive binary outcomes that aren't reliant on probability. We want a quiet, well defined day to day. Politicians want the same thing (alongside a disproportionately large allotment of control and wealth in return). Want though, is the difficulty, because the reality is that the underpinnings of practically all human functions and the world in itself are fairly chaotic.

I think you're under the impression it's a noble goal in the name of progress, but [genuine] progress is disruptive in every field. That disruption breaks the equilibrium, and makes the quiet day a rather loud lifetime.

"May you live in interesting times."

Aren't these glamorous tech companies supposed to be employing from the pool of the highest echelons of intellectualism? How is it that they have such exceedingly large valuations but they can't manage to deploy a rationale by which to manage their user-based content?

Your error is in assuming the public has any meaningful say in government outcomes.

That's where it gets interesting, though. Assuming you have a democratically elected official with progressive views in any direction, and they're telling people to act for their self-interest, but the current zeitgeist overall is the given idea is immoral or otherwise objectionable, then what process do you use to make the judgement other than an arbitrary one that supplants the "rule of law"?

Consider if Biden dropped a tweet saying "don't observe DST."

That could be dangerous, right? You've got two distinct groups of people that for some reason or another fail to coalesce, all "hell" breaks loose because some people are showing up to work at different times, logistical break down... Do you squelch him? And how does that compare to a non-violent break-in at the capitol to show congress that their representation of the general public is failing a given demographic?

Personally I think that the channel should be wide open to anything but the most unbearable aspects of communication, like child exploitation. You've got no chance of convincing a white supremacist that his worldview is askew without engaging in a conversation and logically defeating his assertions, not to mention the fact that publicly shaming the ideology (while jointly defeating it) in a widely available forum is certainly the best prophylactic. Instead the "acceptable" rhetoric is one-sided which alienates anybody that has the audacity to even ask the questions proposed, while destroying their ability to come about a rational conclusion through empirical observation. That channel should be equivalently wide for politicians which the people have elected to represent them up to the extent of tangible action to break the law up to the barrier of reason, e.g. meaningfully inciting violent actions against individuals or groups.

And this is all precipitated by the fact that Twitter and the like are commodifying speech, which is a genuine hazard as it creates a serious hurdle at the intersection of liberty and commercial interest. Commercial interests want inoffensive discussion which appeals to the widest possible band of individuals, meaning that the content and discussions are only allowed to span a narrow width, generally. It is not in any meaningful way acting in the public interest at that point, and only seeks to, through largely automatic processes, extend and crystallize the status quo which is genuinely harmful as we're doing little more than discussing how to spin in place at that point. This is driven even further through deplatforming (active or passive) extremist viewpoints, and exposing them disproportionately with algorithmic processes.

Seems to me like network effects and a command economy would fall well under the definition of authoritarian.

My postulate: while the slippery slope won't necessarily find itself at the prescribed (induced) endpoint, there is a virtually unlimited timeline for the slippery slope to find itself to that endpoint. With that virtually unlimited running space, if continued attempts are made, eventually probability will necessarily yield a result.

I think this applies more to wider generalizations as opposed to very specific instances due to the nature of probability and finity of resources invested in continued attempts, but it can be applied in either scenario. Think Murphy's Law.

You don't fall into the target demographic, it's as simple as that. My comment was a gesture, openly inviting those who might wish to discuss the content of the article and the ramifications of the technology through the lens of "Brave New World", which in and of itself describes, by the virtue of its title, a wide breadth of topics which are at play in the narrative (which can be dissected manifold). I this way, I assert that I can communicate the whole architecture of the book and cut right away to the meat of the matter without entering into a lengthy expository analysis on how the book compares to the people who are intent on discussion in the same orientation.

And as to how you're defining and establishing clichés in a novel technical process, I do not know, since the nature of novelty means there is no meaningfully recurrent pattern. And I must say I don't appreciate you wantonly imperiling the accessibility of my comment. Also I suggest you read the book, it's very good. The Island is also quite good, if you're interested. I can't speak to the rest of Huxley's work.

I've got to wonder about the level of experimentation it takes to get to the point where you can actually effectively create a genuinely braindead, but otherwise wholly functional human unit. From a genetics standpoint, I believe it's a fractaline system, meaning recursive elements, which is (and quite probably wrongly) to say that removing one piece of DNA, or favorably altering it to fit the outcome, could result in unexpected outcomes in the development of other necessary components. Like, there's a good deal of the endocrine system that's tucked away in the brain, delete the PFC and what results? We don't understand consciousness to the degree this demands for a "truly ethical" criterion anyways; and that may be a moot point, as it may be beyond comprehension. And that's discounting a lot of other things. Are organs grown in vitro adapted to actual use? What about epigenetics and possible incompatibilities generated by them? For major endocrine organs, what kind of reaction will the whole have receiving a 1:1 transplant with a 20 year old liver in an 80 year old? And so on...

I'm not quite sure how you've come upon the conclusion that it's in any manner "unsubstantive", the comment is in fact underpinned by a well-known classical novel, which almost exactingly describes this machine and this process in a distant future. Moreover it calls upon the subject matter quite directly, as the article suggests that it may in the future be adapted to humans, which is a particularly strong narrative element in "Brave New World" and through the device a number of, what are now at least, morally objectionable means and ends. E.g. the deliberate destruction of faculties through ethanol and hormone inoculation of fetuses in vitro, which is utilized to simplify the conditioning used in the fictional caste system. It also acts to alienate children and adults, which is also used as a mechanism for conditioning by desensitizing the adults to what is described as a fairly torturous process.

Considering the level of alignment in general trends to the thematic aspects of the book, and considering the possible applications of this technology and its further development; even if it is mothballed for experimentation in human subjects now, still presents the hypothetical and moral hazards that Huxley proposed. These are all certainly points for discussion, and I'm sure others could corroborate even more interesting interpretations of possible and probable outcomes both positive and negative from "Brave New World" alongside other novels, literature of a more scientific nature, as well as philosophy. But since you assert it's "unsubstantive", I yield to your discretion.

And if you end up with some weird proteopathic disease I'll be (involuntarily) chipping in a large fraction of my meager wages to pay for the publicly funded institutions that will be caring for you.

My folks don't want the shots, my grandparents refuse to mask any time it isn't critical. Pops wants to get the shit. I don't have an opinion myself, but I'm going to hold off on the vaccine just in case there's some crazy ultra-low probability shit that spontaneously crops up, frankly I'm not concerned with my own risks as judged by probability: I'm inordinately low-risk. Last I heard they hadn't confirmed the vaccines contributed to sterilizing immunity anyways, so for all we know currently there's no strong link that vaccines are going to prevent transmission, but rather will mitigate symptom development and disease severity; so again, I don't see the point even at the resolution of populations.

Proteopathy is a real thing. Prion dysfunctions can cause self-replication, not that the makeup is necessarily there for that in these vaccines. Interesting starting point for consideration nonetheless.