What level of safety features?
The same logic as is being applied to drones can be applied to cultures and economies.
Why do we allow ourselves to be dominated by an economic system that over-values scarcity and devalues abundance?
Why do we allow corporate interests to hide knowledge from us under the guise of “intellectual property”?
How come they use all the ideas of history and culture freely, yet hide the newest and most valuable stuff?
How is it that corporations use coercion and planning within their organisations, yet resist any forms imposed for the benefit of all?
Isn’t the entire economic, political and military system an example of systems out of control, where the interests of the system dominate the interests of the individuals within that system?
We can easily provide everyone on the planet with food, shelter, education, communication, transportation, freedom – yet we don’t – because it is not in the economic or political interests of the power elites.
When are we going to say “enough already!”?
Agree with you in a sense, and in another sense it poses a very difficult problem.
Most in the power elites are as much trapped in the mindset of markets as everyone else, and from within that paradigm there doesn’t appear to be any easy answer.
The easy answers appear only when one is able to step outside that paradigm.
Do those in the power elites want to live long lives (thousands of years), in good health, with real freedom and resources beyond anything available today?
If the answer to that question is yes, then they must accept operating from a non market paradigm, as the math and logic is clear that markets cannot deliver the sort of security required to live a very long time – there are just too many injustices that get people seriously into revenge mode. It is not safe and it cannot be made safe.
To live a really long time requires an environment that is really safe, which means one where everyone cooperates in looking out for each other, and that requires systems that make it really easy to identify “cheats” and removing any benefit from their cheating, plus a bit.
All of that is really quite easily done with a set of trust networks and computer enhanced sharing of real time information within those trust networks – makes cheating really difficult to get away with for very long. Some people have very broad trust networks, some dont.
It is not necessary that they see Joe or Jane as assets directly. It is only required that they see that the systems that they require for security can only work if they apply to Joe and Jane as well. It is the systems that provide the stability. To many of the elite, Joe and Jane wont matter, and to some they will. In my experience the distribution of attributes like empathy and love are the same in elite groups as in any other group in society; and all people experience changes in the relative relationships of various ways of being with circumstance, time and place.
So yeah – its complicated. Life is like that. And it does appear doable.
I see things very differently.
All mammals are complex entities, capable of multiple context dependent behavioural strategies.
All mammals are fundamentally cooperative at many different levels – we care for our young, we live in communities (packs, herds or whatever).
Cooperation is just as big a part of our makeup as competition; and it is not taught as such in our current sets of institutions.
Our dominant institutional framework is markets – and exchange values expressed in terms of money. That framework is fundamentally competitive at many levels. We even have laws preventing cooperation at some levels (anti trust), while allowing cooperation at other levels (corporations, incorporated societies, charities etc).
We are complex entities, quite capable of stable cooperation at the highest levels, provided the attendant strategies to prevent cheating are well resourced. (Check out the games theory work on the subject – Axelrod, Maynard-Smith, etc).
I agree with you, that we have a huge amount of cheating in the existing systems, to the point that it has been institutionalised.
Agree with you that we need to remove the whole concept of intellectual property, and move to open source with everything. And we will need to stage things. Not a really smart thing to have open source nucs or biological weapons until we have done a lot of work to redress all past injustices – and everyone is working cooperatively. And certainly, we can open source a lot of stuff very quickly.
We can use our poor eyesight to make tools that make lenses that let us make microscopes and telescopes that improve our ability to see the very small and the very far off.
Similarly, we can build constructs at any level that enhance our abilities at those levels.
Most people have a lot of truths in their lives.
I deal in probabilities.
To me, the journey from simple hard truths, to the soft truths of probability and uncertainty seems to be a developmental process that all must start from the same point. Some people arrest at different stages of development, for a whole host of possible reasons.
In such an environment, the definition of sanity is very much a personal thing, and depends very much upon one’s particular stage of development.
War makes a certain sense when one is viewing the world from a scarcity based mindset, that is dealing in a relatively simple set of accepted fundamental truths.
War makes very little sense when one is dealing with fundamental uncertainties in everything, and is attempting to create security on a millennial time-frame.
We can create anything that we are capable of envisaging the process of creation for.
Some things are very much easier to see from some paradigms than from others.