Posts Tagged ‘sociology’

You’re not special

Friday, March 7th, 2008

credit: hvhe1

It seems people are still trying to find ways in which humans differ from the the rest of the animal kingdom. Again and again we discover these “unique” human features in other animals. Yet we still search for the gap.

There is no gap. You’re a fucking animal — get over it. Look outside at the world around you. Do you see a particularly unique species? Just like other animals we use language, tools, mathematics and other abstract thought (watch documentaries about ravens or squirrels or dolphins etc.), plus we all murder, play, shun those different from us, cooperate, love… all traits seen in other animals.

If there was anything that separated us from other animals, it’s that we often look to the sky for redemption, as if there was something there that would save us all from this odd tragedy (clearly your gods have made the world so much better over the millennia). But I wouldn’t count delusion as a uniquely human trait either.

People can’t stand the fact that there’s nothing special about them. Against all evidence they will always rationalize anything to get them to feel better about themselves. This can be depressing, but there’s a reason for that.

Stubbornness aside, there’s an interesting lesson to be learned here: if you want to design pleasant experiences, flatter your users. Make them feel special. Pop up a smiley face every time they successfully submit a form. Ask them how they feel. Give them a useful tip for life. Just give them any kind of positive/thoughtful and personal reaction to their actions. You’d be surprised at how much positive feedback you’ll get afterwards.

Cases against standing armies

Sunday, March 12th, 2006

We don’t need to conquer the world. We don’t need to kill people in other countries.

We can learn from history. The Swiss didn’t have a standing army–they had an armed citizenry. Every man was issued an assault rifle which he used to shoot as many bullseyes on paper targets as quickly as possible at sporting competitions. They managed to not get conquered during both world wars because they had this brilliant idea to stay neutral. Plus they were known to be excellent marksmen, resilient, and numerous (every man had a gun). Despite the fantastic resources the Swiss controlled, Hitler wasn’t about to mess with an armed citizenry.

Know this: the day you let others protect you is the day you lose your freedom. Now they control you, and you have no means to defend yourself from them.

Besides, what does any government agency care for your freedom? They care, by their very nature, for their power and their ability to increase that power. We put too much trust in these men who learn the motto of “Duty, Honor, Country” at West Point yet produce no men who will refuse an illegal order.

Foreign policy? Give the central government a military to play with and you see what kind of foreign policy we get. It’s whimsical, murderous, it benefits us not one bit as a people, and it’s laughable in its way because our government bozos are essentially fumblers. They are greedy fumblers, which is the worst kind – they rent out this high priced military of “ours” for security work such as they are doing in the Balkans and Columbia. Both of those operations are immoral, illegal, and they have in common that they are killing innocents in the interests of those who have sponsored the careers of our “civil servants.” But they couldn’t get away with that if we didn’t have a standing military. But what if we had a national defense based upon the citizenry? Do you really think Michael and the boys are going to drop everything, grab the ole assault rifle and hop over to Kosovo? We don’t care about no stinkin’ Caspian Pipeline. Some of us have even read history and have a fair idea of what happens to people and nations that push Russia too hard. Besides, we are working for our living and couldn’t be bothered. Which of course is why the government insists that we absolutely must have a large standing army – that way they don’t have to ask our permission to kill people.

There is another aspect to this that I suspect is not obvious to most – our foreign policy and our perceived need for a huge standing army is responsible for most of the wars that are now in progress. Here is how it works: the army does some figuring and decides it’s armoured forces will need a new main battle tank and it will have to meet certain requirements such as having a 100mm gun, chobham armour and it must go 60kph. During the life of this tank it is determined that we will need a total of twelve thousand of them rolling off the assembly lines to meet our requirement. Each tank costs a certain amount per unit. Now guess what, the price per unit goes down as the production numbers go up – and the government wants cheaper tanks to hide the cost from you and me. The “defense” contractors want more sales. So we export them to Israel, Egypt, and anyone else with a pulse and a dollar. This applies to every weapon we make from rifles to Patriot Missiles. In some very rare cases we refuse to export some weapon until we have a new and improved version for ourselves.

The result of this process is that we as a country have become the arms merchants our grandparents hated so much that after the First World War they called them “merchants of death.” When you wonder why the mythical “peace process” does not work in the Middle East just think about what kinds of weapons the various armies are using. The Russians can no longer keep up and their weapons showed up poorly in the Persian Gulf War so now it’s time for guns, tanks and planes stamped “Made in USA.” We are sponsoring the very wars about which our political leaders and diplomats claim to be so “concerned.” We are responsible in fact, for murder on a global scale.

Source. He gets a little carried away in the end, but nevertheless I stand by his words as truth. The articles I linked to said what I wanted to, so read them. Here’s more info on the Swiss and their citizenry.

Our forefathers knew that every nation that disarmed its citizens, and who ceased to depend upon militias for its defense, relying instead upon standing armies, inevitably embarked upon an imperialistic policy abroad and authoritarian rule at home, and eventually destroyed itself. [Another good read.]

If you like quotes from our founding fathers, check out what Jefferson thought: There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.

The Transparent Society

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2005

David Brin wrote an excellent book called The Transparent Society. It talks about the emergence of surveillance and how sousveillance would keep those short-term improvements over the long-term. Read this tale of two cities when you get a chance. Here’s an excerpt:

This is a tale of two cities. Cities of the near future, say ten or twenty years from now.

Barring something unforeseen, you are apt to live in one of these two places. Your only choice may be which.

[...]Consider City Number One. In this place, all the myriad cameras report their urban scenes straight to Police Central, where security officers use sophisticated image-processors to scan for infractions against the public order — or perhaps against an established way of thought. Citizens walk the streets aware that any word or deed may be noted by agents of some mysterious bureau.

Now let’s skip across space and time.

At first sight, things seem quite similar in City Number Two. Again, there are ubiquitous cameras, perched on every vantage point. Only here we soon find a crucial difference. These devices do not report to the secret police. Rather, each and every citizen of this metropolis can lift his or her wristwatch/TV and call up images from any camera in town.

Here a late-evening stroller checks to make sure no one lurks beyond the corner she is about to turn.

Over there a tardy young man dials to see if his dinner date still waits for him by a city fountain.

A block away, an anxious parent scans the area and finds which way her child wandered off.

Brin talks about TV’s on people’s writewatches, but actually it will be GPS-enabled smartphones, much like my concept of the augrecon (early version). So… which city do you want to live in?

What happen!

Sunday, July 10th, 2005

With all the cameras in London, shouldn’t it, you know, not get bombed? Security cameras aren’t working because no one’s watching. They’re good to catch the criminals, sometimes, but the damage has been done. Instead, open up the camera networks to allow anyone in the world to see them. With so many streaming technologies available, there’s no technological hurdle here, just bureaucratic bullshit… as usual. They’re afraid of change, and that will be their downfall. With an open camera system, people will be given a new tool that makes life so much easier. Wondering if your favorite restaurant is busy now? Check the stream. Did your kid wander off? Check the area for him using cameras that are right around the corner.

With such a multi-funtional camera system (audio should be included as well), there will always be people watching. Not only that, but everyone will be able to keep an eye on the police and other public servants to make sure they’re doing their job right.

The possible benefits (and assured ones) are worth the cost of opening up our cities, and frankly, that isn’t a high cost - the cameras are already in place.

Same song, second verse

Sunday, July 10th, 2005

With the advent of instant global communications and incredibly powerful computational devices (ie not just PCs) people have been talking about a new era of greatness where peace and love and harmony will be born and… whatever. It’s about balance. Huge central criminal organizations did Bad Things, so other huge organizations got good at taking them out. Suddenly, those criminal organizations stopped acting as such and became decentralized - small, distributed, and flexible, allowing them to do more. Now the other huge organizations are freaking out and wondering how to counter such a force.

If you can’t beat them, join them. In this case, mimic their structure. Become more organic and systems-based - ditch the obsolete hierarchy model. Of course bureaucrats don’t want this to happen, because that would mean the system that gave them power will be destroyed. Too bad, bitches.

So here we are with all this new tech and capabilities. Things will be different, but as the old cliche goes, some things will never change. In this case, it’s that there will always be violence and crime no matter what we do. We’re evil by nature (it’s what got us this far), and we’re also very clever (another survival factor). We will always wage war and kill each other - no amount of technology will change that. However, some tech can curve this, but villains will adapt or even evolve to new strategies (and of course we should never underestimate the power of stupidity) that will bypass our prevention techniques. That’s life, kid, live with it.