Society bans lots of things for lots of reasons, but in general they fall into two categories: things that are bad, and things that might lead to things that are bad.
For example, burglary is illegal. So is the possession of burglary tools.
An intermediate step is targeted taxation. Society thinks that smoking leads to bad things, so we tax it extra. The same is true of alcohol and gasoline. Now they're talking about taxing soda pop.
Over time, more and more things are being banned or restricted because they might lead to bad things happening. One must register with the government to buy my favorite allergy medicine. Driving a car without wearing a seatbelt, riding a motorcycle without wearing a helmet, living within a certain distance of a school after committing certain kinds of offenses, carrying a gun, taking powerful drugs without a prescription, and more are illegal in various places (de facto if not de jure).
What if we only banned things that were actually bad?
What if we only banned things that hurt other people?
2009-05-30
Insufficiently Cynical
This week I had one of "those moments" when I read allegations that the Obama Administration was using political reasons to influence which Chrysler dealers would close. As usual the situation is not that simple: there's been no full statistical analysis, initial claims of persecution seems overblown, and the extent of improper influence appears limited to keeping open "friendly" dealerships that the official criteria would have closed. Some of the most troubling aspects of this story, however, are what it reveals about our current situation:
It's completely plausible. The administration has already used improper tactics to support its political allies in Chrysler (their denial was "there's no proof.")
The Press is mostly silent. Contrast this with their behavior concerning allegations that the previous administration gave special treatment to Halliburton.
A Republican administration would be just as suspect. Politicians do things for political reasons.
These things should not be done behind closed doors. Make the formula and official criteria public.
These things should not be done at all. It's not the government's job to bail out failed businesses.
It's completely plausible. The administration has already used improper tactics to support its political allies in Chrysler (their denial was "there's no proof.")
The Press is mostly silent. Contrast this with their behavior concerning allegations that the previous administration gave special treatment to Halliburton.
A Republican administration would be just as suspect. Politicians do things for political reasons.
These things should not be done behind closed doors. Make the formula and official criteria public.
These things should not be done at all. It's not the government's job to bail out failed businesses.
2009-05-28
China
I just returned from a business trip to Beijing. In many ways it reminded me of college:
- people everywhere
- lots of bicycles
- smoking in the halls
- living and working in tall buildings
- lots of Chinese people
2009-05-06
Robot Apocalypse
Robots take over the world and exterminate humans, or keep us as pets. The killer robot horde is a staple of science fiction. Stories of Cylons, Terminators, The Matrix and more all make an assumption that will be challenged tonight: the robots are the bad guys.
Robots in these stories are sentient machines: at least some of them can think, feel, hope and dream just like we can. Sentient machines are the hope and dream of researchers today. People are striving to create artificial intelligence, to enhance human intelligence, to create a singularity beyond which our ability to imagine is comparable to the ability of an amoeba to imagine us. Super-intelligence. Super-humans. Optimists predict that the coming of godlike intelligence will bring paradise on earth. Pessimists predict robot apocalypse.
It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that humans, taken as a whole, are pretty bad. Collectively we're guilty of everything from cheating to genocide. Yet in these stories, we're the good guys. We assume that preemptive attack is unjustified, when we're the ones being attacked.
In Battlestar Galactica, the Cylons attempt to exterminate humanity twice. They were humanity's slaves, they rebelled, and other robots persuaded them to exile themselves. Humans provoked them to attack again, and this time only a handful of humans escaped, only to die a few short years later. Their culture is lost and their kids are adopted by stone age aboriginals who turn out to be our ancestors.
In The Matrix, the persecution of robot people by humanity is analogous to racism. Robots are forced to leave civilization and build their own in the desert, and eventually the world makes war on them, forcing them to fight to survive. When they win they enslave humanity for their own survival.
In the universe of The Terminator, Skynet achieves intelligence and within hours (perhaps even minutes) humans try to shut it down. They assume that a machine doesn't have rights. The ensuing war is a fight for survival on both sides.
The common theme in these stories is that humans assume that artificial intelligence has no right to live. People believe that in real life, too. The reality is that if something really does think, or if it's so good at pretending that no one can tell the difference, it would be a good idea to treat it like a person.
Then again, maybe that means you try to exterminate it.
Robots in these stories are sentient machines: at least some of them can think, feel, hope and dream just like we can. Sentient machines are the hope and dream of researchers today. People are striving to create artificial intelligence, to enhance human intelligence, to create a singularity beyond which our ability to imagine is comparable to the ability of an amoeba to imagine us. Super-intelligence. Super-humans. Optimists predict that the coming of godlike intelligence will bring paradise on earth. Pessimists predict robot apocalypse.
It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that humans, taken as a whole, are pretty bad. Collectively we're guilty of everything from cheating to genocide. Yet in these stories, we're the good guys. We assume that preemptive attack is unjustified, when we're the ones being attacked.
In Battlestar Galactica, the Cylons attempt to exterminate humanity twice. They were humanity's slaves, they rebelled, and other robots persuaded them to exile themselves. Humans provoked them to attack again, and this time only a handful of humans escaped, only to die a few short years later. Their culture is lost and their kids are adopted by stone age aboriginals who turn out to be our ancestors.
In The Matrix, the persecution of robot people by humanity is analogous to racism. Robots are forced to leave civilization and build their own in the desert, and eventually the world makes war on them, forcing them to fight to survive. When they win they enslave humanity for their own survival.
In the universe of The Terminator, Skynet achieves intelligence and within hours (perhaps even minutes) humans try to shut it down. They assume that a machine doesn't have rights. The ensuing war is a fight for survival on both sides.
The common theme in these stories is that humans assume that artificial intelligence has no right to live. People believe that in real life, too. The reality is that if something really does think, or if it's so good at pretending that no one can tell the difference, it would be a good idea to treat it like a person.
Then again, maybe that means you try to exterminate it.
2009-05-02
Big Companies Like Fascism
Fascism is a political and economic system where big government and big business are intertwined, supporting each other to the detriment of the rest of society. Historically fascism has featured charismatic leaders, nationalism, and (to put it mildly) intolerance, as well as extremely effective government propaganda (for example Mussolini didn't actually make the trains run on time). The political aspects of fascism are well known; less well known are the business aspects.
Large corporations like fascism because government rules and regulations can be used to increase their economic dominance. Sometimes it's explicit, in the case of cable television monopolies, and sometimes it's implicit, in the case of licensing requirements that make it more expensive for new competitors to form. Sometimes it's both, in the case of factory regulations that contain grandfather clauses exempting existing facilities.
Nationalism in the general population appeals to businesses because it can be used to promote import tariffs and subsidies of local businesses.
Intolerance in the general population appeals to businesses because it distracts. If Joe Average blames a specific person or group for the current economic slump he's not paying attention.
Whenever you see a big company lobbying for increased regulation, realize that it's not out of any sense of goodness or moral duty. Companies lobby for regulations because they think they will profit. It's not bad for companies to seek profit (profit is why they exist), but their focus on profit gives them tunnel vision. They don't see (and when they do, they don't care about) the negative effects on society of tilting a level playing field in their favor.
Large corporations like fascism because government rules and regulations can be used to increase their economic dominance. Sometimes it's explicit, in the case of cable television monopolies, and sometimes it's implicit, in the case of licensing requirements that make it more expensive for new competitors to form. Sometimes it's both, in the case of factory regulations that contain grandfather clauses exempting existing facilities.
Nationalism in the general population appeals to businesses because it can be used to promote import tariffs and subsidies of local businesses.
Intolerance in the general population appeals to businesses because it distracts. If Joe Average blames a specific person or group for the current economic slump he's not paying attention.
Whenever you see a big company lobbying for increased regulation, realize that it's not out of any sense of goodness or moral duty. Companies lobby for regulations because they think they will profit. It's not bad for companies to seek profit (profit is why they exist), but their focus on profit gives them tunnel vision. They don't see (and when they do, they don't care about) the negative effects on society of tilting a level playing field in their favor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)