This question is whether we are even capable of handling the complex problems facing our societies. The fact that we created the problems that may overwhelm us does nothing for the solution of those problems. I started this diary talking about my own realization that we probably are not going to make it, i.e. figure out how to manage the world that we have created let alone solve our biggest problems without some serious AI assistance.
While I made a big deal out of the relief of knowing that we just can't make it on our own, that really doesn't help much. The only option that we have is to figure out how to build something smart enough to help us manage ourselves but there is no guarantee of that and it tends to be a circular argument. We are probably not smart enough to use that smart AI even if we build it. We just are not able to be rational enough of the time to do it.
Go below the squiggle at your own risk.
Kate McDonough at Salon did an article on Paul Krugman's column for today that stunned me by going right to the heart of what I've been struggling with:
In his Friday column for the New York Times, Paul Krugman warns that the ignorance of the people making our policy — like, say, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan — isn’t just demoralizing, it’s dangerous. Because “what policy makers don’t know, or worse, what they think they know that isn’t so, can definitely hurt you,” he writes.
And that is precisely the point. These idiots are killing us and our children and grandchildren. It is one thing to have differences of opinion on issues that are in question. It is a whole different level of failure to refuse to deal with formal, professional knowledge cause you don't want to.
This was exactly the point of Krugman's column:
“there is much less professional controversy” among leading economists about things like trade sanctions or the success of the stimulus than we’re generally led to believe.
Why am I not surprised?
The most recent poll of these top economists asked if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — the stimulus — reduced unemployment. The agreement was overwhelming. “All but one of those who responded said that it did, a vote of 36 to 1,” Krugman points out. A second question about whether the stimulus was “worth it” produced a 25 to 2 consensus.
But policymakers don’t listen to the experts, “placing their faith instead in doctrines most economists firmly reject.”
As if we didn't know this listening to a whole range of shit for brains Republican congress people. Having said that the point is not Republican congress people who are not good examples of anything. The point is the best we have in leadership barely does any better.
All of which raises a troubling question: Are we as societies even capable of taking good policy advice? [...] And macroeconomics, of course, isn’t the only challenge we face. In fact, it should be easy compared with many other issues that need to be addressed with specialized knowledge, above all climate change. So you really have to wonder whether and how we’ll avoid disaster.
Folks, the answer to that troubling question appears to be "no". So can we build something with enough processing power that we can't ignore it?
Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 4:48 PM PT: Thank you to all who have commented so far. I started this diary for this kind of dialogue. If I may do a very brief summary:
1) The problems are huge but we have a history of finally solving even huge problems.
2) Allowing everything to be run by political leaders solely driven by money does not seem to work.
3) The very real social transformation of education by even a partially open Internet is the only real area of hope as our children (grandchildren in my case) may be able to save us.
4) In the shorter term political pressure must be brought to bear to allow rational, scientific answers to be implemented without political posturing and willful stupidity.
So then is there a way to bring this pressure to bear to advocate for a national, ultimately international censorate to be created to oversee establishing a rational economy and planning for mitigation of the climate disaster? Just those two areas? Could this be a division like civil service versus political appointment?