Comment by robocat
1 year ago
Systems run the show, not people.
"What important truth do very few people agree with you on?": I believe that nobody is running the show. The systems we have created are more complex than we understand. I think a few people individually understand a few aspects of the different systems (we are not at the complete mercy to these systems).
I also believe that we have a psycological need to know our social heirachies therefore we create stories about who we think is in control. That need creates conspiracy theories! That need creates narratives that certain people are running the world (but when you look closy at those people they are not running things - they don't understand how everything works even though they put much effort into trying to).
Banking is the foundation of all so-called systems. Take away the financing and nothing gets done.
People's desires are the foundation of all so-called systems. Take away the people and nothing gets done.
Or were atoms the foundation? Or thinking? Or maths? Or law? Or take away black holes and nothing gets done?
Ranking interdependent systems is nonsense. Reductionism and false arguments don't help much either.
You can make people do just about anything for money. Nothing else even comes close except ideology in a distant second place.
3 replies →
A point very eloquently made by Rick and Morty
I agree with this. I this misunderstanding is the root cause of, well a lot of shit, but particularly the increase in belief in conspiracy theories by members of the public. Most people lack a conceptual understanding of emergent behavior in complex systems, and instead rely on linear narrativization to understand the world (which by the way is not an insult to the public's intelligence, it's just the way our brains work unless you make a concerted effort to step outside of that default). And if you aren't considering multivariate, emergent behavior as a possible explanation for unpredictable and inscrutable world events, the next and really only reasonable explanation is intricate conspiracies by powerful agents.
I mean, a monarchy is also a system, but I also recognize that's not what you're talking about.
I'm inclined to agree, though I do think there's a disproportionate amount of influence in some groups. I also worry that the true danger of an artificial super-intelligence is not in a SkyNet-like scenario, but a more subtle and slower influence over global societies via trade and economics. It already more or less runs the world in abstract, so a thing that can understand all the complexities and manipulate them with capital has the potential to be very dangerous.