Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Power structure"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 34: Line 34:
 
<small>David McCandless: The Billion-Dollar-o-Gram 2009</small>  
 
<small>David McCandless: The Billion-Dollar-o-Gram 2009</small>  
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p>A quick look at David McCandless' Billion-Dollar-o-Gram 2009 will show that the costs of two issues ("Worldwide cost of financial crisis" and "Iraq & Afganistan wars total eventual cost") dominate the image so dramatically, that the costs of issues ("to lift one billion people out of extreme poverty", "African debt",  "save the amazon"...) seem insignificant in comparison.</p>  
+
<p>A quick look at David McCandless' Billion-Dollar-o-Gram 2009 will show that the costs of two issues ("Worldwide cost of financial crisis" and "Iraq & Afganistan wars total eventual cost") dominate the image so dramatically, that the costs of familiar "global issues" ("to lift one billion people out of extreme poverty", "African debt",  "save the amazon"...) seem insignificant in comparison.</p>  
  
<h3>The largest costs are <em>systemically</em> caused</h3>  
+
<h3>Largest costs are <em>systemically</em> caused</h3>  
 
<p>We tell the story of Charles Ferguson's two award-winning documentaries to highlight—as he did in his films—that those two issues were systemically caused. Or in other words that they were "inside jobs", as the title of Ferguson's second film suggested. </p>
 
<p>We tell the story of Charles Ferguson's two award-winning documentaries to highlight—as he did in his films—that those two issues were systemically caused. Or in other words that they were "inside jobs", as the title of Ferguson's second film suggested. </p>
  
Line 50: Line 50:
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Competition vs. collaboration</h3>  
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Competition vs. collaboration</h3>  
 
<p>But what <em>is</em> really the <em>power structure</em>? While our understanding will deepen gradually as we go along, what's we've just seen might already suggest that <em>power structures</em> are <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>, or "structures", that emerge when we compete instead of collaborating, and trust that "the invisible hand" of the "free market" will secure that the result is the best possible one.</p>  
 
<p>But what <em>is</em> really the <em>power structure</em>? While our understanding will deepen gradually as we go along, what's we've just seen might already suggest that <em>power structures</em> are <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>, or "structures", that emerge when we compete instead of collaborating, and trust that "the invisible hand" of the "free market" will secure that the result is the best possible one.</p>  
<p>This popular <em>myth</em>, that <em>competition</em> (rather than informed co-creation) leads to the best possible world, appears to follow from Darwin's theory of evolution. Isn't that the way in which nature uses <em>her</em> creativity?</p>  
+
<p>This popular <em>myth</em>, that <em>competition</em> (rather than informed co-creation) leads to the best possible world, seems to follow from Darwin's evolution theory. Isn't that the way in which the nature does <em>her</em> creation?</p>  
 
<p>"Unfortunately, the evidence, such as it is, is against this simple-minded theory", wrote Norbert Wiener. </p>  
 
<p>"Unfortunately, the evidence, such as it is, is against this simple-minded theory", wrote Norbert Wiener. </p>  
  
<p>On [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#ThePSposter The Paradigm Strategy Poster] (which was one of the forerunner <em>prototypes</em> to Holotopia) we used the [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Chomsky-Harari-Graeber homsky–Harari–Graeber <em>thread</em>] to illustrate this point.</p>
+
<p>What should we, really, learn from Darwin about cultural and <em>social</em> evolution? Richard Dawkins answered this question in his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene". His point, which subsequently led to a variety of applications and a research field called "memetics", was that the survival of the fittest favors <em>the fittest</em> or best adapted gene (or the fittest "meme", when it is cultural or social evolution we are talking about)—and not utility or perfection.</p>
<p>But what should we, really, have learned from Darwin? We preceded this <em>thread</em> by discussing Richard Dawkins' core insight, published in his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene". His point—which subsequently led to "memetics" as its application to cultural and societal evolution—was that the evolution must not be thought of as favoring utility or perfection of any kind, but <em>the fittest</em> or best adapted gene (or the fittest "meme", when it is cultural or social evolution we are talking about). </p>  
+
 
 +
<p>What sort of <em>systems in which we live and work</em> did this sort of evolution lead to? [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#ThePSposter The Paradigm Strategy Poster] (which was one of the forerunner <em>prototypes</em> to Holotopia) we used the [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Chomsky-Harari-Graeber homsky–Harari–Graeber <em>thread</em>] to answer this question.</p>  
  
 
<h3>The "fittest" is not the best</h3>  
 
<h3>The "fittest" is not the best</h3>  
<p>So what does this mean, practically and concretely?</p>
+
 
<p>We answered this question by using the real-life history of "Alexander the Great" as a parable, as told by David Graeber, because it has all the elements we may want, to illustrate our points: The "fittest" system of its era (Alexander's army, with its corresponding "business model") was turning free people into slaves, destroying societies and cultures, homes, monasteries and palaces... <em>and</em> it even  had "financial innovation" as one of its core elements!</p>  
+
<p>We used the real-life history of "Alexander the Great" as a parable, as told by David Graeber, because it has all the elements we may want, to illustrate our points: The "fittest" system of its era (Alexander's army, with its corresponding "business model") was turning free people into slaves, destroying societies and cultures, homes, monasteries and palaces... <em>and</em> it even  had "financial innovation" as one of its core elements!</p>  
<p>The stories of Noam Chomsky and Noah Yuval Harari allow us to deepen our understanding of the dynamics that underlie the <em>power structure</em> devolution. We'll return to them when discussing the <em>socialized reality</em> insight.</p>  
+
<p>The stories associated with the names of Noam Chomsky and Noah Yuval Harari allowed us to point to the dynamics that underlie the <em>power structure</em> devolution. We'll return to them when discussing the <em>socialized reality</em> insight.</p>  
  
 
<h3>Are you working for a psychopath?</h3>  
 
<h3>Are you working for a psychopath?</h3>  
<p>We supplemented a reflection on Joel Bakan's "the Corporation", to show that while today the most powerful <em>power structure</em> may <em>look</em> different than it did twenty-five centuries ago, its essential nature has remain unchanged.</p>  
+
<p>We supplemented a [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Corporation reflection on Joel Bakan's "The Corporation"], to show that while today the most powerful <em>power structure</em> may <em>look</em> different than it did twenty-five centuries ago, its essential nature has remain unchanged.</p>  
<p>As a law professor, Bakan explained how the modern corporation with time evolved to become the most powerful institution on the planet. And how—through a few centuries of legal maneuvering—it acquired the legal status of a person, but without the corresponding accountability. So Bakan asked—if the corporation is a person, <em>what sort of person</em> is it? In his documentary, and the corresponding book, Bakan showed that the corporation has all the characteristics that qualify a psychopath. </p>  
+
<p>As a law professor, Bakan explained how the modern corporation with time evolved to become the most powerful institution on the planet. And how—through a few centuries of legal maneuvering—it acquired the legal status of a person, but without the corresponding accountability. If the corporation is a person, then <em>what sort of person</em> is it? In his documentary, and the book that preceded it, Bakan showed that the corporation has all the characteristics that qualify a psychopath. </p>  
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  

Revision as of 12:33, 27 June 2020

H O L O T O P I A:    F I V E    I N S I G H T S




Powered by ingenuity of innovation, the Industrial Revolution revolutionized the efficiency of human work. Where could the next revolution of this kind be coming from?

System.jpeg
System ideogram

We look at the systems in which we live and work. Imagine them as gigantic machines, comprising people and technology. Their function is to take people's daily work as input, and turn it into socially useful effects. If our work has become incomparably more efficient and yet we've remained busy—should we not see whether they might be wasting our time? And if our best efforts result in problems rather than solutions—should we not check whether they might be causing those problems?

Furthermore—as the above image may also illustrate—the systems in which we live and work determine our life quality most directly. How well are they serving us in that role?


Power structure wastes resources

A costly oversight

While the ingenuity of our innovation has been focused on small gadgets we can hold in our hand—those 'gigantic machines' constitute a proportionally more important, and yet overlooked creative frontier. How much is this oversight costing us?

On Page 4 of the article The Game-Changing Game–A Practical Way to Craft the Future we answered this question by giving a summary of our Ferguson–McCandless–Fuller thread, of which we here highlight the main points.

As always, our stories are intended to vividly illustrate rather than rigorously prove the proposed views.

Billion Dollar-o-Gram 2009.jpg
David McCandless: The Billion-Dollar-o-Gram 2009

A quick look at David McCandless' Billion-Dollar-o-Gram 2009 will show that the costs of two issues ("Worldwide cost of financial crisis" and "Iraq & Afganistan wars total eventual cost") dominate the image so dramatically, that the costs of familiar "global issues" ("to lift one billion people out of extreme poverty", "African debt", "save the amazon"...) seem insignificant in comparison.

Largest costs are systemically caused

We tell the story of Charles Ferguson's two award-winning documentaries to highlight—as he did in his films—that those two issues were systemically caused. Or in other words that they were "inside jobs", as the title of Ferguson's second film suggested.

Fuller may have been right

In the late 1960s, Buckminster Fuller predicted that by the end of the century science and technology would have advanced enough to enable us, the people on the planet, to put an end to scarcity. And that our core challenge would be to reconfigure the use and distribution of those resources—which now sapped through scarcity-based competition.

What we have just seen suggests that Fuller may have been right.

In 1969 Fuller proposed to the American Senate a computer-based solution called the World Game. Its whose purpose was to enable the global policy makers to see the world as one, and collaborate on allocating and sharing its resources, instead of competing.

Power structure causes devolution

Competition vs. collaboration

But what is really the power structure? While our understanding will deepen gradually as we go along, what's we've just seen might already suggest that power structures are the systems in which we live and work, or "structures", that emerge when we compete instead of collaborating, and trust that "the invisible hand" of the "free market" will secure that the result is the best possible one.

This popular myth, that competition (rather than informed co-creation) leads to the best possible world, seems to follow from Darwin's evolution theory. Isn't that the way in which the nature does her creation?

"Unfortunately, the evidence, such as it is, is against this simple-minded theory", wrote Norbert Wiener.

What should we, really, learn from Darwin about cultural and social evolution? Richard Dawkins answered this question in his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene". His point, which subsequently led to a variety of applications and a research field called "memetics", was that the survival of the fittest favors the fittest or best adapted gene (or the fittest "meme", when it is cultural or social evolution we are talking about)—and not utility or perfection.

What sort of systems in which we live and work did this sort of evolution lead to? The Paradigm Strategy Poster (which was one of the forerunner prototypes to Holotopia) we used the homsky–Harari–Graeber thread to answer this question.

The "fittest" is not the best

We used the real-life history of "Alexander the Great" as a parable, as told by David Graeber, because it has all the elements we may want, to illustrate our points: The "fittest" system of its era (Alexander's army, with its corresponding "business model") was turning free people into slaves, destroying societies and cultures, homes, monasteries and palaces... and it even had "financial innovation" as one of its core elements!

The stories associated with the names of Noam Chomsky and Noah Yuval Harari allowed us to point to the dynamics that underlie the power structure devolution. We'll return to them when discussing the socialized reality insight.

Are you working for a psychopath?

We supplemented a reflection on Joel Bakan's "The Corporation", to show that while today the most powerful power structure may look different than it did twenty-five centuries ago, its essential nature has remain unchanged.

As a law professor, Bakan explained how the modern corporation with time evolved to become the most powerful institution on the planet. And how—through a few centuries of legal maneuvering—it acquired the legal status of a person, but without the corresponding accountability. If the corporation is a person, then what sort of person is it? In his documentary, and the book that preceded it, Bakan showed that the corporation has all the characteristics that qualify a psychopath.


Power structure is us

"We have seen the enemy, and he is us!"

Pogo, Walt Kelly's exceedingly cute cartoon hero, said this decades ago; and it stuck.

But could it be real?

What we must know about the Holocaust

Bauman-PS.jpeg

In modernity, Zygmunt Bauman observed, cruelty and evil morphed. They became systemic; they became "an emergent property" of the systems in which we live and work. All that is needed for cruelty and evil to happen is that perfectly ordinary and well-intentioned people, folks like you and like us, "do their jobs".

Bauman is credited for observing that even the concentration camps were only extreme cases of this much more general tendency, which manifested itself in a variety of places and forms throughout the 20th century.

Bub Bauman was alone to see that. Historian Omer Bartov wrote:

"There is a common tendency to view the Holocaust as a well-ordered plot, in which antisemitism led to Nazism, Nazism practiced genocide, and both were destroyed in a spectacular ‘happy end‘. This is a tale most people would like to believe, university students and filmgoers, book readers and television viewers."

"Bartov would prefer that we do not believe this," A. D. Moses commented in a book review, "because it 'fails to recognize that this extreme instance of industrial killing was generated by a society, economic system, and civilization of which our contemporary society is a direct continuation'. It leads to a 'false understanding of the present', and thereby 'legitimize(s) inaction and indifference, conformity and complacency'.”

A bold new meme is ready to emerge

Toward the end of his career, nearly ninety years old Zygmunt Bauman was invited to give a high-profile talk at the University of Oslo. He interrupted a long applause from the overfilled university's largest auditorium, and solemnly declared that he had nothing of value to tell us. When he was a young man, Bauman explained, he believed that the grave problems facing humanity could be solved, and worked dedicatedly. But now that he's grown old, he sees the problems getting worse; and the solution nowhere in sight.

What we are about to see next is that Bauman was wrong. Things only take time. His ideas are catching on. Not only in academia, as we have just seen, but also and most importantly in the arts

The way of the artist is different from the way of the philosopher. The artist does not analyze; she simply sees what goes on, what is "in the time" and struggles to find suitable expression.

The artist also has completely different way to reach the public. The philosopher speaks to a society of the elect; the artist can speak to everyone—through a medium that conveys ideas directly, and makes them palpable, visible, and real.

"The Reader" is a case in point

</p>

We meet Hanna, The Reader's main character superbly brought to life by Kate Winslet's Academy Award winning role, when she helps Michael (the main male protagonist), who just contracted scarlet fever, return home. A bit later we get to know that she's also a tram conductor, about to be promoted for spotless performance. Who would in her character recognize a former concentration camp guard?

Hanna also performs admirably during the high-profile court trial where she is one of the defendants. She is the one who answers truthfully, without scheming to improve her image, and reduce her guilt. The passions of the daily news readers and the court audience were inflamed by the image of concentration camp prisoners burning to death in a burning church. "Why didn't you unlock the doors? Why didn't you let the people out?"

Hanna is the only one to answer; and she does that in the manner of pointing to the obvious: "We were guards; our job was to guard the prisoners. We couldn't just let them escape. We were responsible for them. (...) If we'd opened the doors, there would have been chaos. How could we restore order?

"If people like you don't learn from what happened to people like me—then what the hell is the point of anything?" This was told to Michael by his law professor, who had obviously been a grownup in the war, and who obviously shared Bauman's insight; and undertook to share them with a mere handful of students, who signed up for his seminar. The same could have been told by Zygmunt Bauman; and by Sidney Pollack, who produced this film. But we didn't learn, The Reader warns us. We see that at the end of the film, when the only survivor of the event, a woman who was a girl during the church event, rejects Hanna's humble plea for forgiveness or reconciliation. The woman explains that "nothing" was to be learned from the concentration camps. Michael, and we, meet her in her mansion in New York, loaded with art. As a Holocaust surviver she deserves all compassion. And respect. Yet we are led to infer that she might be part of some contemporary power structure. There is no room for antisemitism—Pollack's ethnic roots, just as Bauman's, are Eastern-European Jewish. No, something much more profound, and more important is at play.

If you are in doubt whether the unfortunate condition that the power structure condemned us to was Pollack's real interest, see this trailer of his first directorial success, "They Shoot Horses, Don't They". In The Reader—hislast Academy Award nomination—Pollack aimed at deeper understanding of causes.

And yet Pollack's movie, just as Bernhard Schlink's novel on which it was based, was criticized on the grounds of presenting the culprits in an unjustifiably positive light. Bauman's—and the movie's—point was not even mentioned.

So yes, Bauman's meme is ready to emerge. But it did not emerge yet. It is an issue without a name; without citizenship rights, and without real existence.

This meme can make a difference

Tangled up in yesterday's worldviews, issues, and rights and wrongs, we are about to commit a completely new, and history's largest, kind of cruelty. Not a genocide—but of a biocide; and a geocide!

Can we help Bauman's insight be seen in the light of day? And make a difference?