this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
524 points (87.2% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
11 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tigers are dangerous animals that sometimes eat people. They have brains, they make "choices" in the sense that there is a decision process going on in their brains. When a tiger eats a human we can call that tiger "evil", maybe try to get back at it by torturing it to teach it a lesson.
If I tell you that this is just in the nature of tigers, and torturing the tiger does little to prevent tigers from eating humans in the future, then that's not an "excuse". The word is kind of meaningless in this context. If we don't want to get eaten by tigers we can stay away from tigers, or keep them locked up, or possibly kill all of them (not as "revenge" but as a preventative measure). Moralizing their behavior does little to prevent future deaths. We used to have trials for animals, but we grew out of that.
So I disagree with your categorization of this as an excuse. I'm not excusing anything, and I'm not promoting a redemption - that too is a concept steeped in the idea that people have choices. But I agree with you that holding people accountable can be an effective way to influence people. We have a justice system both to rehabilitate people from repeating crimes, and to discourage people from committing crimes in the first place. The key is to think rationally about how to influence people in an effective way. I'd argue that the prison system in the US, for example, has not been effective in preventing crime because it forgets both about the rehabilitation part and the socioeconomic factors that make people commit crimes. And much of the reason for this is the religious conditioning that causes people to get caught up moralizing and seeking vengeance instead of keeping their eyes on the end goal.
Elon may very well be a lost cause as you say. Even so, I believe chastising him on social media is making things worse, not better, so the people who do that are not acting rationally. The adult approach is to think about an effective way to prevent him from doing more damage while not giving the wrong signals to the rest of society. He has a tail of followers so care needs to be taken that he doesn't become a martyr for them.
I don't agree with punitive "justice". It's ineffective, bad, and wrong.
But I do agree that, while rehabilitative justice takes place, we must protect society from those who are doing harm to others.
Your "adult approach" allows him to continue to freely do harm to people, and in no way addresses it nor the harm those who think he's acceptable perpetuate.
This is another excuse to do nothing.
I don't see em suggesting any particular solutions, so I'm not sure what you are criticizing or why you think it would result in Elon remaining at large any more than from figurative fruit throwing.
I agree that social repercussions have a place, but I also agree that it is only "good enough" for many -- but not all -- situations. Seeking a more sophisticated approach based on studying and identifying potential root causes seems to me like it would be more sustainable, not to mention an opportunity for individual growth.
Thus far in this thread I have suggested:
I'm sure there are other things that can be done if people are willing to sit down and think about what effects they want and how to achieve them.
To elaborate on #2, he's not going to listen to people if they don't first show that they understand what he's worried about. I believe Musk's ideals are very focused on optimizing for societal output, and that individuals (including himself) are expendable. He views society as an anthill, every human being just a cell in a larger body. Someone needs to help him realize that there are better metrics for a society, such as quality of life. I don't think he has ever experienced what that's like because he's never spent time in a healthy family where there is love, and where just being together is good enough. The only value he has ever known is whether you are producing something of material value. He needs to relearn. Ideally we'd convince him to voluntarily get therapy.
True, I could have identified those as suggested solutions (albeit rather broad and unspecific, which is perfectly fine). I also sympathise on both accounts.
I have this personal intuition that a lot of social friction could be mitigated if we took some inspiration from the principle of locality physics when designing social networks and structuring society in general. The idea of locality in physics is that physical systems interact only with their adjacent neighbours. The analogous social principle I have in mind is that interactions between people that understand and respect each other should be facilitated and emphasised, and (direct) interactions between people far apart from each other on (some notion of) a "compatibility spectrum" should be limited and de-emphasised. The idea here is that this would enable political and cultural ideas to be propagated and shared with proportionate friction, resulting in a gradual dissipation of truly incompatible views and norms, which would hopefully reduce polarisation.
The way it works today is that people are constantly exposed directly to strangers' unpalatable ideas and cultures, and there is zero reason for someone to seriously consider any of that since no trust or understanding exists between the (often largely unconsenting) audience and the (often loud) proponents. If some sentiment was instead communicated to a person after having passed through a series of increasingly trusted people (and after likely having undergone some revisions and filtering), that would make the person more likely to consider and extract value from it, and that would bring them a little bit closer to the opposite end of that chain.
Anyway, those are my musings on this matter.
That sounds like a great idea. There was a recent Kurzgesagt video about how similarity encourages us to work together, but this breaks down on the Internet where people are too different from one another.