Here in the US, the Supreme Court dramatically weakened federal agencies’ regulatory power in a decision last month that has largely flown under the radar because so much else has been happening (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo). I find it terrifying because these regulatory agencies are the last lines of defense counterbalancing the moneyed interests. The agencies have full time staff who just work on striking the right regulatory balance, and now those regulations will lose most of their teeth.
"Future Shock" was the term 60 years ago, though about zero of Toffler's predictions worked out.
Mostly, new technology is a Good Thing, by definition, certainly when it just enhances already-agreed priorities. Nobody complains about improved medicine and dentistry.
Only haters of previous vaccines hated mRNA.
I think that Mr. Moscrop's concerns haven't really changed; he has a long record of concern about rich people and unregulated businessmen. Corey Doctrow has the right of it about so-called "AI", when he points out that the *REAL* "artificial intelligences" operate very slowly, with human components that are replaced if they show human feeling; they are called "corporations", all running a program to maximize shareholder returns without regard to social or physical harms they do, save to obey regulation.
There could be social media that disallows anonymity and holds you to account for every insult or threat; electronic speed could also ensure that somebody uttering a threat on the 'Net is in handcuffs a half-hour later, as if they'd broken into a liquor store. Social media that adjudicates what is a "lie" and surrounds your every post with a red-border for "convicted liar" for the next 30 days. That's all possible, if we want it, and demand it. It has nothing to do with technology; it has to do with regulating how humans treat each other.
Is speed the underlying issue, or is it simply a byproduct of something else? I would argue the latter. Let me posit this hypothesis: what we are experiencing is an incredible increase in complexity, which leads to technological solutions that now operate beyond our human processing capability. Examples abound: new EV companies are more software platforms than manufacturers of durable goods (Tesla, Rivian); in finance, you have high-frequency trading; we, of course, have social media with its constant stream of information; we have low-orbit satellites providing internet to the world (StarLink); and in public administration, the double whammy of more complex issues combined with an attack on the public service (salaries and benefits, for whatever reason, should be lower than in the private sector, but I digress) causes all sorts of byproducts, speed being one of them.
The entry barriers to technology continue to increase, so the notion of leveling the playing field is a 20th-century answer to a 21st-century problem. You can look into regulation, or you can direct your energy toward addressing the most negative impacts of complexity while harnessing the positives. Speed is a symptom, not a root cause.
And now, just for fun, I asked AI to take my original argument and enhance it. This is what it came up with (I used Perplexity.ai, I have the Pro version):
The argument that complexity is more important than speed when it comes to changes in society can be significantly improved and strengthened. Here's a refined version:
Complexity, rather than speed, is the fundamental driver of societal changes in our modern world. While the pace of change has undoubtedly accelerated, this increased speed is largely a byproduct of growing complexity in our technological, social, and economic systems.
The primary force reshaping our society is the exponential growth in interconnectedness and interdependencies across various domains. This complexity manifests in several ways:
1. Technological Complexity: Modern innovations are increasingly intricate, often combining multiple technologies and disciplines. For example, electric vehicles like Tesla are not just transportation devices but complex software platforms integrated with advanced manufacturing[5]. This technological sophistication often surpasses human cognitive capabilities, leading to systems that operate beyond our intuitive understanding.
2. Information Overload: The proliferation of data and information sources, particularly through social media and digital platforms, has created an environment of constant information flux. This abundance of information, while potentially beneficial, can overwhelm our ability to process and make sense of it effectively[3].
3. Economic Complexity: Financial systems have become increasingly intricate, with phenomena like high-frequency trading exemplifying how complexity can lead to speeds beyond human comprehension. The rapid fluctuations in markets are a result of complex algorithms and interconnected global economic systems.
4. Organizational Complexity: As businesses and institutions grow, they develop more complex structures and processes. This complexity can impede decision-making, reduce productivity, and stifle innovation. Research shows that 86% of executives believe that organizational complexity hinders growth and decision-making processes[3].
5. Social Complexity: Our social networks and communication systems have become more intricate, influencing how information spreads and opinions form. This complexity affects everything from personal relationships to global political movements.
The increased speed we observe in various aspects of society – from technological advancements to market fluctuations – is often a consequence of these complex systems interacting. For instance, the rapid spread of information or trends on social media is not just about speed, but about the complex network effects and algorithms that underpin these platforms.
Moreover, the challenges we face as a society are becoming increasingly complex. Issues like climate change, global pandemics, and economic inequality require understanding and managing intricate, interconnected systems. The speed at which we need to address these issues is driven by their complexity, not the other way around.
Addressing societal changes effectively requires focusing on managing and understanding complexity rather than merely trying to keep up with speed. This approach involves:
1. Developing better tools and frameworks for understanding complex systems.
2. Enhancing our ability to process and make sense of large amounts of information.
3. Creating more adaptive and resilient organizational structures.
4. Fostering interdisciplinary approaches to problem-solving.
5. Improving education to prepare individuals for navigating complex environments.
In conclusion, while speed is a noticeable aspect of modern societal changes, it is complexity that truly defines and drives these transformations. By recognizing complexity as the root cause and speed as a symptom, we can develop more effective strategies for managing and benefiting from the changes in our increasingly interconnected world[1][2][4].
Excellent article! The speed of change and busyness of life has folks too exhausted to reflect - or even source the actual info to reflect. The world is complex and impacting everyone. Some Systems Thinking/mapping would be a useful approach but that is not a common language. The UK is using Citizen Assemblies to encourage dialogue to engage people of varying viewpoints and arrive at consensus on changes. Canada is also trying this approach in various places and on various topics.
Certainly economic leading to political in equality has really fed polarization exacerbating exhaustion.
Yeah, laser surgery on a group of protesters or a perpetrator shouldn’t be done by a robotic dog or silent gun mount from across the street. On the other hand, I’m sure the police will love the idea. They’re already looking for a rationale based on safety, accuracy and cost efficiency. 100% guaranteed.
David Moscrop, why is your writing so full of invective directed against the United States? And why does it look so much like the politics of resentment and envy with little or no thought on rational and realistic alternatives. You are almost 100% negative, except for retiring to you basement and playing video games. I think that says something about the breadth of your life.
You're arguing, of course, for group control (of development, innovation....of "change") instead of individual preeminence and self-determination. That's been tried many times before and has consistently failed (including much loss of life). Your longing for slowing down is more a sign of age than of any philosophical benefit.
I think you have it backwards. It is the individualism, the right to horde money, resources, and power by a few that has consistently failed and led to massive loss of life and incredible misery. The few who are in the position of power control the debate and the information so perhaps that’s why you are confused. The longing for thoughtful reflection (not just slowing down) is not a fault of getting old but a benefit. Hopefully, as you age, you will come to see the lies you have been told.
The challenge is that collectivism has not really worked well either. So far in terms of quality of life and social cohesion, a capitalist regime with a light collectivist touch (universal health insurance, a solid employment insurance programme with incentives to take on more training or gain a new skill, and excellent public education) is what makes countries thrive. From Norway to Singapore to Denmark to New Zealand (income insurance still in the works)... that seems to be the secret sauce for peace and prosperity.
A capitalist regime (meaning constitutionally) will always allow the few to accumulate more than their fair share of wealth, power, and resources. It will also always treat social programmes as charity rather than as a right that empowers everyone. Capitalists will always try to increase their share at the expense of others but the Scandanavian countries could be a starting point if there were some constitutional protections for the people and the planet. First we need to start by recognizing our common humanity and the finiteness of our personal lives, of homo sapiens, and the planet - maybe then we can stop killing and oppressing one another and work on creating something worth while even though, in the end, it will all be consumed by an exploding star.
Ron, I may have it opposite---but I don't have it backwards. "The right to horde" is also the right to save. And, whom do you trust to determine the use of your savings?
Ron, you and I are at opposite ends of the socialist spectrum. Individuals, their work, their families and their wealth are theirs.
For those with great wealth, it is not theirs. They took it from the people who did the work (intellectually and physically) and from an increasingly fragile planet. I believe everyone should have a fair share of the sustainable wealth and resources our planet can provide. The distribution should be fair and equitable, no one should have too little or too much.
Read the book, saw the movie...even got the sweatshirt. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." When we arrive at this socialist nirvana, I'll be happy to determine your "fair and equitable" share.
"Hoard", unless you are arguing over the right to form a group of 6 million warriors to sweep across Asia, laying waste to whole civilizations.
Which would frankly not surprise me, if it came from a "libertarian" tech bro, (they actually prefer monarchy for their own corporations; only "libertarian" when wanting freedom from higher powers).
Here in the US, the Supreme Court dramatically weakened federal agencies’ regulatory power in a decision last month that has largely flown under the radar because so much else has been happening (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo). I find it terrifying because these regulatory agencies are the last lines of defense counterbalancing the moneyed interests. The agencies have full time staff who just work on striking the right regulatory balance, and now those regulations will lose most of their teeth.
"Future Shock" was the term 60 years ago, though about zero of Toffler's predictions worked out.
Mostly, new technology is a Good Thing, by definition, certainly when it just enhances already-agreed priorities. Nobody complains about improved medicine and dentistry.
Only haters of previous vaccines hated mRNA.
I think that Mr. Moscrop's concerns haven't really changed; he has a long record of concern about rich people and unregulated businessmen. Corey Doctrow has the right of it about so-called "AI", when he points out that the *REAL* "artificial intelligences" operate very slowly, with human components that are replaced if they show human feeling; they are called "corporations", all running a program to maximize shareholder returns without regard to social or physical harms they do, save to obey regulation.
There could be social media that disallows anonymity and holds you to account for every insult or threat; electronic speed could also ensure that somebody uttering a threat on the 'Net is in handcuffs a half-hour later, as if they'd broken into a liquor store. Social media that adjudicates what is a "lie" and surrounds your every post with a red-border for "convicted liar" for the next 30 days. That's all possible, if we want it, and demand it. It has nothing to do with technology; it has to do with regulating how humans treat each other.
Is speed the underlying issue, or is it simply a byproduct of something else? I would argue the latter. Let me posit this hypothesis: what we are experiencing is an incredible increase in complexity, which leads to technological solutions that now operate beyond our human processing capability. Examples abound: new EV companies are more software platforms than manufacturers of durable goods (Tesla, Rivian); in finance, you have high-frequency trading; we, of course, have social media with its constant stream of information; we have low-orbit satellites providing internet to the world (StarLink); and in public administration, the double whammy of more complex issues combined with an attack on the public service (salaries and benefits, for whatever reason, should be lower than in the private sector, but I digress) causes all sorts of byproducts, speed being one of them.
The entry barriers to technology continue to increase, so the notion of leveling the playing field is a 20th-century answer to a 21st-century problem. You can look into regulation, or you can direct your energy toward addressing the most negative impacts of complexity while harnessing the positives. Speed is a symptom, not a root cause.
And now, just for fun, I asked AI to take my original argument and enhance it. This is what it came up with (I used Perplexity.ai, I have the Pro version):
The argument that complexity is more important than speed when it comes to changes in society can be significantly improved and strengthened. Here's a refined version:
Complexity, rather than speed, is the fundamental driver of societal changes in our modern world. While the pace of change has undoubtedly accelerated, this increased speed is largely a byproduct of growing complexity in our technological, social, and economic systems.
The primary force reshaping our society is the exponential growth in interconnectedness and interdependencies across various domains. This complexity manifests in several ways:
1. Technological Complexity: Modern innovations are increasingly intricate, often combining multiple technologies and disciplines. For example, electric vehicles like Tesla are not just transportation devices but complex software platforms integrated with advanced manufacturing[5]. This technological sophistication often surpasses human cognitive capabilities, leading to systems that operate beyond our intuitive understanding.
2. Information Overload: The proliferation of data and information sources, particularly through social media and digital platforms, has created an environment of constant information flux. This abundance of information, while potentially beneficial, can overwhelm our ability to process and make sense of it effectively[3].
3. Economic Complexity: Financial systems have become increasingly intricate, with phenomena like high-frequency trading exemplifying how complexity can lead to speeds beyond human comprehension. The rapid fluctuations in markets are a result of complex algorithms and interconnected global economic systems.
4. Organizational Complexity: As businesses and institutions grow, they develop more complex structures and processes. This complexity can impede decision-making, reduce productivity, and stifle innovation. Research shows that 86% of executives believe that organizational complexity hinders growth and decision-making processes[3].
5. Social Complexity: Our social networks and communication systems have become more intricate, influencing how information spreads and opinions form. This complexity affects everything from personal relationships to global political movements.
The increased speed we observe in various aspects of society – from technological advancements to market fluctuations – is often a consequence of these complex systems interacting. For instance, the rapid spread of information or trends on social media is not just about speed, but about the complex network effects and algorithms that underpin these platforms.
Moreover, the challenges we face as a society are becoming increasingly complex. Issues like climate change, global pandemics, and economic inequality require understanding and managing intricate, interconnected systems. The speed at which we need to address these issues is driven by their complexity, not the other way around.
Addressing societal changes effectively requires focusing on managing and understanding complexity rather than merely trying to keep up with speed. This approach involves:
1. Developing better tools and frameworks for understanding complex systems.
2. Enhancing our ability to process and make sense of large amounts of information.
3. Creating more adaptive and resilient organizational structures.
4. Fostering interdisciplinary approaches to problem-solving.
5. Improving education to prepare individuals for navigating complex environments.
In conclusion, while speed is a noticeable aspect of modern societal changes, it is complexity that truly defines and drives these transformations. By recognizing complexity as the root cause and speed as a symptom, we can develop more effective strategies for managing and benefiting from the changes in our increasingly interconnected world[1][2][4].
Citations:
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10441-022-09450-6
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521002882
[3] https://lucid.co/blog/business-complexity
[4] https://uwaterloo.ca/complexity-innovation/about/what-are-complex-systems
[5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497204000094
Excellent article! The speed of change and busyness of life has folks too exhausted to reflect - or even source the actual info to reflect. The world is complex and impacting everyone. Some Systems Thinking/mapping would be a useful approach but that is not a common language. The UK is using Citizen Assemblies to encourage dialogue to engage people of varying viewpoints and arrive at consensus on changes. Canada is also trying this approach in various places and on various topics.
Certainly economic leading to political in equality has really fed polarization exacerbating exhaustion.
Yeah, laser surgery on a group of protesters or a perpetrator shouldn’t be done by a robotic dog or silent gun mount from across the street. On the other hand, I’m sure the police will love the idea. They’re already looking for a rationale based on safety, accuracy and cost efficiency. 100% guaranteed.
David Moscrop, why is your writing so full of invective directed against the United States? And why does it look so much like the politics of resentment and envy with little or no thought on rational and realistic alternatives. You are almost 100% negative, except for retiring to you basement and playing video games. I think that says something about the breadth of your life.
You're arguing, of course, for group control (of development, innovation....of "change") instead of individual preeminence and self-determination. That's been tried many times before and has consistently failed (including much loss of life). Your longing for slowing down is more a sign of age than of any philosophical benefit.
I think you have it backwards. It is the individualism, the right to horde money, resources, and power by a few that has consistently failed and led to massive loss of life and incredible misery. The few who are in the position of power control the debate and the information so perhaps that’s why you are confused. The longing for thoughtful reflection (not just slowing down) is not a fault of getting old but a benefit. Hopefully, as you age, you will come to see the lies you have been told.
The challenge is that collectivism has not really worked well either. So far in terms of quality of life and social cohesion, a capitalist regime with a light collectivist touch (universal health insurance, a solid employment insurance programme with incentives to take on more training or gain a new skill, and excellent public education) is what makes countries thrive. From Norway to Singapore to Denmark to New Zealand (income insurance still in the works)... that seems to be the secret sauce for peace and prosperity.
A capitalist regime (meaning constitutionally) will always allow the few to accumulate more than their fair share of wealth, power, and resources. It will also always treat social programmes as charity rather than as a right that empowers everyone. Capitalists will always try to increase their share at the expense of others but the Scandanavian countries could be a starting point if there were some constitutional protections for the people and the planet. First we need to start by recognizing our common humanity and the finiteness of our personal lives, of homo sapiens, and the planet - maybe then we can stop killing and oppressing one another and work on creating something worth while even though, in the end, it will all be consumed by an exploding star.
Ron, I may have it opposite---but I don't have it backwards. "The right to horde" is also the right to save. And, whom do you trust to determine the use of your savings?
Ron, you and I are at opposite ends of the socialist spectrum. Individuals, their work, their families and their wealth are theirs.
For those with great wealth, it is not theirs. They took it from the people who did the work (intellectually and physically) and from an increasingly fragile planet. I believe everyone should have a fair share of the sustainable wealth and resources our planet can provide. The distribution should be fair and equitable, no one should have too little or too much.
Read the book, saw the movie...even got the sweatshirt. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." When we arrive at this socialist nirvana, I'll be happy to determine your "fair and equitable" share.
"Hoard", unless you are arguing over the right to form a group of 6 million warriors to sweep across Asia, laying waste to whole civilizations.
Which would frankly not surprise me, if it came from a "libertarian" tech bro, (they actually prefer monarchy for their own corporations; only "libertarian" when wanting freedom from higher powers).