It's been quite a while, but when I was working on a project where we were teamed with TI, my TI contact said that their technical ladder (as opposed to management-related promotions) worked that way. Openings in a higher level were filled by all the members of the next lower level electing someone to promote. Supposedly, this process continued all the way up to a "Chief Scientist" (or some such title) that sat on the board.
I really like your real parent-based options, as they would meet my needs as a parent.
It is a popular double-think these days to assert that "knowledge is power" and "children should be given access to all knowledge." These do not co-exist well. If knowledge and ideas are so powerful, children aren't equiped to handle them. (Most children, of course, don't know they aren't--that's why they're "childish.")
I respect the power of a car. It is a tool that can be used well for its intended purpose. It's also a terrible killing machine when wielded irresponsibly. I might let my 10-year start the car, but he can't drive it, yet. (He probably thinks he could--and some can, but believe me, he couldn't.) My government even has a law that says he can't.
I agree that the statements about the computers' power are misleading.
One possibility that might not occur to a citizen of a democracy is that Iraq is an effective monarchy, and monarchs have to give good presents to keep their subordinates happy. Maybe it's really the face-value explanation.
you should be living on the moon by now, not in some crappy condo in cambridge
It's unrealistic to think that a large percentage of people will ever move to another planetary body in the near future. The Earth and its inhabitants are mutually optimized. Unless the new location has a LOT of free energy, it will take too much effort/money/energy to make it habitable.
However, Pluto has enough unusual qualities that there is some real raw science benefits. Why is it so different? Can we send a probe with enough capability to help determine whether it really is a captured rogue, for example?
I think the universe is there for us to have fun trying to understand it. We honor its Maker when we enjoy it.
In general, technology doesn't cause the symptoms described. Rather, it enables the exposure of the problems. The more people believe (correctly or not) that they are powerless or can't affect anything or don't have the right to have an opinion, etc., the more they will use the technology available to pursue self-gratification alone.
For example, as pointed out, technology could be very useful in resolving local neighborhood issues, but let's face it, it's hard to get any neighborhood together on anything, anymore. There are many causes, but one of them is that civil discussion is not trained or modeled (e.g., TV talk shows) or apparently valued (same e.g.). To engage in a neighborhood activity holds more danger than it used to.
This isn't to say that a particular technology is morally neutral, necessarily (a position I used to hold). Certain technologies afford certain uses, and thus lead to certain preferred action. It's not that certain technologies can't be used for a moral use, it's just that it's a lot harder. Given that, I think most of what this post is referring to as "technology" doesn't necessarily afford immoral uses primarily (except for maybe TV:-).
Slashdot Mirror
It's been quite a while, but when I was working on a project where we were teamed with TI, my TI contact said that their technical ladder (as opposed to management-related promotions) worked that way. Openings in a higher level were filled by all the members of the next lower level electing someone to promote. Supposedly, this process continued all the way up to a "Chief Scientist" (or some such title) that sat on the board.
It is a popular double-think these days to assert that "knowledge is power" and "children should be given access to all knowledge." These do not co-exist well. If knowledge and ideas are so powerful, children aren't equiped to handle them. (Most children, of course, don't know they aren't--that's why they're "childish.")
I respect the power of a car. It is a tool that can be used well for its intended purpose. It's also a terrible killing machine when wielded irresponsibly. I might let my 10-year start the car, but he can't drive it, yet. (He probably thinks he could--and some can, but believe me, he couldn't.) My government even has a law that says he can't.
One possibility that might not occur to a citizen of a democracy is that Iraq is an effective monarchy, and monarchs have to give good presents to keep their subordinates happy. Maybe it's really the face-value explanation.
It's unrealistic to think that a large percentage of people will ever move to another planetary body in the near future. The Earth and its inhabitants are mutually optimized. Unless the new location has a LOT of free energy, it will take too much effort/money/energy to make it habitable.
However, Pluto has enough unusual qualities that there is some real raw science benefits. Why is it so different? Can we send a probe with enough capability to help determine whether it really is a captured rogue, for example? I think the universe is there for us to have fun trying to understand it. We honor its Maker when we enjoy it.
In general, technology doesn't cause the symptoms described. Rather, it enables the exposure of the problems. The more people believe (correctly or not) that they are powerless or can't affect anything or don't have the right to have an opinion, etc., the more they will use the technology available to pursue self-gratification alone. For example, as pointed out, technology could be very useful in resolving local neighborhood issues, but let's face it, it's hard to get any neighborhood together on anything, anymore. There are many causes, but one of them is that civil discussion is not trained or modeled (e.g., TV talk shows) or apparently valued (same e.g.). To engage in a neighborhood activity holds more danger than it used to. This isn't to say that a particular technology is morally neutral, necessarily (a position I used to hold). Certain technologies afford certain uses, and thus lead to certain preferred action. It's not that certain technologies can't be used for a moral use, it's just that it's a lot harder. Given that, I think most of what this post is referring to as "technology" doesn't necessarily afford immoral uses primarily (except for maybe TV :-).