General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy we won't be able to stop the spying (Speculative Analysis Alert)
Last edited Tue Jul 16, 2013, 06:38 PM - Edit history (3)
Humanity appears to be in the grip of a global system that we originally created, but which now shapes our lives independent of our wishes.
I've recently begun to suspect that humanity is at a point of endosymbiosis with our electronic communications and control technology, especially through the Internet. In a sense, we humans have incorporated ourselves as essential control elements of a planet-wide cybernetic super-organism. The precedent for something like this is the way that mitochondria migrated as bacteria into ancient prokaryotic cells to become essential components of the new eukaryotic cells that make up all modern organisms, including us.
To expand on the "super-organism" concept a bit, it looks to me as though what humanity has done over the last few centuries is built ourselves a global cybernetic exoskeleton. Although its development started back with the emergence of language and the taming of fire, it's most visible in the modern world, and especially in the last two decades.
Transportation systems act as its gut and bloodstream, carrying raw materials (the food of civilization) to the digestive organs of factories, and carrying the finished goods (the nutrients) to wherever they are needed. Engines and motors of all kinds are its muscles. The global electronic communication network is its nervous system. Electronic sensors of a million kinds are its organs of taste, touch, smell and sight.
Human beings have evolved culturally to the point where we now act largely as hyper-functional decision-making neurons within this super-organism, with endpoint devices like smart phones, PCs and their descendants acting as synapses, and network connections being analogous to nerve fibers.
Just as neurons cannot live outside the body, we have evolved a system that doesn't permit humans to live outside its boundaries. Not only is there very little "outside" left, but access to the necessities of life is now only possible though the auspices of cybernetic system itself. (For example, consider living without a socially-approved job. It's barely possible for a few people, but essentially impossible for most of us.) As we have developed this system around us, we have had to relinquish more and more of our autonomy in favour of helping the machine continue functioning and growing.
While we can no longer survive outside our cybernetic exoskeleton, in return it can't exist without our input. I realized over the last month or so that this means the the symbiosis has already occurred. If I had to put a "closure date" on it, the period where it transitioned to its current form was around 1990 (plus or minus a decade or so). We didn't even notice it happening - to us it just looked like our daily lives going on as usual.
I realize that I'm touting an old and over-used science-fiction idea. Luckily, it seems to have happened through a process of coevolution driven by the mutual amplification effects of human ingenuity, electronic technology and large amounts of available energy, rather than through a Borg-like assimilation of humans into a hive mind, or Ray Kurzweil's eschatological vision of a Technological Singularity.
Here are some data that describe aspects of the system:
- The data traffic of the global Internet is now over 150 terabytes per second, and will be over 400 TB/sec by 2016;
- There are over 12 billion devices attached to the Internet, rising to over 20 billion by 2016;
- There are over 6 billion mobile phones in use world-wide;
- There are over 1 billion personal computers in the world.;
- Human beings today use on average 20 times the energy our distant ancestors did. For highly developed countries like the USA and much of Europe, the number is 50 to 90 times as high.
- This growth in energy and technology use is occurring in a global population that has itself grown 7-fold since 1800. We are now part of a gigantic, world-wide, networked growth system (you are invited to think of "The Matrix" here...)
Such a cybernetic super-organism should be expected to exhibit rapid, conscious, teleological evolution driven by a mesh of human ideas and electronic information rather than the slow Darwinian genetic/reproductive process, so the possibility for the rapid emergence of unexpected social behaviors would seem to be fairly high. One of these behaviors is a variety of self-protective immune responses directed against what it sees as "rogue cells" within its body - cells that just happen to be people. Those immune responses are rapidly becoming more subtle and pervasive as the development of the cybernetic aspects of the organism explode in complexity and scale. The official and quasi-official responses to Ed Snowden "going rogue" are a perfect example of this mechanism in action.
The super-organism has transcended and incorporated the people that created it. It is now independent of human values, concerns and goals.
I don't even think there is anything we can "do" about this situation. We certainly can't reverse it, and it's an open question whether we can even moderate its development at this point. This new super-organism, of which we are unwitting components, has achieved a momentum and life of its own.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Best thing I've read in a while.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That one is the possibility that a peculiar consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is behind the rise of human civilization and the current triumph of capitalism.
The Second Law (which says that entropy always increases in an isolated system that is near thermal equilibrium) behaves very differently in open systems that are far from equilibrium. Such systems exhibit spontaneous increases in structure and self-organization in response to energy flows, regardless of whether people are involved. According to some fairly heavy-hitting scientists like Erwin Schrodinger, this effect is the source of life itself. Throw in human intelligence and fossil fuels, and what you get is a positive feedback effect that mandates further growth, regardless of what the individuals living inside the system might prefer.
In a way, this operation of the Second Law implies that human behavior becomes "statistically deterministic" at the collective level of a global civilization of 7 billion people. In this view, which is drawn by analogy from the field of statistical mechanics, our growth-hunger is an emergent property similar to the temperature or pressure of a container of gas. It becomes obvious only when there are enough molecules in the container to permit a statistical aggregation of their individual positions and velocities. In my view this effect is what we're seeing in the operation our 7-billion-person civilization.
When this concept of statistical determinism is coupled with the scientific work of Benjamin Libet on consciousness and free will, it makes me very doubtful whether anything like "free will" actually exists. We're good at convincing ourselves of its existence, but I see precious little evidence of it.
This thermodynamic interpretation may explain the emergence of the cybernetic super-organism I described in the OP. This organism represents the next level of self-organization and complexity beyond the purely human scale. In a sense it is an evolutionary inevitability, given the limit-removing nature of human intelligence, our accumulated engineering knowledge, and the vast energy flows permitted by our use of fossil fuels.
My comment about capitalism at the top comes from my observation that capitalism has been the most effective socioeconomic structure yet created to permit high levels of energy use and the consequent growth of structure. I don't think it's greed that did it, I think we just stumbled on an organization that was more effective for those purposes than its competitors, and so it has prevailed. No blame, no morality, just thermodynamics.
This is a much bigger discussion than we can have in a GD thread, because it completely subverts most of our common understanding of what's going on in the world and why, but this will have to do for now.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
randome
(34,845 posts)U.S. Spy Network Will Survive Any Amount Of Public Outrage, Experts Say
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/us-spy-network-will-survive-any-amount-of-public-outrage-experts-say.php?ref=fpb
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
Astrad
(466 posts)But it is a metaphor or a model that you are describing, it isn't the thing in itself. So it may 'appear' to be like a cybernetic organism and it may 'seem' to follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics and it may be 'like' how mitochondria migrated with bacteria but that's not what it is. The problem with the metaphor is it, as you said, invokes tropes from science fiction etc that people are familiar with and this can lead them to start relating to the phenomena as though it is that thing and the thing is inherently menacing. I think it exceeds our ability to describe it and while metaphors are helpful we too easily forget that's what they are.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)We have no access to the quantum foam that makes up "true reality" after all.
If a falling piano "seems" to follow the law of gravity, I'm not going to stand under it on the off chance that it's not just a metaphor.
Politics is just a metaphor too, but everyone here seems to think that it's "real" in some sense.
When we speak about anything, it's all metaphor.
The point I'm trying to make is that something outside of all previous human experience is happening to us as our civilization grows. We don't understand it, and what you don't understand you can't fix. Unfortunately, I'm discovering that even if you do understand some things you may not be able to fix them.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)At what point does a description of something stop being a metaphor, and become accepted as an accurate description of something real?
When someone says, "That is a maple tree," or "The Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction is autocatalytic" we accept that they are describing something "real". This is despite the fact that both sentences are entirely composed of arbitrary labels that are nothing more than highly abstracted representations of what is being described. There is general agreement on the meanings of the labels, so we take them as being "true" representations of the underlying reality.
In this case I describe the global technology we've developed as a "cybernetic exoskeleton" and the combination of that technology and global humanity as a "cybernetic super-organism". Given that we can evaluate the truth of the underlying proposition (that civilization can no longer survive intact without this technology) the main thing I'm doing is creating labels that gives us a new framework for thinking about civilization. In that sense it functions exactly like all other verbal labels we apply to real things, whether it's "table", "mitochondria" or "streetcar".
The fact that my labels are not commonly understood in the context of current "real" human civilization means that they are open to misinterpretation, as you point out. This seems to be a question of usage and common agreement more than accuracy. If the description of the system that I've proposed is accurate, the metaphoric quality of the label I apply to it should not be as much of an issue.
Do you think my description is accurate?
Astrad
(466 posts)Either you're proposing a model as a way about thinking of an emergent phenomena or you are describing the phenomena itself. The danger lies in the sleight of hand of doing both. I'm not saying you're doing that. As you suggested, we are always once removed from the world by language and language is always metaphorical. But that just makes it all the more important to strive for what we believe to be an accurate reading of the world. The 'description of the system' you posit is anchored to 'reality' overtly by way of metaphor, by its likeness to other more generally established systems, than by specific evidence and data from experimentation. So while I find your model intriguing I would not be surprised if many people hearing of it wind up panicking that "Skynet is here!"
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I view the situation like this (sorry for the bullet points...)
- I think I have detected an actual emergent phenomenon.
- I've tried to make my description of it as accurate I can at this point (I'm still researching it).
- I think the language I'm using (which is drawn from the sciences of complex systems, cybernetics, thermodynamics, ecology and anthropology) is appropriate to the phenomenon I'm trying to describe.
- Most people don't have much exposure to those sciences, especially in an interdisciplinary way. As a result I can't use the jargon of those sciences to explain the idea to most people. As a result I'm left with popular cultural references as the most accessible metaphors available.
- The common cultural references (Matrix, Terminator, "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster, or Fred Saberhagen's old "Berserker" SF stories) are universally dystopian. IMO this is because we see the situation from a dualistic, human-centric point of view: "us" humans versus "them" machines.
- I don't see the situation as "us vs them" at all. The machinery we developed is centered around us. It can't survive without us, so if we go extinct due to climate change the whole enterprise stops and decays. I don't expect it to become self-aware, at least I see no evidence for that yet.
- So, no Terminators and no Matrix. But those are the only examples I have that people can relate to that are even marginally on point. Alternative suggestions would be enormously appreciated.
The hardest pill for a bunch of progressives like us to swallow may be the idea that the 1% aren't actually "running the show". They may be taking advantage of the system for their own advantage - similar to what you and I do when we go job hunting, though on a grander scale - but they are not "in control" of it. Not even the 0.1% are running the show - though they think they are. They're playing in the same emergent sandbox as the rest of us, they just have bigger pails and shovels.
librechik
(30,676 posts)no offense to you, you're brilliant. But I knew I was outclassed as far as analyzing and describing my warm messy clouds of thought which I am soooo comfortable floating in rather than getting all epistemological. I might have to change my mind due to a rule of logic! Yikes!
I chickened out and read Ulysses instead. Not much easier.
Anyhow--
What do we really "know" about reality, a concept physics now tells us is probably an illusion if not a delusion? Of what use is logic in a postmodern world where Ari Fleischer just invents reality and we get to watch him and obey? And in a sense, he's right: he makes reality by controlling perceptions through the mass media. I can only ask the person next to me if they too saw the same thing that I saw when 1500 miles away 9/11 happened. And wonder why their opinion of reality is so different from mine. And worry about how no one will ever know what is real.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
For most of us a warm, nourishing soup of emotions with some free-floating "rules of thumb" to connect it to reality will get us through the night just fine. I appear to be one of the unfortunate few who is cursed with the desire to see behind the curtain. Yeah, I know thats what you say is happening, but I wonder whats really going on?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)and will make it impossible to end it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And that we are creating, or created, a super organism.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)This idea is still in the early research stages. It's fairly radical, and requires a dramatic shift in perspective away from the personal/political issues that usually occupy us on DU. So I'd welcome any input, even if people think it's a pile of steaming shite...