Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dennis Bouvard's avatar

I suppose the question can be posed as follows: is it possible to be disciplined by the complexities of sustaining extensive supply chains without monetary signals being sent from one link on the chain to next. I'm suggesting that it is possible to find the problem of coordination sufficiently disciplining if the main incentive is to remain and excel on your team, or get selected by another team, or found a team that would try to displace another team in the supply. chain. To be on a team is to supply and be supplied, to be in the loop and to be taken care of. I'm assuming that no supply chain needs to be built from scratch--they are mostly intact, while needing constant adjustment. For the market theorist, you can only know when and where those adjustments are needed when goods go unpurchased, demonstrating they weren't wanted or needed, which then means at least some of the commodities used to produce those were not needed, etc. But I think you could ask in advance and get a rough estimate, and have enough knowledge that deception would not be easy. If you wanted to found a new team, analogous to a new company, you would directly ask the other nodes on the chain if they'd rather have you than the present supplier. those best at supplying everyone with data--knowledge and information--would similarly be in the chain, helping everyone make such decisions. There's competition here, but conducted through communication based on the "currency" of data security.

Expand full comment
Dennis Bouvard's avatar

I assume that Benjamin Bratton is right--there is a "Stack," planetary-scale computation, involving ubiquitous sensing and data collecting and analyzing technology. The articulation of all these connections seems to me an impressive technological fear, just not one you could highlight on TV. I think that a lot of technological development is going to be in the areas everyone seems to hate: "smartness," i.e., further integration and automation of surveillance, monitoring and self-regulation ("optimization"). This itself might generate new modes of energy extraction and use, transportation, robotization, war making (maybe peacemaking). I don't see what it would mean to oppose this, or in the name of what might one do so. Most of the right, whether the "sacred rights of the individual" right or "preserving my race" right will be obliterated--they have no answer to this, even as they happen to be the ones exposing the monstrosities of the system. The left won't do much better, as all "smartness" cuts against all their "equity" concerns (as they are already complaining). States will become increasingly dependent on high tech contractors, which will in the end replace the state. I'm only being a bit facetious if I say that data security companies are the new subject of history. At this point it really is a wretched economic-political order, including everything--the banks, corporations, governments, political parties, media education, etc.--that will increasing see its survival is at stake that will block the "tributary." I suppose in response to the specifics you lay out here I would say it's best to be more under the radar, and build up what will have to massive research-pedagogical institutes grounded in the originary hypothesis that will cut across the humanities and sciences.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts