This is depressingly common. Politicians are so aware of Overton window issues and the "physics of voting" they keep sacrificing technical plausibility in order to preserve political possibility. Another example of incoherence is demanding that algorithms explain themselves.
-
Show this thread
-
I think we're going to see this increasing divergence between science/engineering ideas of good attacks on complex problems and political ideas of good attacks. There's a reason politicians keep going back to Apollo as a charismatic megafauna reference point for science/tech...
1 reply 5 retweets 33 likesShow this thread -
Rocketry was the last popularly legible sector where you could pose politically feasible goals while conveying a cartoon technical vision that did not create implausible design spaces for the tech community. Everything since: computing, genetics, neuroscience, AI, is illegible.
1 reply 7 retweets 44 likesShow this thread -
It seems weird, but Kennedy's "Moon in a decade" was fundamentally more coherent a technical proposal than something like "decarbonize without nuclear energy to hit 50% emissions target by 2030."
3 replies 9 retweets 40 likesShow this thread -
So what we're seeing here is a 3-stage process: a) ignore the science/tech that's too hard to explain to voters b) promise them impossible things c) attach unrelated side goals that are possible to achieve but don't actually hit the main goals.
1 reply 10 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
You know what this feels like? It's a "Wall" except with "Science Scare" rather than "Brown Immigrants" as the rallying flag. To the extent the "Science Scare" is real, it's not meaningfully acted upon. To the extent it's an expedient scare, it's a means to other ends :(
1 reply 9 retweets 54 likesShow this thread -
If this is the best democracy can do in a world based on really complex technologies and global intertwingling, then I see why many see democracy (and more broadly, the nation state as a problem solving unit) as the problem. Still there's a bit of hope.
2 replies 5 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
First there is hope that it is possible to make the *processes* of democracy more scientifically literate somehow, in ways that are not quite as anemic as having toothless scientific committees "advising" politicians. Can we add more teeth to scientific influence over policy?
5 replies 6 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
Maybe. After all, we ended up in a place where corporations are people, and can influence politics in a very toothy way with money, directly (a condition I am broadly in favor of btw, even if the specific mechanics leave much to be desired...). Perhaps ideas can be people too?
3 replies 2 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
Second, the practice of lumping together popular and unpopular policy pieces was expedient pragmatism in a low-tech world, but in a complex tech world, is suicidal. I don't think there's anything necessarily either "democratic" there or psychologically fundamental.
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likesShow this thread
My proposal was to divide the functions of government so that people who care about exciting social status signaling stuff can vote on that, and people who care about boring infrastructure stuff can vote on that. And they don’t get in each others’ way. https://meaningness.com/metablog/virtue-court …pic.twitter.com/AXHzF9c2KW
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Ah interesting. A sort of code-division multiplexing of democracy. This arguably is what representative democracy attempts to do, except for "generalized specialists"... fails because their incentives are to turn populist and solve for social signaling instead.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @vgr @Meaningness
"Technical literacy" has to be engineered in indirectly though, otherwise you just end up with technocracy, aka "scientism with chinese characteristics"
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.