Alas, the fraud of hyping supposed big breakthroughs in human governance is far from unpopular. Vastly more progress has been made learning (and improving) how computers work than in figuring out much less improving how humans work. https://twitter.com/La__Cuen/status/1001102779371393024 …
I think his point is that if you want better socioeconomic governance you are barking up the wrong tree. It is much more plausible to use technology to improve computers, than to improve humans.
-
-
Doesn't mean that better technology will lead to better outcomes but it is at least a lever that we are able to use.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Exactly. If you believe this is true then blockchain’s design tradeoffs don’t make sense - they’re affording (technologically) a mode of governance that is at odds with our socioeconomic reality. An impedance mismatch of the highest order.
-
I feel like you're agreeing but also disagreeing. Blockchain is probably unlikely to solve societies problems, but it's true that with random exploration people sometimes accidentally come up with technologies which change society. It's just not something we can control...
- 2 more replies
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.
are you intentionally attacking Bitcoin here? This pretty much sums up exactly what is wrong with lauding the original paper as revolutionary.
New forms of technological governance don’t necessarily lead to corresponding change in socioeconomic governance.