Repeating history
I was struck, at a recent meeting, by the regularity with which people compare the internet with a huge variety of supposedly amazing changes that happened in the past.
The saying "Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" does not contain the word "understand" for no reason. The very idea that anyone understands the nature of the internet sufficiently to compare it effectively to changes in the past is laughable, and yet it seems to be the primary hobby of almost everyone engaging in thinking about the 'net.
It's as if we have dismissed, society-wide, the idea that a model can be constructed from first principles. Such a model lacks "weight", nothing is believable unless it relates to something that definitely happened in the past, no matter how superficial the comparison.
In the meeting I mentioned, I joked that the word "Governance" irritated me, suggesting that I was somewhat anarchist (lowercase). The discussion was in regard to a group that, at the time, looked as though it wanted to develop rules by which "online collaboration" could communicate (hence the "Governance").
I was arguing that we had no idea what was going on, that our understanding of the situation was far too incomplete to contemplate the idea of rules, let alone the level of legislation suggested by the word "Governance".
A hilarious moment for me was near the end, when one participant said "Remember, anarchy is not about having no rules, it's having no leaders". This was, as I saw it, the most laughable thing. We, who had no real idea what was going on, were standing up as "leaders" to define the "rules" by which people involved in creating "online collaboration" should communicate, as if we were capable of understanding their needs, as if we were the best people to create such rules, and as if they even needed them.
I argued, and I argue still, that the internet, and its ability to communicate information free of physical form, is utterly new, and that our constant attempts to rationalise it back to historical events where this was not the case is utterly flawed. If anything, the only reason the results will be even remotely similar is because the participants believe it will.
The very function of this newness is the difference between 1c, and free. We understand, intuitively, that the difference between the two is not just one cent, it is the difference between finite and infinite. It is this degree of difference that I believe the internet brings. Yes, people argue that it isn't free, that time is a cost, that people have to eat, but these are irrelevant to the core of the issue, which is that people do not percieve these as costs because they are a constant.
The core of the idea, still roughly formed, is that the more possibilities a person faces, the greater the possibility for them to assume responsibility for their actions. As they do this, the results - regardless of the remaining physical constraints - reflect what they wish to happen, not what they feel compelled to do.
I believe that the internet is the crux of a social change in which those willing to assume that responsibility are simply making things happen. If they wish to talk to someone, they will find a way to make it happen, them, or someone who thinks like them, eventually. No rules are necessary, "Governance" is a requirement of a world of slow communication and poor responsibility.
No doubt, there are a million facets of the situation that can change the end results. This is hardly utopia, and as spam and other things demonstrate, it is unlikely that it ever will be. But where others see this and point back to the "Tragedy of the commons", I see a simple failure once again to appreciate the difference between the historical situation, a function of very limited resource, and the current one, where the resource space is vast and ever increasing, faster in many cases than we can think of ways to use it. If someone installed a 10gbit link into your home tomorrow, do you think you could really use a fraction of that capacity? and yet, most people will get it sooner than they need it.
There is no question that understanding the internet is partly understanding humans themselves, and for this history is often a useful reference. But make no mistake, we have no idea the potential of the internet, even in the next 10 years. We have even less idea than those who first saw the telephone did of its capabilities - Do you think when the first few telephones were installed, that anyone considered telemarketting, vast call centers, faxs? modems? even answering machines?
We are children in a very new playground that only looks familiar because we have no other basis for comparison.
The saying "Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" does not contain the word "understand" for no reason. The very idea that anyone understands the nature of the internet sufficiently to compare it effectively to changes in the past is laughable, and yet it seems to be the primary hobby of almost everyone engaging in thinking about the 'net.
It's as if we have dismissed, society-wide, the idea that a model can be constructed from first principles. Such a model lacks "weight", nothing is believable unless it relates to something that definitely happened in the past, no matter how superficial the comparison.
In the meeting I mentioned, I joked that the word "Governance" irritated me, suggesting that I was somewhat anarchist (lowercase). The discussion was in regard to a group that, at the time, looked as though it wanted to develop rules by which "online collaboration" could communicate (hence the "Governance").
I was arguing that we had no idea what was going on, that our understanding of the situation was far too incomplete to contemplate the idea of rules, let alone the level of legislation suggested by the word "Governance".
A hilarious moment for me was near the end, when one participant said "Remember, anarchy is not about having no rules, it's having no leaders". This was, as I saw it, the most laughable thing. We, who had no real idea what was going on, were standing up as "leaders" to define the "rules" by which people involved in creating "online collaboration" should communicate, as if we were capable of understanding their needs, as if we were the best people to create such rules, and as if they even needed them.
I argued, and I argue still, that the internet, and its ability to communicate information free of physical form, is utterly new, and that our constant attempts to rationalise it back to historical events where this was not the case is utterly flawed. If anything, the only reason the results will be even remotely similar is because the participants believe it will.
The very function of this newness is the difference between 1c, and free. We understand, intuitively, that the difference between the two is not just one cent, it is the difference between finite and infinite. It is this degree of difference that I believe the internet brings. Yes, people argue that it isn't free, that time is a cost, that people have to eat, but these are irrelevant to the core of the issue, which is that people do not percieve these as costs because they are a constant.
The core of the idea, still roughly formed, is that the more possibilities a person faces, the greater the possibility for them to assume responsibility for their actions. As they do this, the results - regardless of the remaining physical constraints - reflect what they wish to happen, not what they feel compelled to do.
I believe that the internet is the crux of a social change in which those willing to assume that responsibility are simply making things happen. If they wish to talk to someone, they will find a way to make it happen, them, or someone who thinks like them, eventually. No rules are necessary, "Governance" is a requirement of a world of slow communication and poor responsibility.
No doubt, there are a million facets of the situation that can change the end results. This is hardly utopia, and as spam and other things demonstrate, it is unlikely that it ever will be. But where others see this and point back to the "Tragedy of the commons", I see a simple failure once again to appreciate the difference between the historical situation, a function of very limited resource, and the current one, where the resource space is vast and ever increasing, faster in many cases than we can think of ways to use it. If someone installed a 10gbit link into your home tomorrow, do you think you could really use a fraction of that capacity? and yet, most people will get it sooner than they need it.
There is no question that understanding the internet is partly understanding humans themselves, and for this history is often a useful reference. But make no mistake, we have no idea the potential of the internet, even in the next 10 years. We have even less idea than those who first saw the telephone did of its capabilities - Do you think when the first few telephones were installed, that anyone considered telemarketting, vast call centers, faxs? modems? even answering machines?
We are children in a very new playground that only looks familiar because we have no other basis for comparison.
posted by PhiRatE at
5:43 PM
<< Home