the ultimate conservatism

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=488126 time=1609955808 user_id=9431]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=488116 time=1609948900 user_id=3619]
It seems to me conservatives in general, with obvious individual exceptions, are not conservative in relation to technology. [/quote]
That's more generally a human phenomenon. It's not specific to conservatives at all.

None of us really understands, when technology first appears, what it can do or will do. We have some ideas, but we're often wrong. So it's hard to reflect ethically on what the implications of a new technology will be.

My favourite case is the internet. When it was invented, it was for two purposes: the transfer of military information, and the sharing of medical information, apparently. We might ask ourselves, though: are those the two purposes for which the internet is most used now? :shock: Nope. Judged by its traffic, the internet is actually the most efficient system ever devised for the dissemination of advertising and pornography.

Did the creators understand that? No. Would ethical reflection have helped them to avoid it? No. Is the internet operating by rules we have chosen for it, or by a sort of rationale of its own, doing whatever it does quickly and well?

So neither liberals nor conservatives had any chance of taking a rational position on whether or not the internet should be allowed. Technology plays by its own rules.

[quote]Conservatives have tended to support specific wars much more that the Left and more than liberals. [/quote]
With Trump versus Obama, it's quite reversed. Obama ramped up wars, and Trump dismantled them. Was Trump, then, more liberal than Obama?

That points to a particular problem with the terms "conservative" and "liberal": they're relative terms. One can be "conservative" with regard to killing babies, but also "liberal" about economic freedoms. One can be "liberal" about killing babies, but also "conservative" against free speech.

The two are really not very accurate as general terms: they're better as adjectives describing positions on particular issues.
[/quote]

It's not possible to vet any particular technology, so what? Technology as a whole is a disruptor and we need less of that, not more. In the meantime, we could rush full force ahead with the technology and information we've already got for decades, solving current problems and making informed decisions about what's worth trying next instead of letting the problems happen first, which is just fucking stupid no matter which side of the aisle you're on.

[Scott Mayers]

That wasn't a derogatory definition.

It was a wildly inaccurate and slanted one, then.

Well, you've been holding off on noticing how YOUR leader Trump, who represents the modern National Socialist Right, at this moment is instigating MOB violence and have successfully broken into the Capital building. So much for your faith in the Right!

Now, what do you have to say about Trump. Speak up. I want to know if you support this 'right-wing' coup?

Edit: "White House" was incorrect and mean the "Capital building'. Thanks to Henry for this.

[Immanuel Can]

YOUR leader Trump,

How can you get so many things wrong, Scott...?

Buddy, let me put it simply: I'm not an American.

the modern National Socialist Right,

There exists no such entity. There never has, and there never will...because "right" and Socialist are opposites.

Scott, I say again...take a pill. You don't know what you're saying. You have no idea what I represent; that much is abundantly clear.

[Scott Mayers]

YOUR leader Trump,

How can you get so many things wrong, Scott...?

Buddy, let me put it simply: I'm not an American.

the modern National Socialist Right,

There exists no such entity. There never has, and there never will...because "right" and Socialist are opposites.

Scott, I say again...take a pill. You don't know what you're saying. You have no idea what I represent; that much is abundantly clear.

And you too, buddy. I am done with people who are insincere as you are being here.

[Immanuel Can]

I am done with people who are insincere as you are being here.

Heh. "insincere"? So you don't think I actually believe what I say? Interesting.

What's your metric for that?

[Scott Mayers]

Celebration time. The conservative abuses have PUSHED people to recognize their threat. But I'm sure a new conspiracy theory will arise [just watch!] to assert the crowds were really 'socialists' in disguise, including Trump himself, who aimed to assure the success of the Left!

Thanks for helping get all houses Democratic! This is itself very rare. Who would have guessed that if you just let the abusers HAVE a platform, they'd expose themselves for who they are?

[Skepdick]

Heh. "insincere"? So you don't think I actually believe what I say? Interesting.

What's your metric for that?

The search function.

[Iwannaplato]

It seems to me conservatives in general, with obvious individual exceptions, are not conservative in relation to technology.

That's more generally a human phenomenon. It's not specific to conservatives at all.

None of us really understands, when technology first appears, what it can do or will do. We have some ideas, but we're often wrong. So it's hard to reflect ethically on what the implications of a new technology will be.[/quote]But I see no real skepticism or quesitoning on the right. IOW if none of really know, then it would seem like the conservative position would be...so let's try this in a limited way. Or let's have a national discussion. It is also very hard to know what social changes will lead to. When it has to do with social changes conservatives are immediately strong critics or present strong concerns right off the bat.

My favourite case is the internet. When it was invented, it was for two purposes: the transfer of military information, and the sharing of medical information, apparently. We might ask ourselves, though: are those the two purposes for which the internet is most used now? Nope. Judged by its traffic, the internet is actually the most efficient system ever devised for the dissemination of advertising and pornography.

and collecting of information (which is sold or stored by private and public players) about all of us.

Did the creators understand that? No. Would ethical reflection have helped them to avoid it? No. Is the internet operating by rules we have chosen for it, or by a sort of rationale of its own, doing whatever it does quickly and well?

The juncture just after the internet did those two things, military and medical information transfer, is a very early one. Very few people were online. The moment social media came into play (and I realize this is not a discrete juncture) I would have expected conservative (and liberal) concerns to arise. The moment children started getting access in more than extremely rare exceptions, I would have expected conservative response. Now 20 years in, I still see no strong conservative response. But to me the very idea of conservatism means that regardless of what might be ethical concerns, practical concerns related to a radical change should lead to caution.

My guess is that it seems anti-capitalist to do this. And I realize this is a guess. If the government handed out devices to children through schools, conservatives would have gone crazy (and rightfully so). If the change somehow came directly via the public sector and suddenly adults and children were changing (and radically) how much they actuallyl looked at faces, for example, I think conservatives would have demanded the application of the precautionary principle (though perhaps not using that concept). But because the changes are coming through the private sector (sort of, but certainly on the surface) then to go against this would be to go agaist the market or free enterprise.

So neither liberals nor conservatives had any chance of taking a rational position on whether or not the internet should be allowed. Technology plays by its own rules.

It would have been miraculously prescien at that stage, yes, but there were many more stages and now, certainly, a generalized outcry for caution would seem warrented, but it's missing.

And I agree liberals are not doing this either. This is not a conservatives bad, liberals good point. My point is that I am not sure saying that conservatives are careful about change really works as a general heuristic. And damn, I wish it did.

My positions are complicated. It is not easy to put me in a category, though in the past I was very clearly, on the left. Now I find myself often agreeding with the right or conservatives on issues. But here's an area where I see conservative silence - of course, with individual exceptions, especially on the fringe right. And I really wish there were consistant about their concerns around change in general, wherever it comes from and including tech changes.

Conservatives have tended to support specific wars much more that the Left and more than liberals.

With Trump versus Obama, it's quite reversed. Obama ramped up wars, and Trump dismantled them. Was Trump, then, more liberal than Obama?

Trump was isolationist and I agree that's a great quality. And most of the conservative establishment hated Trump.

That points to a particular problem with the terms "conservative" and "liberal": they're relative terms. One can be "conservative" with regard to killing babies, but also "liberal" about economic freedoms. One can be "liberal" about killing babies, but also "conservative" against free speech.

Yes, especially wiht the European use of those terms and the American. But then, that's the thread, hitting the categories at a very broad level. In a sense that'm my point, people who identify as conservative seem to me to be at least as radical as liberals when it comes to new tech and its effects. You have to turn to religious conservatives to find any general calls for caution, and even they are mainly concerned about, for example, porn on the internet, not what the internet use does to developing brains in general, regardless of content.

Some areas I wish people identifying as conservatives were conservative: gm products, nanotechnology, AI, and yes, the internet. Almost no one is worried about nanotech despite researchers finding nanoparticles in animal and human brains. And this stuff is coming, often, from things like self-cleaning shirts. It would seem like a conservative position would want us to be careful about introducing this, start to look at risks and penetration of bodies, consider the priority of the product vs. potential risks. Over time our inventions are potentially more invasive and more global. You smoke, for the most part you made a choice and deal with the consequences. You make a catapult, well, that might change your region. With modern tech choices in China affect people in Toledo. We don't know how much. Choices at Dow affect people, well, anywhere. We have these techs and there is good ground for caution, but I see none. Now I could mount an argument related to liberals and hook this in to their tendencies to be more skeptical about corporations. But right here I am focusing on conservatives. If, as you said, they want to be careful about making changes before we know the results, then I want them not just to use this heuristic in relation to trans rights but also in relation to the kinds of industries, including the internet, also.

I am not trying to prove conservatives are bad. I am trying to say, great, there is wisdom in that caution, but please apply it broadly.

[Immanuel Can]

That's more generally a human phenomenon. It's not specific to conservatives at all.

None of us really understands, when technology first appears, what it can do or will do. We have some ideas, but we're often wrong. So it's hard to reflect ethically on what the implications of a new technology will be.

But I see no real skepticism or quesitoning on the right.

Well, this is where my other comments as below are so important. Neither side even really KNOWS what we should be questioning ethically, in many cases. We don't exactly know what the technology is going to turn out to do to us, or for us. That gets discovered as the technology gets used.

That makes ethical vetting beforehand not merely difficult, but sometimes quite impossible. As I pointed out next:

My favourite case is the internet. When it was invented, it was for two purposes: the transfer of military information, and the sharing of medical information, apparently. We might ask ourselves, though: are those the two purposes for which the internet is most used now? Nope. Judged by its traffic, the internet is actually the most efficient system ever devised for the dissemination of advertising and pornography.

and collecting of information (which is sold or stored by private and public players) about all of us.

Right. And we should be very unhappy about that now. But we didn't see it coming, did we? The technology was already in use before it became apparent it was going to end up doing that to us. That's why I wrote:

Did the creators understand that? No. Would ethical reflection have helped them to avoid it? No. Is the internet operating by rules we have chosen for it, or by a sort of rationale of its own, doing whatever it does quickly and well?

And you replied:

The juncture just after the internet did those two things, military and medical information transfer, is a very early one.

Yes, it was. But even after more people were online, we received the bad news in small, ignorable chunks...the internet is being used for porn...the internet is becoming more commercial...the internet is storing a limited amount of personal information...it can work for limited virtual money transfers...that's the sort of thing we gradually and incrementally became aware of, and each time, it seemed only a regrettable side-effect, not sufficiently threatening to warrant us refusing the technology of the internet altogether. So our ethical "fire alarms" just didn't "go off" when they happened.

And now, we are where we are...by tiny moves, we've ended up very far from where we would want to be, in some ways. And still, nobody can think of an alternative but to keep using the internet.

If the government handed out devices to children through schools, conservatives would have gone crazy

Oh, they are and they do. And nobody says a thing. Capitalists and bankers, of course, like the internet's financial upside. Socialists like its potential for social control and mass management. Ordinary folks still think it's their servant. So nobody's giving it up now. And only people of the Orwell-Huxley disposition are even thinking about it.

So neither liberals nor conservatives had any chance of taking a rational position on whether or not the internet should be allowed. Technology plays by its own rules.

It would have been miraculously prescient at that stage, yes, but there were many more stages and now, certainly, a generalized outcry for caution would seem warranted, but it's missing.

Agreed.

My point is that I am not sure saying that conservatives are careful about change really works as a general heuristic. And damn, I wish it did.

Oh, agreed: but it's a general human failing. We can't see what our technologies are really going to do, until after they've done it, in some cases.

You have to turn to religious conservatives to find any general calls for caution, and even they are mainly concerned about, for example, porn on the internet, not what the internet use does to developing brains in general, regardless of content.

Right. Well, I might be pegged a "religious conservative" by some, but I do know about the brain research. However, I confess I'm not typical in that set.

Some areas I wish people identifying as conservatives were conservative: gm products, nanotechnology, AI, and yes, the internet. Almost no one is worried about nanotech despite researchers finding nanoparticles in animal and human brains. And this stuff is coming, often, from things like self-cleaning shirts. It would seem like a conservative position would want us to be careful about introducing this, start to look at risks and penetration of bodies, consider the priority of the product vs. potential risks.

Some are already raising concerns. But they tend to be ignored. The technophiles just accuse them of being "Luddites," and move on.

[Iwannaplato]

That makes ethical vetting beforehand not merely difficult, but sometimes quite impossible.

Sure, but I think that is true for most things, even moral issues. I suppose conservatives can weigh in on moral principals with social changes. But really it's guesswork what changes will take place.

But a core point for me is now, after the effects are there, there is still no strong movement from conservatives to consider pulling back mobiles and other devices for children,

Yes, the full consequences of the radically different way we now parent, socialize, teach children and their free time are not here. But most people should be able to see that their lives are radically different. Still, I see no response. And when there is a response, it often seems to me naive about the addictive nature of the devices.

I tend to teach adults, but I have worked in pre-schools, and I saw children who were on digital devices NOT react when their parents arrived to take them home. Every child engaged in any other activity would run to the parent or call them over to see something. The arrival of a parent had a huge impact, even when I knew the relationships were challenging between that child and their parent. With the digital device involved, almost as a rule, no reaction. And often tantrums when the child is moved toward the changing room. That should have set off warning bells, enormous ones. Obviously, to me, people with any political positions should be concerned. That's an addiction reaction by the child. But with conservatives I am focused on the, hey look a radical change has taken place, why are you not reacting, given how you view changes in society and caution about change.

With gm foods, for example, the percentage of soy crops in the US went up to a majority of crops in a very short period of time. That means that it will be very hard to track any effects: say something like allergies. But there was no movement to be cautious.

I do realize that there is a science fluency issue involved. I also realize that something like gay rights can be preseted to people in images and potential events and activities that are fairly easy to package and imagine. I do get that. But I would have expected the educated conservatives to work with ways to package the information to raise concerns, if they had any. I have to go to the fringe right to find educated people who are concerned, and then only a small subgroup of them who can articulate this and reference and interpret research that is critical. So, I find myself in a strange bedfellows situation where the people I can connect with the most on these issues at the very least have colleagues who are extremely racist, for example. Luckily there are people who may or may not have come out of conservative backgrounds or liberal ones, but find themselves now using tools and critiques from both sides. But this is a very small group.

[Immanuel Can]

That makes ethical vetting beforehand not merely difficult, but sometimes quite impossible.

Sure, but I think that is true for most things, even moral issues.

Perhaps, but only in a much weaker sense. In some things, we do have a strong idea of what's involved -- particularly in things with which we have either previous experience directly, or some analogous experience from which we can generalize.

But technology tends to be unprecedented, and its effects are often likewise not analogous to what has gone before. Knowing about books did not prepare us to understand the internet, except in the most superficial, credulous kind of way.

But a core point for me is now, after the effects are there, there is still no strong movement from conservatives to consider pulling back mobiles and other devices for children,

This is true. Once again, the advantages of the technology, plus the believed "inevitability" of progress tend to mute all protest on both sides.

There are, of course, liberal reasons for being concerned about the internet. One thing would be its tendency to produce conformity rather than intelligence. Another would be its tendency toward distraction from the meaningful to the trivial. Another might be its overwhelming emphasis on the commercial. Another would be the human rights issue of its contribution to human trafficking. There are plenty of areas in which both conservatives and liberals should agree that the internet is problematic.

I tend to teach adults, but I have worked in pre-schools, and I saw children who were on digital devices NOT react when their parents arrived to take them home.

Yes. I've seen a teenage boy ignoring teenage girls in order to patronize his phone. It's quite alarming how powerful that effect is.

I do realize that there is a science fluency issue involved. I also realize that something like gay rights can be preseted to people in images and potential events and activities that are fairly easy to package and imagine. I do get that. But I would have expected the educated conservatives to work with ways to package the information to raise concerns, if they had any.

There are certainly many who do. But I think that the two other considerations I mentioned earlier tend to defeat a lot of people. They sort of resign themselves to taking on whatever technology is offered them. It seems inevitable to them.

[Nick_A]

The ultimate conservatism is to say that we need to stop progressing.

Well, no. That's a very odd claim. It certifies that you know nothing about conservatism. You should read Roger Scruton, perhaps, or some other such conservative.

Conservatism says that AS we are changing, we also need to preserve the goods and achievements of the past, so as not to lose the value of them. Unlike "progressives," they do not blithely trust that whatever just happens to be "new" or "next" is also bound to be better, or to take us in the right direction; so before buying in, they ask for evidence and proofs that it is better before it should be allowed to replace the good things we already have.

In a similar way, Progressives treat the past as disposable, as the waste-pit of history. Conservatives regard it as a legacy to be mined and utilized to create that better future for which everybody longs. Progressives think technology, government and collectives are easy roads to better things; conservatives know history, though: and they know that all three have, in times past, produced not just good things but bad ones...some so hideously bad we ought to safeguard against them.

Conservatism appeals to more adults because adults know what life is really like. They're mature, and they understand how badly wrong good intentions can go. So they tend not to rush foolishly into anybody else's vision of the future, but rather point out the necessity of retaining the progress achieved in the past. Progressivism tends to appeal strongly to teens, college students, and their professors, as well as to uneducated masses on welfare -- all of whom are accustomed to being provided for by others, theorize more than think, or have very limited actual life experience.

Conservatism is for grownups. Progressivism...well,...

An ancient question brought up to date by the American constitution. In Christinity it is the question of justice vs mercy. In America it is the debate between blind justice and pragmatism expressed as political correctness.

As of now pragmatism is winning and the law is used only to further PC pragmatism so it is meaningless to say America is a conservative nation. When blind justice and the integrity of the vote is sacrificed for pragmatic goals, blind justice and voter integrity necessary to sustain conservatism are now only a memory.

[Immanuel Can]

....pragmatism expressed as political correctness.

PC'ness has nothing to do with pragmatism, Nick. There's nothing less "pragmatic" than one group of people forcing all other people to subscribe to their particular ideology or fall silent.

Pragmatism is quick to compromise, and light on principle. PC'ness is not willing to compromise, and regards its precepts as non-negotiable entirely.

[Nick_A]

....pragmatism expressed as political correctness.

PC'ness has nothing to do with pragmatism, Nick. There's nothing less "pragmatic" than one group of people forcing all other people to subscribe to their particular ideology or fall silent.

Pragmatism is quick to compromise, and light on principle. PC'ness is not willing to compromise, and regards its precepts as non-negotiable entirely.

Pragmatism
an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

I may be missing something but I believe that blind justice is an essential concept on which liberty is based upon. As soon as we sacrifice it for the sake of immediate gain I understand it as a pragmatic effort to acquire power rather than compromise.

Compromise is possible within the concept of blind justice but the attempt to abandon blind justice is the struggle for power made possible through pragmatic aims dominating the social ideal of equality under the law

[Immanuel Can]

Pragmatism
an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

I may be missing something but I believe that blind justice is an essential concept on which liberty is based upon. As soon as we sacrifice it for the sake of immediate gain I understand it as a pragmatic effort to acquire power rather than compromise.

Well your definition is correct, but you're right in saying you're missing the nuance in it. Pragmatism implies the actor is guided by "success in practical application." In other words, to put it simply, "by what works." A Pragmatist is not, then, addicted to a particular ideology like Socialism, but is rather willing to set aside such abstractions, theories, beliefs and principles in order to do something that "works."

"What works" is the key idea in Pragmatism.

One thing you can certainly say about Socialism: it has never worked. Even today's Socialists betray that they know that's true, because they quickly want to disavow any association with all other Socialisms that have ever actually been practiced. They don't want you to say they're like the Russians, the Chinese, the Vietcong, the North Koreans, the Zimbabweans, the Cubans, the Albanians or the Venezuelans, because they know darn well that every single one of those cases of Socialism have been both economically disastrous and a human rights debacle. They are very far from pragmatic, in fact: they are so blindly optimistic about Socialist ideology that they will push for it relentlessly, even though the pragmatic fact is that it has a 100% failure rate.

That's not Pragmatism. That's Neo-Marxist ideological blindness. And suicidal and homicidal folly, of course, since it has never, never worked...and they know it.