Common Sense #312 Re-connections with James Burke

[Xenophon]

Don't worry folks, we just have to live long enough to see those nanofabricators!!

Honestly I think Burke came off as a long-winded kook.

Having artificial avatars that lobby for our interests is interesting, but comes off as being pie-in-the-sky optimism.

[adwinistrator]

Don't worry folks, we just have to live long enough to see those nanofabricators!!

Honestly I think Burke came off as a long-winded kook.

Having artificial avatars that lobby for our interests is interesting, but comes off as being pie-in-the-sky optimism.

While listening, I was considering a variation on the idea.

Imagining that everyone gets to vote on everything, you could then have any amount of political parties created. You could subscribe to a political party, and choose the options for what voting categories you'd like them to be your proxy for, and what categories you'd like to handle yourself.

In this direct democracy system, a party doesn't need to reach a critical mass to achieve voting power, so you could join up with the Co-op Farm Greens, or the Off-The-Grid Libertarians, instead of the conglomerated parties of Green or Libertarian. You could join the Free-Market Libertarians, but retain the candidate and appointee voting, because you don't trust the big business' influence on pushing corrupt politicians.

[DrYouth]

NanoFabricators!!!
Democracy Avatars.

Burke is one off the charts futurist.

But remember - he has a track record - he's not just some unproven Kook.

Dan's been following this guys predictions for decades... so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss.

Kind of an awesome forecast though... in 50 years... damn... might even get to see that.

[Cid]

Fun episode, I just listened to that one and Trumped, I liked his cabinet analysis as well.

[DrYouth]

Nanofabrication:

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/nanofabrication

Nanofabrication is the design and manufacture of devices with dimensions measured in nanometers. One nanometer is 10 -9 meter, or a millionth of a millimeter.

Nanofabrication is of interest to computer engineers because it opens the door to super-high-density microprocessor s and memory chip s. It has been suggested that each data bit could be stored in a single atom . Carrying this further, a single atom might even be able to represent a byte or word of data. Nanofabrication has also caught the attention of the medical industry, the military, and the aerospace industry.

There are several ways that nanofabrication might be done. One method involves scaling down integrated-circuit ( IC ) fabrication that has been standard since the 1970s, removing one atom at a time until the desired structure emerges. A more sophisticated hypothetical scheme involves the assembly of a chip atom-by-atom; this would resemble bricklaying. An extension of this is the notion that a chip might assemble itself atom-by-atom using programmable nanomachines. Finally, it has been suggested that a so-called biochip might be grown like a plant from a seed; the components would form by a process resembling cell division in living things.

Anyone know anything about this?
[mind blown]

[Ex-California]

Nanofabrication:

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/nanofabrication

Nanofabrication is the design and manufacture of devices with dimensions measured in nanometers. One nanometer is 10 -9 meter, or a millionth of a millimeter.

Nanofabrication is of interest to computer engineers because it opens the door to super-high-density microprocessor s and memory chip s. It has been suggested that each data bit could be stored in a single atom . Carrying this further, a single atom might even be able to represent a byte or word of data. Nanofabrication has also caught the attention of the medical industry, the military, and the aerospace industry.

There are several ways that nanofabrication might be done. One method involves scaling down integrated-circuit ( IC ) fabrication that has been standard since the 1970s, removing one atom at a time until the desired structure emerges. A more sophisticated hypothetical scheme involves the assembly of a chip atom-by-atom; this would resemble bricklaying. An extension of this is the notion that a chip might assemble itself atom-by-atom using programmable nanomachines. Finally, it has been suggested that a so-called biochip might be grown like a plant from a seed; the components would form by a process resembling cell division in living things.

Anyone know anything about this?
[mind blown]

Call me a luddite, but years of Sci Fi from Terminator to the Matrix to Hyperion to Rifters have me terrified of something like that.

[nickle7]

Don't worry folks, we just have to live long enough to see those nanofabricators!!

Honestly I think Burke came off as a long-winded kook.

Having artificial avatars that lobby for our interests is interesting, but comes off as being pie-in-the-sky optimism.

While listening, I was considering a variation on the idea.

Imagining that everyone gets to vote on everything, you could then have any amount of political parties created. You could subscribe to a political party, and choose the options for what voting categories you'd like them to be your proxy for, and what categories you'd like to handle yourself.

In this direct democracy system, a party doesn't need to reach a critical mass to achieve voting power, so you could join up with the Co-op Farm Greens, or the Off-The-Grid Libertarians, instead of the conglomerated parties of Green or Libertarian. You could join the Free-Market Libertarians, but retain the candidate and appointee voting, because you don't trust the big business' influence on pushing corrupt politicians.

Interesting concept and wonderful in theory. Logistically, as you may agree, extraordinarily difficult to maintain. I think additional parties would be particularly good in terms of destangnating the polarized state of public discussion, but I wonder if it would really solve any problems. I wonder how sustainable those parties would be.

It gets at an interesting question though: is political conglomeration inevitable?

[nickle7]

Burke thinks that in the West there cannot be authoritarian regime in the West. Well, perhaps not a 20th Century type fascism or totalitarianism, but I think authoritarianism can still persist. Russia is a perfect example of this, it doesn't guard every ordinary Russian like Soviet Union did, but once if you do something that goes against Kremlins agenda and try to influence the political sphere what it dominates, then you are for are ride. But otherwise, you have "the freedoms" of the West.

Yeah, I'm not all that sure about this. I try to avoid being alarmist but I also don't see how authoritarianism in the west is totally implausible. It's of course referenced often in regards to trump, but I see the authoritarianism just as much if not more so on the left end of the spectrum. People butch about how awful the government is yet they want the government to do more... make more policies, more laws, have more sway over social issues. It's a paradox I have a hard time making sense of.

[Cascul]

Enjoyed the show. Was pretty interested in his takes on the cabinet picks since it is so hard to find neutralish discussion about them. You hear plenty of hard left/right and their views on them though.

Burke is always interesting and I found it a treat listening to him again. Odd choice on putting him on CS, but I don't think he would really fit Dan's current format on HH.

Super excited about the news of a new history show coming out. Blitz is great, though I think I would also be equally happy if it was some massive 4 hour part 1 of 8 show also.

[ssu]

Yeah, I'm not all that sure about this. I try to avoid being alarmist but I also don't see how authoritarianism in the west is totally implausible. It's of course referenced often in regards to trump, but I see the authoritarianism just as much if not more so on the left end of the spectrum. People butch about how awful the government is yet they want the government to do more... make more policies, more laws, have more sway over social issues. It's a paradox I have a hard time making sense of.

Some Trump doesn't mean at all that we will have authoritarianism. How we get authoritarianism is if there is a terrorist strike or some huge crisis. In those kind of situations the government response to the people, that it's taking measures that something like it will never happen, is the route how authoritarianism creeps into the system. Many people simply just find the answer in a stronger central government, even if when directly asked they oppose "strong central governments". It's not like people in their stupidity vote a Hitler in power who erases the personal freedoms in the society. The way is to implement draconian laws or more centralized government is just at the time when people are freaking out from some attack or crisis, and thus in the end you have a quite authoritarian system in Place.