A friend of mine had her due date yesterday, and is now having contractions, but not quite going into labor yet. Sound like it is going to be soon though. We were chatting earlier and I jokingly asked if she is going to livestream the birth, which she isn't, but she did joke about making a YouTube baby. The new test tube baby.
Engineered in the lab.
So much of what we do is engineered these days. I often talk about how we all act on incentive, and a lot of the incentives these days surround getting attention from strangers online. Sure, on places like Hive there is more chance to actually engage and get to know each other, as the user base is smaller, but in general, mass social media is random people, interacting with random people, no one having any skin in the game of the other.
For money.
Or fame. Or connection. Or desire.
And for many other reasons. However, I feel that a great deal of it is a poorly-fitted replacement for intimacy, where people feel disconnected and lonely, but think that "selling themselves" is going to fill that gap. I liken it to an artificial sweetener that mimics sugar, tricking the senses. Yet, as expected and as scientific feedback is now indicating, the engineered replacements are not only tricking tastebuds, but are tricking the rest of our body too, leading to other problems, like cancer.
What is the cancer of artificial communities?
When something is engineered, the design is limited to the focus of the architect, meaning that somethings will be given greater importance, whilst others are limited, or forgotten altogether. But, "left out" doesn't mean that it wasn't needed for function. And like a car that doesn't have a motor, its usage is going to be limited also.
Over the last twenty-odd years, social media has exploded in many forms to increase our ability to connect with strangers, and join into discussions that we wouldn't otherwise be a part of. We are able to comment directly and publicly on people's thoughts, as well as be part of conversations in the media, like in comments sections under an article. Yet, whilst we feel like we are engaging, like we are making a difference, are we?
Or is it busy work.
I had a chat with a colleague the other day at work about "defense" spending (it is always called defense, even when used to attack), and what might happen if for instance, over the next five years, all defense budgets were directed into clean energy and energy storage development. In 2022, this was over 2.2 trillion dollars (that we know of), and I would posit that if this money, and all the smart thinkers and engineers currently developing weapons and such, moved into something different, five years from now the technology would be quite incredible.
But the incentive isn't there.
People go where the money is, where they feel that they are "appreciated" even if that appreciation is only because they are able to make more money for those they work for. Supposedly, some of the smartest mathematicians in the world, work in finance creating financial tools to generate more money. Could their skills be better spent elsewhere?
Probably.
When people say that something is "too expensive" to do at the global level, they don't understand how economics works. The economy doesn't care about what is being created, as it will work regardless. Even as an entire industry dies, like defense or fossil fuels, the economy will adjust, as demand shifts and supply picks up. Essentially, the economy always equals "one", even though the way we think about it doesn't. We see money leaking out through corruption, spending on the wrong things, and inflation, but that doesn't matter to the economy itself, as these are all within the system.
However, even though the economy always balances its books, the way we engineer the economy means that we will focus on some development, while ignoring others, even if it is in our best interest to do otherwise. If we really wanted to make the world a better place, there would be no defense spending at all, except that against asteroids, or from alien attack. If we wanted to improve the air, we would be spending as much as we could on better energy sources and storage. If we wanted to improve human wellbeing, we would be spending on preemptive healthcare.
The economy doesn't care.
But, because we are humans acting on incentive driven by our various desires, our focus isn't actually suited to improving for everyone, it is about getting what we need as individuals. As a result, the outcomes are mixed at best.
We are all just rats in the lab.
The economy is just taking notes.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]