Randy Smith wrote:
> I am stunned almost speechless by the depth of the gulf between his thinking
> and ours.
I'm not.
> When I hear someone who is apparently educated and well-read make
> this statement, and realize that the vast majority of humans share his
> viewpoint, I wonder if we have any real chance to win them over, ever.
One thing I see a lot of people deeply involved with advances that are
as yet theoretical, rather than practically demonstratable, fail to
grasp is that those whose main concern is maintaining the present rather
than trying to create a better long-term future - the "sheeple", as they
are commonly called (with reason) - typically understand demonstrations
of a superior new way much more than talk about same. For some reason,
they can apparently understand and believe nightmare scenarios quite
well; perhaps it is because they see themselves as defending whatever
and whoever they care about against similar nightmares already. But
positive dreams are something they do not seem to be able to grasp quite
so easily. However, change the dream to reality, such that they can see
the new way and see the lack of any suggested disasters following the
new way around, and they can start to accept it as part of the reality
they defend.
I wonder...if it is possible to pitch some of our dreams not as
improvements to the current condition per se, but improved ways of
defending what the masses generally agree on as "good" and "wholesome"
already, might that help spread the memes we wish to spread? (For
example: eyeglass display linked to an AI that suggests information
related to whatever the wearer is talking about, and/or whatever someone
is talking to the wearer about. Apply this to legal situations, where
the computer references laws related to topic of conversation, and
suggests questions to clarify points of law. The EFF would be natural
beta testers, while non-tech groups like the ACLU might not hear about
this until well after the beta. But what if the ACLU also beta tested,
and published a good review - or even just "the computer did not try to
take over my brain; it was no worse than Bob the paperclip, and disposed
of as easily"? I suspect much faster market penetration, and thus
increased research funding for wearable - and, eventually, implantable -
computers, would be one result.)
> Perhaps the old saying about how new ideas win acceptance--the holders of
> the idea paradigm simply die out, leaving the field open for the new
> --is completely correct.
Among those who do not immediately embrace a new way (one that is
destined to become common practice, and thus be written about in history
from the viewpoint of those who follow it), there are those who will
accept some proof of the benefit of the change, and change. There are
also those who do not, more of whom tend to be in power (because those
in power have more reason to not change, or at least they think they do)
and thus have more ability to restrict society-at-large's acceptance of
the new way.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:32 MDT