This was a great pastiche of responses (and responses to responses) to Carney's speech. Since it's award season, let's hand out a few.
--Sam Mace's last sentence is brutally on-target. Indeed, the post WWII role of the United States has been to serve as guarantor, both of European security and world energy energy flows. Abandon the role if you wish, but others are going to get a say about your new role.
--And the very important award for silliest response goes to Aris Roussinos, who pedantically focuses on the meaning of "vassal" - but by cherrypicking a casual modern sense of the word both misunderstands and misrepresents Bart De Wever's point, which is that it's one thing to be a secondary or tertiary member of an alliance (and accept the US's leading role) but quite another to be treated with contempt (i.e., as a slave and not as a vassal) by that leading member.
What's interesting is how De Wever's and Mace's points converge.
This is phenomenal coverage of the Davos moment and what it means for global order. The shift from universal rules to civilization states feels like we're witnessing history pivot in real-time. I remember when folks used to talk about the end of history post-Cold War, now we're basicaly seeing the opposite - history coming back with a vengance. Carney's speech really nailed it - the fiction was useful til it wasn't.
"...the defenders of the civilization state are saying that the search for universal values is over, that all of us must accept that we speak only for ourselves and our societies."
Well, FINALLY, someone gets it. But apparently they think this is unfortunate.
Be very careful when you use the term "the people." In reality, there is no, and never has been "the people". And never will be. The USA has always been factionalized, as is true of any country. In addition, the USA is truly 50 countries, with a federal center that ostensibly has limited authority of those 50 countries.
I tend to instantaneously reject anyone who claims to speak for "the people" or who claims to have the solutions to the issues of "the people". The fact is, what is desirable to some people is anathema to others. How do you build a new world order out of that? You don't. You only build resentment and conflict.
If I get you to say you are part of a group then I have gotten you to compromise yourself. You are unique. Don’t dishonor that uniqueness with a fake group label.
Also in what way did we speak for “the people”? We are talking about the ownership of the system. It can either be owned by a government or institution - and therefore it will be easy to corrupt. Or it can be owned by The People, outside of government.
Well we reject group labels as they are merely a means to control minds and psychological warfare. So it seems we have a large difference of opinion here. And the evidence for this is overwhelming.
The people absolutely can speak as one without factions using collective intelligence systems.
You seem to have missed my point. I'd appreciate if you reread what I said.
In short, we do not all think alike or want the same things. There will never be a consensus. That's only a problem if you feel compelled to control people.
We study collective intelligence systems here, and use them. When you govern with collective intelligence you do not look for consensus. What you must do is start with a problem. So for example we could take immigration.
If you only allow 2 choices - the left and the right - these answers are purposely made to be split. So they keep us fighting. It is a form of psychological warfare to control large groups of people. Step one is form sub groups (democrats and republicans). Step two is find divisive topics and only offer divisive solutions.
In a collective intelligence swarmed systems you would take all the people - left right and middle - and put them together in the system and start with the problem.
So “immigration.” Thats the problem. Then everyone in group offers a solution.
Then you would have the large group break up into small groups and come up with their top two or three solutions in groups of like 7-12 people.
Their top answers go on to the next round and all the people follow.
When you do this your goal is not consensus. It is high “confidence scores” that it is the best approach. Before we enact something (we use swarming for business) we like to get a 90% confidence score from the whole group.
We have done this with immigration btw - with half democrats and half republicans- and gotten an answer that has over 90% confidence score.
You can also have the group criticize answers. Make them better.
If you are saying this process doesn’t work, what I am saying is that it does. It is testable and provable. I will happily test a swarm of people against any one person in a problem solving competition. For money.
This is a deep rabbit hole. Come in with an open mind and you will see what I am saying is as true as jiu jitsu.
We can fix this whole world by understanding better how groups behave, and emerge into a collective intelligence and creativity machine when we have the proper systems to do so. And when we build trust as a commodity together.
"When you govern with collective intelligence you do not look for consensus."
'Consensus' is the word I would use to describe your process. How is your process effectively different than the process or representative democracy that we allegedly have?
And to your point - difference of opinion is important. In fact diversity of opinion is one of the most important things for a swarm to be productive.
But factions must be left at the door. As a code of conduct. Why? Because Group labels lead to echo chambers. Echo chambers to groupthink. And groupthink to tyranny.
We can harness the power of collective intelligence in groups of people but we must keep group labels out of it. They cause the tyranny of the masses.
This was a great pastiche of responses (and responses to responses) to Carney's speech. Since it's award season, let's hand out a few.
--Sam Mace's last sentence is brutally on-target. Indeed, the post WWII role of the United States has been to serve as guarantor, both of European security and world energy energy flows. Abandon the role if you wish, but others are going to get a say about your new role.
--And the very important award for silliest response goes to Aris Roussinos, who pedantically focuses on the meaning of "vassal" - but by cherrypicking a casual modern sense of the word both misunderstands and misrepresents Bart De Wever's point, which is that it's one thing to be a secondary or tertiary member of an alliance (and accept the US's leading role) but quite another to be treated with contempt (i.e., as a slave and not as a vassal) by that leading member.
What's interesting is how De Wever's and Mace's points converge.
This is phenomenal coverage of the Davos moment and what it means for global order. The shift from universal rules to civilization states feels like we're witnessing history pivot in real-time. I remember when folks used to talk about the end of history post-Cold War, now we're basicaly seeing the opposite - history coming back with a vengance. Carney's speech really nailed it - the fiction was useful til it wasn't.
"...the defenders of the civilization state are saying that the search for universal values is over, that all of us must accept that we speak only for ourselves and our societies."
Well, FINALLY, someone gets it. But apparently they think this is unfortunate.
We can create our own Newer World Order - one that empowers the people. It’s simple. Not easy, but still rather simple.
The peaceful solution to governmental corruption is to build new systems that we control 100% as people
https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/a-newer-world-order?r=7oa9d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Be very careful when you use the term "the people." In reality, there is no, and never has been "the people". And never will be. The USA has always been factionalized, as is true of any country. In addition, the USA is truly 50 countries, with a federal center that ostensibly has limited authority of those 50 countries.
I tend to instantaneously reject anyone who claims to speak for "the people" or who claims to have the solutions to the issues of "the people". The fact is, what is desirable to some people is anathema to others. How do you build a new world order out of that? You don't. You only build resentment and conflict.
Amen. Use of"The People" - in the sense of a single choice-making agent - is always a bad sign.
If I get you to say you are part of a group then I have gotten you to compromise yourself. You are unique. Don’t dishonor that uniqueness with a fake group label.
Also in what way did we speak for “the people”? We are talking about the ownership of the system. It can either be owned by a government or institution - and therefore it will be easy to corrupt. Or it can be owned by The People, outside of government.
Well we reject group labels as they are merely a means to control minds and psychological warfare. So it seems we have a large difference of opinion here. And the evidence for this is overwhelming.
The people absolutely can speak as one without factions using collective intelligence systems.
The problem is the group labels
You seem to have missed my point. I'd appreciate if you reread what I said.
In short, we do not all think alike or want the same things. There will never be a consensus. That's only a problem if you feel compelled to control people.
Sorry, let’s clarify.
We study collective intelligence systems here, and use them. When you govern with collective intelligence you do not look for consensus. What you must do is start with a problem. So for example we could take immigration.
If you only allow 2 choices - the left and the right - these answers are purposely made to be split. So they keep us fighting. It is a form of psychological warfare to control large groups of people. Step one is form sub groups (democrats and republicans). Step two is find divisive topics and only offer divisive solutions.
In a collective intelligence swarmed systems you would take all the people - left right and middle - and put them together in the system and start with the problem.
So “immigration.” Thats the problem. Then everyone in group offers a solution.
Then you would have the large group break up into small groups and come up with their top two or three solutions in groups of like 7-12 people.
Their top answers go on to the next round and all the people follow.
When you do this your goal is not consensus. It is high “confidence scores” that it is the best approach. Before we enact something (we use swarming for business) we like to get a 90% confidence score from the whole group.
We have done this with immigration btw - with half democrats and half republicans- and gotten an answer that has over 90% confidence score.
You can also have the group criticize answers. Make them better.
If you are saying this process doesn’t work, what I am saying is that it does. It is testable and provable. I will happily test a swarm of people against any one person in a problem solving competition. For money.
This is a deep rabbit hole. Come in with an open mind and you will see what I am saying is as true as jiu jitsu.
We can fix this whole world by understanding better how groups behave, and emerge into a collective intelligence and creativity machine when we have the proper systems to do so. And when we build trust as a commodity together.
With these systems. This is the 101 stuff
https://youtu.be/Eu-RyZt_Uas?si=0pvLAN3GnQUUQm0k
Josh Ketry
Buffalo NY
"When you govern with collective intelligence you do not look for consensus."
'Consensus' is the word I would use to describe your process. How is your process effectively different than the process or representative democracy that we allegedly have?
And to your point - difference of opinion is important. In fact diversity of opinion is one of the most important things for a swarm to be productive.
But factions must be left at the door. As a code of conduct. Why? Because Group labels lead to echo chambers. Echo chambers to groupthink. And groupthink to tyranny.
We can harness the power of collective intelligence in groups of people but we must keep group labels out of it. They cause the tyranny of the masses.