Grazie Giuseppe,
sentendo il bisogno estremo e direi urgente di una risposta a quella che
definisci una "visione unificata di società", al punto da rimpiangere la
contrapposizione ideologica di una volta che almeno denunciava una
diversità di valori, mi permetto di fare due osservazioni che spero
siano considerate costruttive.
In primo luogo, temo che si senta assai poco il bisogno di utopie nella
gente comune; vedo invece molto più definita l'utopia dei monopolisti
tecnologici che vogliono disfarsi di sindacati e degli stati cui devono
pagare le tasse e che potrebbero regolamentare contro di loro.
Questi mi paiono molto più efficaci nel guadagnare le masse (o meglio
-per usare la terminologia di Google- gli stormi o le coorti di utenti)
alla propria utopia di quanto lo siano Berners-Lee o GNU.
Per carità, si vedono dei movimenti, ma non li definirei ideologici o
utopistici: sono ancora al livello di definizione delle tecnologie dalle
quali dovrebbe derivare una libertà dalle piattaforme. Ovviamente la
libertà non verrà da uno tecnologia o dall'altra, ma dal sistema di
valori che questa serve. La consapevolezza è bassa: rabbrividisco
vedendo che si organizza su Facebook perfino Extinction Rebellion, forse
il più forte rappresentante di una utopia (o perlomeno di una protesta)
ecologista globale, sapendo che pongono così le basi alla propria stessa
estinzione globale appena venisse dichiarata organizzazione terroristica
da un solo stato "importante".
Come tu stesso accenni parlando di Meta, i veri "utopisti" di oggi sono
proprio le multinazionali che le utopie virtuali dovrebbero combattere.
E hanno questa facoltà perché rappresentano un modello di valori che non
è in discussione e non ha alternative. In quel modello sono i più forti.
In secondo luogo nei recenti avvenimenti globali vedo una "vendetta del
territorio" sulle varie virtualità: in ultima istanza i cittadini sono
sempre soggetti non solo alla necessità materiale di trovarsi in un
luogo, ma a un codice giuridico esclusivo ad estensione prettamente
territoriale che riguarda quel luogo. Nonostante la rete possa essere un
sollievo, chi sta chiuso in un grattacielo a Shanghai resta chiuso li
dentro.
Come si comporterebbe una comunità utopica virtuale, per quanto
sovranazionale, che rifiuti, poniamo, la vaccinazione o il supporto ad
uno dei fronti bellici? O più banalmente come affronterebbe la mancanza
di acqua dai rubinetti? A cosa gioverebbe farne parte? Il territorio si
è ripreso un posto: o il virtuale riesce a stare al passo, o non
manterrà troppe promesse.
Vale la pena ricordare la sorte dell'utopia socialista, che pur vantava
una forte base sovranazionale, dopo due guerre mondiali.
Grazie e un saluto!
Alberto
On 07/07/22 17:18, Giuseppe Attardi wrote:
Curioso.
Nel mio TedTalk a ottobre scorso su "Distopia o Utopia:
l’Intelligenza Artificiale nel 2050”, introdussi il concetto di Utopia
Virtuale, ossia di gruppi di persone che si costituiscono in comunità
rette dalle proprie regole, ispirate a principi condivisi dalla comunità.
Le Utopie Virtuali dovrebbero superare gli stati nazionali e
costituire un contraltare alle grandi aziende private multinazionali,
che ingabbiano le persone all’interno dei loro walled garden,
obbligandole a seguire le loro regole, orientate a massimizzare loro
interessi privati.
Ho elaborato l'idea in questo articolo:
https://personal.onlyoffice.com/products/files/doceditor?fileid=drive-63308-%7c1XF2Oe9Sziz6l8kly5sq3MsHI5_OAInfg&doc=YkF4WGRYY0VuUHVqdUlvM21Hc1JlTjlPVVczV0QvQWFuRVRGMTBKS2tlUT0_ImRyaXZlLTYzMzA4LXwxWEYyT2U5U3ppejZsOGtseTVzcTNNc0hJNV9PQUluZmci
<https://personal.onlyoffice.com/products/files/doceditor?fileid=drive-63308-%7c1XF2Oe9Sziz6l8kly5sq3MsHI5_OAInfg&doc=YkF4WGRYY0VuUHVqdUlvM21Hc1JlTjlPVVczV0QvQWFuRVRGMTBKS2tlUT0_ImRyaXZlLTYzMzA4LXwxWEYyT2U5U3ppejZsOGtseTVzcTNNc0hJNV9PQUluZmci> ho
Stavo aspettando qualcuno che mi aiutasse ad articolare questa visione
e a farla circolare, e mi auguro che sia Srinivasan a riuscirci.
In realtà avrei preferito che la visione nascesse dal b asso, da una
elaborazione condivisa, comunque un libro può essere un buon punto di
partenza.
— Beppe
On 5 Jul 2022, at 15:46, [email protected] wrote:
From: Alberto Cammozzo <[email protected]>
To: Nexa <[email protected]>
Subject: [nexa] Could new countries be founded – on the internet? |
Sam Venis
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
<https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=202207051346200259984&URLID=9&ESV=10.0.17.7319&IV=3882C14053852A03893CADE76004619B&TT=1657028781835&ESN=c9uHQ2RKOD2Ov6nxC9PixG0pkgJqaYJNyx7vhNlPC5Y%3D&KV=1536961729280&B64_ENCODED_URL=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlZ3VhcmRpYW4uY29tL2NvbW1lbnRpc2ZyZWUvMjAyMi9qdWwvMDUvY291bGQtbmV3LWNvdW50cmllcy1iZS1mb3VuZGVkLW9uLXRoZS1pbnRlcm5ldA&HK=0D093797125AF26AD66EA9C23A9C7E2B4DCF3CC8A678DE217B94AEB2A07243CA
<https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=202207051346200259984&URLID=9&ESV=10.0.17.7319&IV=3882C14053852A03893CADE76004619B&TT=1657028781835&ESN=c9uHQ2RKOD2Ov6nxC9PixG0pkgJqaYJNyx7vhNlPC5Y%3D&KV=1536961729280&B64_ENCODED_URL=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlZ3VhcmRpYW4uY29tL2NvbW1lbnRpc2ZyZWUvMjAyMi9qdWwvMDUvY291bGQtbmV3LWNvdW50cmllcy1iZS1mb3VuZGVkLW9uLXRoZS1pbnRlcm5ldA&HK=0D093797125AF26AD66EA9C23A9C7E2B4DCF3CC8A678DE217B94AEB2A07243CA>>
In The Network State, a buzzy new book by Balaji Srinivasan, the
former chief technology officer of Coinbase, poses a devious
question: how do you Larp a country into existence?
Released provocatively this 4 July, the book presents Srinivasan’s
case for a new model of digital statehood run and managed in the
cloud. A network state, as he describes it, is basically a group of
people who get together on the internet and decide that they’re going
to start a country. With a social network to connect them, a leader
to unite them, and a cryptocurrency to protect their assets,
Srinivasan says a country can be born with laws, social services and
all. A network state is a country that “anyone can start from your
computer, beginning by building a following” – not unlike companies,
cryptocurrencies, or decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
In a world where billionaires can run companies larger than
countries, Srinivasan asks, could such a state achieve recognition
from the United Nations?
Like all utopian visions, this one, too, is diagnostic – an answer to
a growing list of “wicked” social problems like surveillance
capitalism, economic stagnation, political polarization, and conflict
among great powers. Just when we need leaders to solve our problems,
Balaji argues, they are failing, and the reason isn’t just corruption
or incompetence – the reason is technological. Central government is
simply no longer capable of addressing our needs because the world
for which it was designed has changed.
The internet, for example, has made place less important, so national
borders seem increasingly arbitrary. And cryptocurrencies like
bitcoin have proven that if enough people believe in the value of an
idea you can create something worth trillions of dollars. Software
has made it so that a few engineers can outcompete nations (think
hacker groups and startups). And, in the age of social networks,
millions of anonymous people can fit into groups that act and
coordinate together; just look at r/wallstreetbets and Gamestop.
“Very few institutions that predated the internet will survive the
internet,” Srinivasan said recently, in a lecture describing the
book. So the solution, he argues, is to build an institution based on
it. Here’s how it would work: a person on Twitter decides to start a
country so they float the idea to their pals and begin to gather
recruits. They put together a vision statement and a list of values,
and soon enough people begin to join and tell their friends. It
starts off like a social network.
By pooling their money and lending their skills, the community begins
to develop social services and spawn its own mini-culture, providing
things like healthcare and insurance and passports and dope parties.
With something like a hybrid of Twitter and Discord, they could
connect, share ideas, and vote (think up- and down-voting on your
favorite legislation). And with a currency like bitcoin, they could
control their own money supply and protect their funds from
encroaching governments. First they would buy small plots of land,
like a national Soho house, and eventually, they would begin to
migrate into chosen cities – probably to sympathetic jurisdictions
like Miami, which, Srinivasan says, will compete to acquire these
brave new digital citizens.
To make it happen, no wars need to be fought and no laws need to be
violated. With rockstar leaders to blaze their path and negotiate on
the international stage, these new states would slowly but surely
obtain rights and recognition, eventually breaking off from their
home countries once and for all. When it works, Srinivasan writes,
“it will eventually become a template … the modern version of
Jefferson’s natural aristocracy.” First, there was Brexit; then other
movements like Wexit; now, a few years later, there’s a new romantic
vision of escape for techies – “Texit”?
When The Network State drops this week it is likely to solicit a
number of heated reactions. Some, grumbling about rightwing Silicon
Valley figures like Peter Thiel and Curtis Yarvin, will call the
ideas of The Network State fascist and tyrannical, and others, likely
those on the libertarian right, will call it visionary and scholarly.
Srinivasan, you might hear from them, is a soothsayer – a
truth-teller. But beneath the posturing there will be a lingering
question: is any of this actually possible?
While the concept might bend our idea of nationality, the fact
remains that a lot of precursors already exist. Consider Dudeism, a
religion based on a character from the Coen Brothers’ 1998 film, with
a reported population of 450,000 Dudeist priests. Or even, as
Srinivasan points out, the state of Israel, which brought together a
people scattered around the world and organized them around a common
ideal. Many countries, Srinivasan says, that are recognized by the UN
have populations around five to 10 million people with economies much
smaller than what an equal size of tech workers might produce. That a
bunch of crypto bros might test their fate on an eccentric leader
doesn’t seem too far-fetched. Plus, the tech already exists.
And with over 650,000 Twitter followers – an army of young,
tech-savvy and politically credulous acolytes – Srinivasan might just
be the man to do it. There’s an expression that circulates on Twitter
about him every so often: that “Balaji was right” is the most
terrifying phrase in the English language. Among the crypto-rich and
the billionaire class this book will be positioned as a north star,
levied to support the long-running claim that technologists can run
society better than the bureaucrats. And now, with this book,
Srinivasan has given them the framework to prove it.
What doesn’t fit so neatly into Srinivasan’s vision are little things
like death and ageing and sickness. How will poverty be dealt with in
a network state? “The future,” he wrote in 2015, “is nationalists vs
technologists. A full-throated, jealous defender of borders,
language, and culture. Or a rootless cosmopolitan with a laptop, bent
on callow disruption.” It’s romantic, sure, but one could ask: what
about people that just want a stable job?
Of course, Srinivasan isn’t the first technologist to offer a tarot
reading of our tech-mediated future. In 2019, the theorist Aaron
Bastani wrote another popular formulation, this one from the left,
explaining how robots will make us all rich. His book Fully Automated
Luxury Communism starts with the same general diagnoses: that we’re
going into the third industrial revolution, that we’re at an epochal
moment of human history, that technology has rendered our systems
obsolete. But his conclusion, as the title suggests, is that we need
more centralization, not less. Let the robots do our work, the book
argues, and let us enjoy the spoils. Hunger, disease, energy crises,
jobs – these will all be relics of a scarce and squalid past that
came before the age of abundance. The future is the nanny state,
Bastani suggests – only better.
What these visions point to is a growing cleavage among the strange
cohort of people who call themselves futurists. On the one hand,
there are those who imagine a world of centralization, marked by
super-blocs and mass redistribution of wealth. And on the other,
there are those who claim that the world already mirrors the feudal
systems of yore. In this sort of vision, like the one offered by
Balaji Srinivasan, fragmentation is on the docket and rugged
individualism is the outstanding moral code. And this book, or better
yet, this playbook, is just the first attempt to make it official.
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
[email protected]
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
[email protected]
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
