Table of Contents
The obviousness of a crime does not stop the criminal, and it would be effective to equip people with collars that deliver electric shocks based on the results of constant voting.
That’s right, the obviousness of a crime doesn’t stop the criminal now. The idea of collars is correct, but illustrative. There will be collars, but they won’t be physically tangible. Most crimes that emerged with capitalism (in a situation where people became alienated from the results of their labor and from each other, when they started living in cities and lost any notion of each other’s reputation) are related to the abuse of relationships and are tied to reputational issues.
When the history of each person can be seen as clearly as the palm of your hand, and when each person is accompanied by their “karma,” that is when it will become that very collar. People simply won’t want to deal with such individuals. Tarnishing one’s reputation will be the worst way to “enrich” one’s biography.
Moreover, almost all selfish crimes will be meaningless due to the impossibility of benefiting from their results. There’s no need to stop anyone here; no one would even think of stealing in a community with the level of transparency achievable in a “village” setting. Here, it is clearly much higher.
Only eternal crimes remain, such as murder in the heat of passion or without intent, or for the sake of pleasure. But again, the behavior of such individuals will be under close scrutiny—not by the police, but by doctors.
Critique of the inhumanity of the system. The horror of cyberpunk.
The response is very quick. The existing system is inhumane, based on the alienation of people from society. It’s a system where the media is imposed on our minds, creating an illusion of community. The migration of populations to cities and megacities has led to a situation where we know nothing about our neighbors and often don’t even greet them. There’s no point in building relationships or keeping track of our neighbors’ reputations—they’ll move away in a few years anyway. We don’t make an effort to get to know our colleagues—we don’t live with them for our entire lives. Around us, there are not people with destinies and reputations, but rather “a passport number, who issued it and when.” What is being proposed, on the contrary, makes society more humane, effectively returning it to a state that is most comfortable and safe for existence—a state of community, where everyone knows everything about each other. Physically, a person… cannot to track many social connections. And in this case, the information and communication systems come to the rescue, bringing comfort and safety precisely through the “humanization of faces in the elevator.” This is one of those instances where humanity, at the next stage of its development, needed yet another prosthesis. Just as books were once needed to facilitate the memorization and accumulation of knowledge.
I’m not saying that there won’t be police. The enforcement apparatus will still be necessary, but its purpose will be to protect and prevent, rather than to punish. The function of punishment may still exist, but it won’t be needed.
Criticism of society’s unacceptability of the system at an early stage of its implementation (moving away from cash).
Yes. The situation where everyone’s accounts are open to each other seems fantastic today. At the same time, this fantasy does not stem from the impossibility of it or from the individuals themselves (everyone is willing to open their accounts to see the accounts of the prime minister or oligarchs), but rather from “public opinion,” which suggests that violating privacy is…oh dearRemind me, who is most interested and has the most leverage in shaping “public opinion”? The situation is such that everyone is individually “for” it, but believes that “no one will go for it.” So if this is feasible and acceptable to everyone (or the overwhelming majority), why not start moving in that direction?
The idea that people won’t disclose information about themselves (that they won’t want, figuratively speaking, to live in houses with transparent walls) is somewhat naive. People have already done so. However, it’s not mutual, as it should be, but one-sided. They have long opened their accounts and all their financial transactions, but not to each other, rather to the authorities. It’s not difficult to track every penny of a respectable household’s budget. Yet it seems unfair that your accounts can be monitored, but you can’t track the accounts of those in power or criminals. Which wall is more honest? Transparent or one-way mirror?
We are observing a trend in the world where the more developed a society is, the less cash households have. However, cash is not being completely eliminated. This is not in the interest of those in power. At the same time, the reduction of cash is accompanied by a decrease in “grassroots” corruption, which is a positive outcome and is presented to the public as a social good.
As we can see, the trends towards tightening control over the flow of valuable information are evident. This control will intensify. At the same time, both the laws supporting privacy and public opinion on the necessity of such laws will also strengthen. In plain terms, this means that no one is allowed to interfere in others’ affairs, but I (the ruling class) can do as I please.
The signs of such morality are everywhere. In tinted windows, in five-meter fences, in offshore accounts, and so on. Here it is — the real instrument of power. This instrument is the monopolization of the right to information, and the way to fight against power is not to stop paying taxes or to withdraw money from banks, but to allow other people to know as much about you as the authorities do, and to demand that the authorities also be transparent. The latter may seem like a fantasy, but in several countries, this has been done.
There is an opinion that the inflow of money into an account should be monitored, but what happens to the accounts after legitimate money has been deposited is a personal matter for their owner. No questions asked! Legitimate money will go towards the legitimate income of others. There’s no need to keep track of both income and expenses. Just tracking the income is enough. The expenses will calculate themselves since all income is recorded. 🙂
Asymmetry of information in choosing friends
When choosing the people we want to interact with, that is, when _acquiring_ friends, we are in a situation of limited rationality just as we are when selecting, say, carrots at the market.
Complete rationality was possible in communal societies and in villages that were not affected by migration. There, everyone knew each other and made rational decisions.
So, by saving on transaction costs when acquiring friends, we use certain “heuristics” or “stereotypes” that are well-known to everyone, such as “don’t trust Azerbaijanis,” “fags are freaks,” “women are bitches,” and “all men are dogs and goats.” Here, just like when purchasing goods and services, heuristics come into play that facilitate achieving a result that is not ideal but acceptable, taking into account transaction costs: “do what everyone else does, do the opposite of what everyone else does, buy the most expensive, or strive for the least accessible (hoping that it is the highest quality or most prestigious).”
We also assess, with limited information about a person, how normal they are in relation to the known pattern of “normality.” Similar to shopping for carrots, we don’t check the entire market; instead, we look at the first two or three bunches of carrots and form our opinion. In this process, hidden issues and skeletons in the closet do not factor into our assessment of “normality.” In market terms, we don’t know how many pesticides are in the carrots, but they look good.
And here we meet a person who is outside the norm. For example, someone suffering from something unpleasant like AIDS. In street slang, they would be referred to as a “carrot with purple spots.”
In conditions of limited access to information, we tend to deny ourselves the purchase of spotted carrots and will continue to do so until we are absolutely sure that it’s just a new variety.
An HIV-infected person is like a spotted carrot. We make vague conclusions and build probabilistic assessments like, “Since he has AIDS, he probably leads a bad lifestyle and might steal something from me.” Or we simply fear getting infected, again lacking complete information about HIV.
We tend to perceive all “humps” above the norm as sources of danger, especially in the absence of complete information. When pursuing their happiness, a person aims to control their future. In conditions of increasing uncertainty, people are generally inclined to choose the “familiar old” and reject the “unfamiliar new.”
At the same time, if not only does everyone know everything about everyone, but also, let’s say, a person with, mmm… the Poisson-Exupéry syndrome knows that someone (and specifically who) has been digging into their, say, “online medical records” for some reason, a completely new moral perspective and evaluation of such matters arises. We no longer need to make guesses based on indirect signs. We can find out everything. Moreover, we can learn that the very person in question is a wonderful and reliable individual, and that their syndrome is a minor issue that people shouldn’t pay much attention to. Stephen Hawking doesn’t get anxious, right? An HIV-infected person won’t have to justify themselves, whether they are a drug addict or, conversely, not a drug addict. And anyone interested in such intimate details will think twice before ruining their relationship with someone by prying into their personal affairs.
In homes where common entrance doors serve multiple apartments, the owners’ own front door is often left open, allowing neighbors on the same floor to enter freely. Do neighbors enter the owners’ apartments in their absence? Definitely not. Relationships are more valuable. Would a thief enter? No, either. There is a common steel door and a concierge downstairs—these systems take away the owner’s privacy in relation to their neighbors but ensure their security. At the same time, if a thief were also “deprived” of privacy, they wouldn’t want to enter either.
So, is privacy a good thing? Or is it just a way for thieves to hide? Not just common burglars, but those in power as well. It’s interesting to note, for example, the legislation on personal data protection. It’s written in such a way that it basically says, “no one is allowed, but we (the government, authorities, security services) are.” Isn’t that interesting? 🙂
Everything is fine, but what about the national idea?
People who discuss national ideas are generally talking about their own problems. Proposing one’s own ideas, even jokingly or sarcastically, is always a reaction from a specific individual. However, an interesting trend emerges. The first thing that stands out, whether in the proposal of positive ideas or in the description of negative aspects of the “current existing national idea,” is that people really desire unity. Everyone sees themselves as a lone individual, standing against the world. There is no support nearby, no foundation, and yet there is a strong yearning for it. This is why they fear and hate “Caucasians” in Moscow, Albanians in Germany, and so on—these groups are always together, always united, and therefore they are strong. Meanwhile, we are alone. Thus, cohesion as a national idea should clearly be one of the primary pillars.
Here it is! Disconnection is a symptom of the existing system. It cannot be “treated” without understanding the source of the problem. This is a classic (dating back to Marx) use of alienation as a tool of exploitation. People can be managed and manipulated because they know nothing about anyone, not even their neighbors, and therefore prefer not to trust them. At the same time, they create the illusion that they know something about power, which is why they go and vote in elections, thinking that they know something.
The same “Caucasians” or Albanians are together because they still adhere to an old way of life based on the reputation of one neighbor before another, and one family before another. They are not fragmented because a) they have reasons to trust each other and b) they possess the means to support that mutual trust.
The idea of reconism is precisely about how to ensure that people can finally know about each other. They won’t be isolated. They will be together. Our only enemy is the one who deliberately puts us into “solitary confinement.” We should view reconism from this perspective.
Can we consider a person honest and worthy of respect if they haven’t committed a crime, but only because they knew that every step they took was being watched?
The answer is obvious if we assume that there is a motive for the crime. But what if a motive simply cannot arise? Let me explain further.
That’s right. You can’t trust people who don’t do bad things just because they’re being watched. But let’s start with a relatable example: infidelity. Would you consider hugging your lover in front of your spouse? Or even this: while walking hand in hand with your spouse, you encounter an attractive person of the opposite sex. Would you just drop everything and strike up a conversation with them? What stops you from committing this “crime”? Is it just your spouse? So, should you trust them after that? Or should we say that you didn’t even have the intention to do something immoral?
The second example. When a documentary film needed to be made in prison, the filmmakers acted like their colleagues in wildlife filmmaking. They set up a booth with one-way mirrors in the center of the barrack, and every day the cameraman would go inside and film. The inmates were cautious for the first couple of weeks. In the absence of any reaction from the booth, they relaxed and allowed their lives to be filmed from the inside. A surveillance camera does not stop a person; they get used to it. The question is not whether you committed a crime or not. The question is that you should not be able to benefit from the results of a crime. The question is that it should not even occur to you to commit crimes.
In a situation where everyone is being watched, or rather, where the past can be “rewound,” I can see society becoming more tolerant of minor offenses. So what if someone stole something? It’s just sitting on their table at home. Apparently, they need it more than I do. If I need it back, I’ll just go and take it from them. I’ll send them a message with a friendly reminder or simply send them a bill, while I order a brand new one for myself. Or, if someone bought and sold LSD—well, who hasn’t? Look at the statistics with real facts—nobody’s perfect.
It’s also important to understand that “the classic genre” of shoplifting will technically be impossible. If you take something off the shelf, the cost will be automatically deducted from your account. Can we even think about how a thief would act in a situation where there’s nothing to steal and no one to steal from?
Crimes related to violence are usually rooted in conflicts arising from differing perceptions of justice among the participants. Reconciliation also addresses this issue even before the motive for the crime emerges.
The key to solving social problems should not be sought in increasing control, but in eliminating the need for control. This lies in education, upbringing, and a worthy system of values where money is not the highest good. Control will only be unnecessary once it has been maximally strengthened. It’s a dialectical process, so to speak. We’re heading in that direction. Who will monitor the footage from surveillance cameras if there are no crimes to begin with? No one—therefore, there is no control. There is the possibility of control.
But what about the children and their happy childhood?
We all value that part of our life experience that we gained in childhood precisely because our parents were unaware of our antics. It shaped us into independent individuals. It gave us our own perspective. It allowed us to escape responsibility while still understanding the weight of our actions and not repeating them, among other things. In a transparent society, this is not possible.
The thing is, it will be the children growing up “under the dome” who will be the first generation to find the positive aspects of this phenomenon and to rationalize Negative. The children of tomorrow simply won’t be able to imagine a situation where something can be done secretly and without consequences. They won’t know what they’ve lost. Just as modern children don’t realize what they’re losing when their parents buy them a mobile phone. It is these people who will calmly accept a transparent society and be morally prepared for universal openness.
We can resist privacy violations as much as we want, but ultimately we won’t give up our desire to monitor our children, raising in them, step by step, from generation to generation, an increasing tolerance for transparency, all with good intentions.
It is also important to understand that the increase mutual transparency at the same time leads to an increase in mutual loyalty. A person sees that they are not unique in their questionable actions. They do not judge others and do not feel too bad about themselves. Everyone can see and understand that it was not intentional or that they have already realized their mistake and “won’t do it again.” Transparency won’t prevent them from sneaking into an abandoned construction site with their friends, nor will it inevitably lead to condemnation for it. Transparency will simply make it safer.
And in general, the remaining sense will disappear. punishments Children. If we remove the aspect of a parent expressing their attitude towards a phenomenon through punishment, children are punished in a way to reinforce the connection between actions and consequences at the reflex level. If you steal a bagel, you get a smack on the bottom. This is done with the hope and expectation that if a similar situation arises without parental supervision, the child will refrain from misbehavior, feeling the potential punishment like Pavlov’s dog. No matter how naive it may seem to assume the primitiveness of a child’s nervous system, the meaning of punishment as a means of instilling an “automatic warning” against future misdeeds will disappear—because all of the child’s future actions will be under observation.
This system kills privacy, and privacy must remain.
It seems that mutual transparency completely destroys privacy. At the same time, it is precisely mutual transparency that allows people to identify privacy violators and hold them accountable. Thus, mutual transparency ensures true privacy, as opposed to its illusion. taboo. Currently existing. A good illustration of how privacy is implemented in a transparent society could be a nudist beach or a restaurant. It seems like everyone is open with each other, but it’s not customary to stare at others, and it’s unlikely that your actions will go unnoticed or be judged. Additionally, an example of security through openness can be seen in the practice of not locking doors in small, peaceful towns. No one would want to be found in their neighbor’s house without permission, even though anyone can technically enter, and they will if it’s important to the homeowner.
If a person is able to know who is watching them and when, then they will also be able to put a stop to the observation and hold the observer accountable for their actions. The issue isn’t about the ability to spy on neighbors having sex, but rather about the neighbors knowing that you are doing it right now or that you did it in the past. It’s not about everyone being able to eavesdrop on someone else’s phone conversation or peek at their messages. The question is whether everyone will be able to know who is eavesdropping or spying, and also, without asking, determine the motives behind those actions and bring attention to the unethical behavior of that person.
If we are walking down a dark alley, we want to be able to look around. In other words, the only way to protect our right to privacy is to demand the right to know. Only by knowing everything about those around us and about those in power can we be sure that our rights are not being violated. The ruling elite, however, imposes a completely different concept of privacy, suggesting that everyone should walk through dark alleys with their eyes closed (just take a close look at the relevant laws). They claim that we can rely on security agencies to ensure our safety, to guide us on where to go and when to duck to avoid a blow to the head, and they promise that criminals will also walk with their eyes blindfolded.
If we look at the problem from a different angle. The forbidden fruit, as we know, is sweet, but I believe the wise Solomon claimed that knowledge increases sorrow… In simpler terms, when REAL free access to information is finally available, after a short period of “acclimatization,” there will be very few people left who want to “snoop” for no reason. Except for marginal individuals. Take, for example, the topic of childbirth. Some time ago, it became possible for a man to be present at the birth of his own child. This is a great act of nature, but not everyone can handle it easily… In other words, a certain determination and motivation are needed to make that decision.
Abuse of the system for selfish purposes should be eliminated by the structure of the system itself. Allegorically, it should look like this: In a bathhouse—where everyone is naked, a clothed person cannot enter unnoticed.
You personally like these trends and this described hypothetical future.
It’s not that they like it. No one wants their loved ones to know about the skeletons in their closet. At the same time, it’s important to understand that an individual’s ability to exercise their right to know can provide them with a comfortable level of privacy, rather than the illusion of it that exists now.
The question is: Is Big Brother being built or not? The answer is yes. Will there be people tomorrow who know everything about you? Yes. In such a situation, is it appropriate for you to know everything about them as well? It is appropriate. That’s all. 🙂 There will be a new morality and new values. There will be new standards of thinking. We are still weak.о.to think in those categories.
To get closer to understanding these new standards, one can reflect on the motives of people who install autonomous dashcams with GPS sensors and accelerometers in their cars. They want to have evidence of their innocence in case something happens. They want what aviators have from their “black boxes” — the ability to conduct a “debriefing” if necessary. Currently, there are not many such people, and interestingly, the rest do not install these devices mainly due to their high cost. As we understand, progress is underway. Tomorrow, almost everyone will have dashcams. Eventually, traffic regulations will require every new car to have a dashcam, and then cars without them will not be allowed on the road at all. Why? Because dashcams will become acceptable to society, meaning they will become a custom from which a legal norm will take root, that is — a law. Right now tachographs In a number of countries, they are already mandatory for commercial transport.
It may seem that a dashcam is different from total surveillance systems. The difference is that you have the option to turn it off. But imagine this: your spouse suspects you of cheating and asks to see what was recorded on the dashcam over the past day. Where did you go? Where was the car? Or maybe you’re a driver of a company vehicle who decided to make some extra money as a taxi driver and turned off the dashcam for a while. And it just so happens that it was off that evening. What will you do when you’re asked why you turned off the dashcam? Make excuses? Will that increase their trust in you? No. So, the off button on the dashcam doesn’t represent control over the recording. It’s an illusion of control.
Look at the “freedom” that mobile phones give people. Even now, it’s hard to lie when someone asks, “Where are you?” — you have to be aware of the background noise. And tomorrow, video calls will be everywhere. So what? Turn off your phone? 🙂 “Why was your phone off?”
Should we, in other words, limit the tools for proving a crime in the future so that the recording devices belonging to the suspect cannot be used in court? Just like now: the suspect has the right not to testify against themselves. It might be worth considering. At the same time, it’s important to understand that the criminal will be caught by the monitoring methods of the victim or the community, and that may be sufficient for the court.
Another key to understanding the new morality can be illustrated by the following example: What is the difference between the condominium concierge, Klavdiya Pavlovna, and the dormitory watchman, Zinaida Petrovna? They perform the same functions. However, the first is viewed with goodwill, while the second is perceived as a semi-enemy. We even pay the first for her work, while we try to deceive the second. For instance, if we were to install a video recorder in the elevator, who would be the first to object? Naturally, those who press the buttons and urinate in the elevators. It turns out that the issue lies in the members of society understanding their responsibility and connection to shared property. If you pay for your own concierge, you control the situation. She is your concierge. And in the building, it’s your elevator. This kind of thinking is very far from being established in third-world countries, while it is quite common in developed nations. The more developed a society becomes, the more acceptable concierges will be. Responsibility and connection, not alienation.
First, secret voting was invented, supposedly to prevent elected leaders from persecuting their opponents afterward. However, in parliaments, voting on important issues is already done by name. Why? Because what matters is not how many votes there are, but the specific responsibility each deputy takes on by voting for a particular document. Yes, for named voting to become acceptable, society must shift from viewing a leader as a tyrant to seeing a leader as a manager. Moreover, deputies are inviolable. In theory, the “system” cannot punish them for a wrong vote. For us, total control is unacceptable simply because we still fear “Major KGB Ivanov,” who sends us greetings from Orwell’s 1984. At the same time, it is important to understand that in the world of reconism, there will be no “system” as such. There will be no “Major Ivanovs” — this is the essence of reconism.
The de-anonymization of society will happen gradually and voluntarily. It will be accompanied by a growing acceptance of it within society and an awareness of the benefits that de-anonymization brings to both society and its members. Look at the “pillar of anonymity” — the internet. Where is the biggest movement happening now? In social networks. There, where anonymity is no longer appropriate. There, where people voluntarily share quite intimate things with each other, including constant tracking of their current location. And it’s fine. Everyone likes it.
Reckonism vs. Totalitarianism
Separated into a separate one. article Текст для перевода: ..
Information is a thing in itself.
The text for translation: «.When reading your materials, readers with unstable mental states may develop the illusion that the information resource is something exhaustive, self-sufficient, and of utmost priority… A sort of “thing in itself” that serves as a cure for all the ills of society..».
The introduction to reconism defines mutual (What is important) is transparency as a component of the phenomenon of the wikification of the economy and societal management. What is wikinomics in rough terms? Surprisingly, it is a system for utilizing information. For instance, to create a part on a 3D printer, you need plastic and a file with the design. The latter is clearly more important, as plastic is a typical commonplace for any part. It’s similar to comparing a dog and a cat. Both are made of meat and bones, but what matters more is what distinguishes them, not what unites them. Now, let’s return to bread. In the modern world, a significant portion of the harvest of bread is already provided by… information, rather than the seeds and soil themselves. This includes knowledge gained by breeders and geneticists, the chemistry of fertilizers, and research followed by the application of various substances—all of which are purely “informational” goods, where money is made from “know-how,” not from the cost of production. Knowledge obtained by meteorologists, the informational content of complex harvesting machinery equipped with everything, including a navigator, logistics—which is also information—and so on, are equally important. Without all of this, the harvest would be ten times smaller, and thus, we feed 90% of the population solely through information, while the remaining 10% are indeed fed only with “pure” bread.
And this will only worsen with the development of wikinomics. Although even now, a family of farmers can comfortably operate on tens of thousands of hectares, hiring outsourcers for everything from combine harvesters to elevators, effectively implementing the wiki idea. The most important thing is that by depriving agriculture of all informational support, we will face hunger, in which everyone will die, not just 90%. Because not everyone will be able to find 90% of their food.
All of the above is a beautiful speculation aimed at demonstrating that the perspective of viewing information as an intrinsic value is not without merit. At the same time, bread by itself is not information, and you can’t feed anyone with knowledge of fertilizer formulas without having a field to apply that fertilizer to. So, what is information from an economic standpoint? It is— resource manager Just like capital was not long ago. Those who believe that money solves everything are naive, and we know plenty of parables and tales that show that money in its pure form cannot feed anyone, and that banknotes are only worthy of being fuel for a fire. Before capital, the resource was land itself. Before land, it was physical strength, also in and of itself. In summary: the version of social evolution presented here does not make the information exhaustive. It simply shows that we are currently in a time when information is yet another controlling resource in the aforementioned chain, determining who gets more and who gets less.
General.
The state and commercial bureaucracy invests so much effort and resources into destroying the core of culture, altering language, distorting the meanings of events and phenomena, and dismantling the education system for a reason. Just look at any interview with a government official. They are no longer asked tough questions. And if they are asked something even slightly pointed, it is framed in such vague terms that there is no room left for the essence of the matter. The bureaucratic elite exploits its monopoly on manipulation, and this is the source of their power and the main tool of exploitation.
The evil we need to fight today is personified. The very first thing we can do is to start calling things by their true names. For example, the director of a meat processing plant who sells sausage filled with a bunch of unrecognizable ingredients is not a respected entrepreneur; he is a villain, someone you should be ashamed to stand next to and whose hand you should not shake. A former mayor who owns a large shopping center is not a businessman; he is a thief, a bribe-taker, a embezzler, and a criminal from whom his wife should leave and all relatives should turn away. And so on, from the smallest everyday issues to the highest levels.
At the same time, the issue isn’t about the individuals. The question is about the system: if you appoint another mayor, what will change? Or if another director comes to the meat processing plant? Can you show me even one honest mayor or a single honest meat processing plant? Everyone knows they are criminals. But no one realizes that only a complete removal of them “behind glass” can free us from such parasites.
The most important thing is to decide for yourself whether you like the idea as a whole. If you do, that’s already a good start. There’s no need to look for tricks or think about how to break the system. Instead, it’s better to consider right away why certain tricks might not be feasible. This approach is more constructive, and if you truly like it, take your own step forward.