When the winds change direction, some build walls, while others build windmills.
Chinese proverb.
Perhaps more than once or twice while reading this book, you felt uncomfortable imagining a world where everyone is constantly in view of one another. Do we like this world ourselves? Not really. No one wants everyone around them to be able to watch them 24/7. But on the other hand, most people on this planet, without much thought, are willing to give up not only their privacy but also their freedom in exchange for a 5% discount and the promises of some shadowy figures with political smiles to ensure safety and stability. And we have to reckon with that. The question is: will “Big Brother” appear or not? Yes. Will there be people tomorrow who can find out everything about you? Yes. In such a situation, is it appropriate for you to know everything about them as well? It is appropriate.
We believe that fighting against the erosion of privacy is not only impossible but also unnecessary. What is needed is to steer the development of events in a more honest and humane direction. What distinguishes the condominium concierge, Klavdiya Ivanovna, from the dormitory watchman, Serpentina Adolfovna? They perform the same functions. Yet, the former is viewed with goodwill, while the latter is seen as an enemy. We even pay the first one for her work, while we try to deceive the second. If, for instance, a dashcam is installed in the elevator, who will be the first to object? Naturally, those who press the buttons and make a mess in the elevators. It turns out that the issue lies in the understanding of society’s members regarding 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. Such thinking is very far from being common in third-world countries, while it is, of course, prevalent in developed nations. The higher the level of societal development, the more concierges there are and the fewer watchmen. Responsibility and connection, not alienation.
For us, total control is unacceptable right now simply because we are still afraid of “Major KGB Ivanov,” who sends us greetings from Orwell’s 1984. But in the world of recognition, there won’t be a “system” as such. There won’t be any “Major Ivanovs.”
The de-anonymization of society will happen gradually and voluntarily. Look at the “pillar of anonymity” — the internet. Where is the biggest movement happening now? In social networks. That’s where anonymity is no longer appropriate. It’s where people willingly share quite intimate things with each other, including constant tracking of their current location. And it’s fine. Everyone likes it.
A transparent world would be a good place to live if many taboos and prejudices of a moral and religious nature disappeared. This, in particular, implies that if someone’s words or actions offend or outrage another person, it is the problem of the offended party (naturally, except in cases where the harm is tangible and measurable—like getting punched in the face, having windows broken, or a door set on fire). If we respond to a cartoon in a newspaper with riots and disrupt pride parades, then we are not yet ready to become transparent. In a transparent society, there is only one type of intolerance that is acceptable—intolerance towards violence.
In a transparent world, we will have to completely abandon the primitive, magical view of words—banning public discussion of certain topics or the utterance of specific words is utterly meaningless. An elephant, furiously stomping its feet and demanding to fine the little dog for an insult, looks ridiculous. If you are right, then aggressive barking only highlights your correctness, and if you are not, there is no reason to prohibit others from telling you unpleasant truths to your face. No insults or aggressive slogans can cause harm if two fundamental rules are strictly followed: opposing views can be defended just as freely, and one must categorically refrain from resorting to violent actions. All bloody riots, pogroms, revolutions, and murders have occurred only when the first rule was violated, and then the second.
In the book, we described many aspects of the proposed reconist future. However, we did not provide a specific action plan for building reconism. The thing is, we do not believe it is possible to artificially construct reconism in any way. There will be no “Great Reconist Revolution.” If one intentionally strives for reconism, it is possible to create an absolute informism under the guise of reconism, just as absolute capitalism was built under the guise of socialism— a mega-monopoly, one for the entire country. Just as most capitalist countries did not reach absolute capitalism and began to develop socialist principles—unions, free education, social medicine, pensions—through an evolutionary process, the most likely scenarios for a change in the system today will be quiet, slow, and imperceptible.
The society’s drive for transparency is already noticeable. Various anti-corruption laws require transparency in the finances of officials and their families. Manufacturers print the composition of their products on labels. Parents give their children “tracking” phones. Corporate law is becoming increasingly demanding of transparency year after year. In some countries, such as Singapore, all corporate records are maintained online. In Brazil, all budget expenditures of each administrative entity are posted online, and in real time. Every day, new projects related to transparency emerge around the world.
Transparency requirements will become increasingly stringent, as unethical and criminal activities will always remain in the shadows. Thus, with greater disclosure, the “concentration” of negative aspects in still-hidden information will rise, leading to heightened demands for transparency. Sooner or later, a stereotype will emerge in society: “closed means criminal.” This will be a turning point in public consciousness.
Relationships in the purely informational sphere are becoming increasingly transparent. There are no physical barriers preventing people from freely sharing software, videos, and music with each other. This is why free licenses and business strategies designed for seamless copying, rather than prohibitions, are emerging. Most forward-thinking content producers have already partially or fully shifted their focus to generating profit through incentives—such as online applications, subscriptions, and low prices—rather than through threats and high-profile trials against “pirates.”
The technological complexity and information density of the final product are constantly increasing. Appearance has long ceased to be an indicator of quality, and to understand the difference between “cheap Chinese” and “expensive German” products, an independent reputational assessment is required.
Openness is especially important in a market that is increasingly becoming “wiki-fied,” where even small companies can potentially produce cars in small batches, thanks to design, CNC machines, and industrial robots. A large number of new manufacturers can gain consumer trust only by being transparent and showing why customers should choose them. Transparency is becoming a part of the added value of a product.
Marketers, forced to respond to consumer demands for transparency, understand that vague labels like “flavoring identical to natural” are no longer sufficient. They are compelled to abandon “trade secrets” and, on the contrary, to be more open. This is currently taking the form of organizing tours for bloggers. Sooner or later, having webcams in production facilities will become the norm, a part of the PR strategy for any serious business.
Politicians will also need to think about their transparency. The absence of skeletons in the closet, rather than connections or the ability to weave intrigue and lie without blushing, will become the most important component of political capital. At the same time, the need for politicians as administrators of public resources will gradually decline. People will be able to make decisions and implement them on their own, as is already happening in communities like apartment buildings or garden cooperatives. Politicians will have nothing left to “cut” or “compact,” and the struggle for office will become irrelevant.
The growing asymmetry in access to information could serve as a catalyst for a transition to reconism. Government and corporate surveillance systems will increasingly provoke discontent, and information will more frequently leak uncontrollably from them—there will always be Robin Hoods. Ultimately, those who are unafraid to make everything publicly accessible will come to power.
Finally, people will not only demand transparency from others, but they will also start to disclose information about themselves for protection and safety. Dashcams will help safeguard against false accusations, prevent criminals from escaping punishment, and provide alibis.
At some point, the concentration of surveillance and recording devices will become so high that, on one hand, people will simply stop paying attention to them, and on the other hand, a person who avoids being observed and hides their personal history will appear, at best, as an eccentric oddball. At worst, they will be seen as a suspicious and unreliable individual. This will lead to a rapid crystallization of an otherwise opaque and fragmented information space, made up of numerous separate communities, organizations, clubs, and groups that are transparent internally but not externally, into a single transparent space. Something akin to a phase transition will occur. Naturally, some cohesive groups, subcultures, and territories will cling to the idea of privacy, but they will no longer constitute the majority and will be unable to play a significant role in society. Just as there are still some tribes living under primitive communal systems or religious settlements that reject electricity, phones, and cars.
Although we consider “building reconism” to be an unproductive and even unnecessary endeavor, it is quite possible to help it grow a little. At the same time, we can help ourselves adapt to changes in advance. If there are reasons to believe that everything around us will soon be flooded, it makes sense to learn how to swim. In this specific case, it means building reliable horizontal connections with other people, relying as little as possible on any secrets, and simply behaving humanely in any situation, even without witnesses. Interestingly, to succeed in a closed hierarchical society, one must do everything the opposite way: vertical connections are more valuable than horizontal ones, it’s better to keep your mouth shut, and decent behavior is only necessary in public.
In the past, it was cheaper and more advantageous to wear multiple social masks, one for private use and another for public appearances, rather than being sincere. Today, however, we are approaching a point where hypocrisy will be unaffordable for almost everyone. Previously, to “succeed in life,” one had to acquire more slaves, more land, more money, and more information at any cost, all while pretending to be a righteous person. Soon, achieving success will require serving society in a similarly mercenary, cunning, and cynical way, being honest and decent, and doing good in order to gain more trust and reputation. The mask will merge with the face and cease to be just a mask. This time, the “sophisticated scoundrels,” who are better at sensing where the wind is blowing, may turn out to be anything but scoundrels.