Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Mechanocracy’

The only people who can truly claim to have made an absolutely free choice to do any kind of work are the Paris Hiltons of the world, those who have a guaranteed inheritance, income and secured future no matter what they choose to do with the present.
–  “A False Dichotomy

Though I will never set physical foot on another world myself, I have walked a thousand of them in my imagination.
–  “Ad Astra

If you meet a cop and he wants to arrest you he will do so, even if you aren’t even a hooker, and no magical formula will prevent that.  –  “Magic Formulae

The whole “pimp” and “sex slave” mythology derives from the need to deny the legendary sexual powers of whores by pretending that we’re the pathetic, powerless victims of men.  –  “Don’t Try This At Home

Computers are useful tools and (usually) dependable servants, but apparently generations of science-fiction writers have failed to pound into the heads of the intellectually lazy what a colossally bad idea it is to accept them in positions of authority.  –  “Mechanocracy

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.  But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.  –  Frank Herbert, Dune

On Saturday, my Twitter account was locked for twelve hours because a mindless censorship algorithm could not tell the difference between mocking an idea and professing that idea; said algorithm was given power to judge human thought for “acceptability” because Twitter (at the insistence of legions of nitwits) has decided that it’s a good idea to silence wrongthink in the first place.  I’ve already pointed out the deep foolishness and simian stupidity of censorship in many other essays, and I’ll be doing so again this year on the last Monday in September, as usual; today I’d like you to think about just how incredibly dumb it is to give machines that kind of power without human supervision or a functional appeals process.  Now, I’m not a Luddite; I certainly recognize that there are certain circumstances in which computers can be trusted with limited power (such as controlling an aircraft in flight) provided there is a human around to supervise.  Computers are, as Isaac Asimov once expressed it, high-speed morons; they do whatever they’re told to do, exactly as they’re told to do it and for as long as they’re told to do it, very very quickly.  The problem, of course, is that they are completely incapable of anything even approximating actual thought, which means that they will follow the most mind-bogglingly stupid (or even self-destructive) orders with the same degree of speed and efficiency as they would obey more sensible directives.  Anyone who has ever had the misfortune to have their computer infected with a virus should know this, yet people keep happily entrusting more and more of their lives to hopped-up pocket calculators they insist on pretending are “smart”; many of them even think it’s a good idea to let these overcomplicated abaci drive their cars at highway speed or tell them how to write.  Computers are useful tools and (usually) dependable servants, but apparently generations of science-fiction writers have failed to pound into the heads of the intellectually lazy what a colossally bad idea it is to accept them in positions of authority.

Read Full Post »

Just in case you missed it, Twitter’s completely mindless algorithms (which are not supervised or monitored by humans in any way) have locked my account again; it happened Monday afternoon and my account will (presumably) be back to normal this coming Monday afternoon.  Until then, I’ll be tweeting from my backup account, which I ask that you follow because this is bound to happen again.  What happened this time is that a prohibitionist experienced some kind of glitch while attempting to troll Prostasia‘s website, and accused the members of the advisory council (which includes yours truly) of trying to “hide” our participation in a child protection and pro-civil-rights organization (because apparently the most delusional prohibitionists believe that wanting to protect children and civil rights are somehow positions to be ashamed of).  When those accused asked the loser what he was blabbering about, he quickly descending into calling all of us “pedos”.  I replied in thread with the tweet you see here; apparently the loon took offense and reported my analysis of his level of cognitive function.  I sincerely doubt this rather mild insult was what Twitter refers to as “abuse and harassment”; what I believe happened is that complaints trigger an algorithm which scans the reported tweet for “bad words”, and my quoting what the abusive chimp was accusing us of was taken as my calling him a “pedo”.  As Isaac Asimov once pointed out, computers are high-speed morons; tell a computer that certain words are verboten and the electronic idiot cannot tell the difference between someone initiating use of the words, and someone quoting the insult.  Going forward, I’m going to keep this in mind because it’s the second time I’ve been shut down by this same censor-moron (the first one was for calling myself “queer” when a speech cop wanted me to call myself “gay”; see the similarity?)  As long as Twitter and other websites allow themselves to be governed by mindless machines, this will never stop, but cheer up:  think of how exciting driving will be once this same kind of algorithm is actively operating a sizeable fraction of automobiles.

Read Full Post »

The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.  –  H.L. Mencken

So, were y’all thoroughly confused yesterday?  Were you wondering who the hell wrote that crap that was posted under my name, or did you think it was a great improvement over my usual baroque sentence structure and outré descriptions?  Did you find yourself saying, “Ye gods and little fishes, it’s as though Ernest Hemingway had come back from the dead to write a guest column!”  Or did you not even notice anything amiss?

dumb kid from ShaneYesterday was, of course, April Fools’ Day, and for this year’s prank I decided to run my Reason essay “The Mythical Invasion of the Super Bowl Hookers” through Hemingway, a program which purports to “improve” your writing by making it “bold and clear”…in other words, by shortening and simplifying each sentence down to a level that would not confuse a rather slow-witted ten-year-old.  Hemingway said that my original text was “OK”, with 16 demerits; the final product was rated “good” with only 8, though I had eliminated everything the machine had labeled a “problem”.  Presumably, my score couldn’t get any lower because it still had too many words of more than one syllable and too many highfalutin’ terms like “prohibitionist”, “television” and “Canada”.

Now, in part I did this was because I thought it would be funny; not necessarily Monty Python funny, Three Stooges funny or even Noël Coward funny, but at least whimsically amusing.  But I also did it to show just how stupid it is to defer to the aesthetic sensibilities of something that would lose in a battle of wits with a starfish.  Even if one stupidly believes that there is only one kind of good writing, and suffers from the lamentable but popular delusion that Hemingway was its archetype, and furthermore imagines that even Hemingway always wrote in that clipped, easily-parodied style we refer to as “Hemingwayesque” (which he did not), the notion that a glorified Nintendo console is qualified to judge adherence to that standard is ludicrous at best.  But as stupid as that idea is, a very large fraction of moderns cling to it with childlike devotion because it is a natural outgrowth of one of the most pernicious dogmas of the machine age:  that human beings are just another kind of (albeit complex) machine governed by knowable rules, and that Utopia can be achieved if we can only discover those rules and implement them thoroughly (and ruthlessly) enough.  This is the heart of “Progressive” thought:  force people (via social engineering, prohibition and criminalization) to only eat, wear, watch, read, hear, say, do and think what “experts” have decided is “good” for them, and the Millennium will arrive on the very next high-speed train.

The problem with this is that it’s 99 44/100%  pure bullshit.  Human beings are not Skinner’s programmable modules, social interactions are incredibly complex and most “experts” aren’t even qualified to make decisions for their dogs, much less for millions of people they don’t know.  That idea that human beings can and should be governed by rigid, top-down rules designed by said “experts” has given us the Drug War, sex work prohibition, mass incarceration, mass surveillance, the nanny state, “Child Protective Services”, the “sex offender” registry, mandatory minimum sentencing, “zero tolerance” school policies and a host of similar abominations far too numerous to list.  People’s lives, like their writing styles,The Brothers Hemingway are unique, and what works for one does not necessarily work for another; by the reductionist “logic” of modern governance, Shakespeare, Cervantes and Dostoyevsky were all terrible writers because they don’t sound like Hemingway…and their works should be mercilessly edited until a mindless computer program declares them acceptable.

Read Full Post »

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.  –  Benjamin Franklin

In the classic 1947 science fiction novelette whose title this column shares, Jack Williamson predicted the perils of the nanny state by depicting a future world infiltrated by self-replicating robots who volunteer to do every dangerous job free of charge; only after the lazy humans have allowed the “humanoids” to take over all police and other “protective” functions do they discover that the machines have their own standards of “safety” and will not allow humans to do anything which carries even the slightest risk.

The problem, of course, is that nearly everything worth doing carries some danger, and ofttimes the greater the risk, the greater the reward.  When we allow others to absorb the peril we gradually lose the nerve to take exciting, profitable or even necessary chances for ourselves, and when we allow “authorities” using the excuse of “safety” to dictate what we can and cannot do we lose the greater part of what it means to be human and become nothing but domestic animals owned and controlled by the State.  Big Brother says that some activities are just too dangerous, so they are prohibited and those caught doing them are punished by having their goods stolen and their bodies violated or confined, but kept biologically alive in a condition the State defines as “safe”.  And if some people are killed in the process of establishing this worldwide nursery, well, you know how it is with omelettes.

The War on Drugs is the most widespread and monstrous realization of the campaign to “protect” adults from their own choices, but the War on Whores is nearly as bad.  Once we were branded as “degenerates”, but for the last century (especially the last two decades) there is a growing tendency to characterize laws which restrict the sexual freedom of adult women as attempts to “rescue” us from our own choices; trafficking fanatics, neofeminists and proponents of the “Swedish Model” paint us as imbeciles and emotional basket cases who suffer from “false consciousness” and are unable to make decisions for ourselves.  Self-proclaimed moral authorities even demand that porn actors be protected from their own informed decisions.  And in a world of smoking bans, seat belt laws, gun control, Gestapo-like “child protective service” tactics and lawsuits based in the idea that individuals are not responsible for their own safety, paternalistic anti-sex work arguments seem very credible to the average spineless American.

In the ‘40s, the watchword was “victory”. In the ’60s, it was “freedom”. But by the ’90s, it had degenerated into “safety”.  Americans once recognized that there are some things worth dying for; now we encase our children in bubble-wrap and cry like little girls at the slightest risk.  Our great-grandparents dared unknown frontiers, while we sit in our playpens content to watch the world go by on television, or to waste endless hours in “virtual worlds” when there’s a wonderful REAL universe waiting to be discovered.  People aren’t like this naturally; most of us are born with a yearning to explore the world, a zest for adventure and a thirst for knowledge, but these are ground out of children in factory schools, frightened out of them by “authorities” trying to create a race of docile, frightened sheep and squeezed out of them by overprotective parents who imagine “child traffickers” and “sexual predators” around every corner, despite the rarity of these criminals.  One of my favorite non-sex-work bloggers, Lenore Skenazy of Free-Range Kids, uses the term “helicopter parents” for those who are always hovering over their kids, watching to ensure that nothing “happens to them”…and in the process squelching their growth and destroying their ability to act or even think independently.

Skenazy understands that safety is not and should not be such a paramount issue that it instantly trumps everything else, and though her concern is primarily with the mollycoddling of children into dull-witted, complacent obesity, she does occasionally touch on the way the “Safety First” mantra affects adults as well.  She recently mentioned this 2009 essay by Mike Rowe of the TV series Dirty Jobs, and it impressed me so much I’d like to share it:

My husband works on the oilrigs as a well tester.  We watched you folks do so without any eye protection!  Are you crazy?  Drilling a hole with no protective eyewear?  Between him, a well tester, and me, a workers’ compensation lawyer, we’re cringing!  Somebody could LOSE AN EYE!  Seriously – Safety First, fellas!  I would expect better from the Discovery Channel!! — suzemommy

I sincerely appreciate your concern for me, and agree that stupidity plays an ongoing role in my professional and personal life.  But believe me, I have no wish to be injured on the job.  However, it is not the objective of Dirty Jobs to conform to any particular set of safety standards, other than those dictated by the people for whom I happen to be working at the time.  I take my cues from them, and I assume whatever risk they assume, for the most part.  In the end, we hope to capture an honest look at what life is like for the workers in a particular venue.  We do not aspire to set an example, or be a poster child for OSHA or any particular industry.  I realize that my sound controversial, but it’s the truth, and not nearly as inflammatory as what I’m going to say next.

Ready?

Of all the platitudes automatically embraced in the workplace – and there are many – there is none more pervasive, erroneous, overused, and dangerous, than “Safety First!” in my opinion.  I have heard this slogan countless times.  I have seen it emblazoned on banners, T-shirts and hats.  I have sat through mandatory briefings and slideshows and presentations designed to “protect me from the hazards at hand.”  And I have listened as safety officers and foremen have run down list after list of OSHA requirements, all apparently construed to remind me that nothing is more important to the employer than my own well-being.  What a load of unmitigated nonsense.  In the jobs I have seen thus far, I can tell you with certainty, that safety, while always a major consideration, is never the priority.

Never.
Never, ever.
Not even once.

Is it important?  Of course.  But is it more important than getting the job done?  No.  Not even close.  Making money is more important than safety – always – and it’s very dangerous in my opinion to ignore that.  When we start to believe that someone else is more concerned about our own safety than we are, we become complacent, and then, we get careless.  When a business tells you that they are more concerned with your safety than anything else, beware.  They are not being honest.  They are hedging their own bets, and following the advice of lawyers hired to protect them from lawsuits arising from accidents.

You are correct to suggest that wearing safety glasses would have made the task at hand safer.  But why stop there?  Wearing a helmet would have made it safer still.  And wearing a steel mesh shark-suit would have made it really, super safe.  I know that sounds glib, and I know that many will wish to scold me for appearing cavalier.  But really, I’m not.  In a car, I wear a safety belt.  On a motorcycle, I wear a helmet.  Not because it’s the law, but because it seems a reasonable precaution.  And ultimately, the only one responsible for my own safety is me.  (Besides, if the government were really concerned with my safety above all else, wouldn’t they drop the legal speed limit to 30 miles an hour and make cars out of rubber?)

Again, you’re right – I probably should have been wearing safety glasses, not because safety is first, but because I like to hedge my bets.  We can always be safer.  We can always assume less risk.  But if safety were really first, I wouldn’t travel at all, or engage in any activity that required me to assume any risk.  And I certainly wouldn’t be hosting Dirty Jobs.

Thank you so much for saying that, Mr. Rowe.  The same goes for hookers; though we would like the government to stop making our jobs more dangerous than they have to be, and though we take all the reasonable precautions (such as condoms, screening and call-ins) we can, in the end making money is more important or else we’d all just be working at “safe”, boring, low-income jobs.  Each person must determine how safe is safe enough for himself, and each person has to decide whether he will go forth into the world as an active adult or just sit in the nursery with folded hands.

One Year Ago Today

The Love-Hate Relationship” attempts to explain why Americans seem to love whores as fictional characters, while persecuting us in reality.

Read Full Post »