NevDull’s Take On Things

Pragmatism, idealism, and scalability

November 10th, 2008

One of the more difficult truths I’ve come to realize lately is that the type of idealism that I have, which tends toward the libertarian, simply doesn’t scale to the places the human population is going.

As global population increases, and global demand for resources at least keeps pace, we’ll have so many more quarrels about fairness of the distribution of resources. If nothing else, it may be cost that drives everyone into the cities, if energy and water are best provided (and protected from harm) there, if efficiencies of scale can be gained that offset some of the burdens we’re likely to have to bear.

As we get to live closer and closer together, as the far east spawns cities of millions sprinkled along the water’s edge, our lives necessarily intersect more. The guy who holds the doors open on the subway, delaying the train for 30 seconds, delays everyone on that train for 30 seconds — if there are 600 other people on the train, that’s 5 hours of cumulative lost time. And it happens all the time, and it happens everywhere. But it happens a lot less in Wyoming than it does in New York, Toyko, or Shanghai.

I’ve been the offending party, certainly. I’ve been lost like a tourist, or snuck into a closing elevator. But I feel a little guilty about it… and then realizing that as long as I feel guilty about it, I’m better than those who don’t, and get over my guilt. I’m often conscious of my transgressions, sometimes to the extent of anxiety. But I’m surrounded every day by so many people in New York. I see blatantly rude and selfish social behavior. I see blissfully ignorant folk completely unaware of the impact they’re having on the people around them, whether it’s the people who don’t know to get to the side if they’re not sure where to go, or the people who get into screaming matches with the traffic cop who’s telling them not to make a right onto 34th Street. 5 slow-walking people shouldn’t walk all 5 astride, and when they’re doing so and chatting, they have no idea that someone might want to pass…

Yes, I have to smile a concession smile when people ask me why I live in New York if I hate people.

So… back to libertarianism and scalability… I see how little regard people have for each other on a minute-by-minute basis. Carelessness gets magnified. Selfishness has an impact on others. Maliciousness affects anyone and everyone around.

If we look at the Internet as a model for our interconnectedness as people, we see that sometimes the interconnectedness is accomplished better by the upstarts. South Korea has 12.2 million fiber broadband connections. Africa, grossly underserved by fixed-line providers, is expected to have 378 million cell phone subscribers by 2011. We also learn about how the incumbent network providers and the wily Cogent play nasty with each other… will we ever get another permanent member to the UN security council? If we do, isn’t it likely to be the troublemaker upstart who’s seized sufficient power to wrestle themselves in? Cogent’s been playing the Hugo Chavez role, holding resources hostage to try to gain legitimacy as a peer.

I’d include modern cell phones into what I’m calling the Internet even if they don’t have IP connectivity — if there’s MMS and a camera phone, there’s a connection to the global information network which will reproduce news across all media. The flow of information among people has grown dramatically, to the point of overload at times. Millions of tweets and texts have been sent both to organize peaceful political action, as well as spread disinformation or orchestrate violence. We’ve seen security holes in widely distributed software lead to the taking down of websites and even the connectivity of entire countries. We’ve seen countries block content they deem unfit for their nodes, and we’ve seen people overcome those blockades with encryption and various other techniques. Sometimes they do it for good, other times for evil.

You can opt out, refuse to take part in the Internet. But it’s increasingly more difficult to remain unaffected by it. If your power company hasn’t properly secured their systems, or all of the systems upon which they are dependent for proper operation, your electric service may be vulnerable to hackers. What other systems am I referring to? Telecommunications facilities which carry the networks between the interconnected systems required to be able to manage the grid. Environmental control systems at those telecommunications facilities, where forcing systems to overheat, failures can be induced… or the sprinkers could be set off, and the power cut automatically. Once the grid can’t communicate, it’s considerably more vulnerable… and I wouldn’t be surprised if parts would shut themselves down automatically when they lose connectivity to the other nodes.

We’re getting more connected as people just as we are on the Internet. We’re facing resource shortages, including economic growth, while we find new equilibria in this interconnected world. We’re recognizing how interconnected action is required to face some of the problems that we’ve created, and we’re a part of a blame game in the tradeoffs between growth and responsibility for the impact of industry.

As much as I have an inherent appreciation for Locke’s second treatise, I can see how it has problems when population scales and resources become scarce. It would be trivial to say that those who do not work should get nothing, but in this overconnected world we’re a part of whether or not we like it, we know that someone will have to take care of those who refuse to help themselves. They won’t be allowed to die in droves. If that starts to happen, some among them will strike back. And in this interconnected world, just a few motivated individuals can impact even the most “secure” of us.

Pragmatism demands that I try to figure out the extent to which I want to see a safety net defined, be it for money, healthcare, or anything similar… and participate in at least the discussion of that definition. While I don’t think that it’s my responsibility to provide for everyone, if I take the stance that it’s all unacceptable, I’m likely to be bypassed. I think that I’d better be a part of the solution that I can believe in rather than simply have it defined around me.

I’m given hope when Obama talks about encouraging personal responsibility, as much as I’m dismayed when he talks as though people have an inherent right to things. But it’s time to become part of the discussion. I’ll be writing more here shortly to help solidify my thoughts and further discussion.

Entry Filed under: Government Sucks