The March of Time

The time rate of historical and technological change seems to be increasing.The two of course are linked and it seems that technology is in the driver’s seat.What of course is bedazzling is that human response is limited by our neuronal and general somatic genetically determined(not entirely)reactivity.So from tennis champions who must face younger,faster,stronger but not as skilled players who have studied their games through time linked TV and who cannot possibly do the same for the host of contenders and must rely on the diminished strength of their game,(Serena)to older drivers who must contend with more powerful,quick accelerating vehicles as drivers of them and as drivers of older less powerful cars,to the worlds only true superpower playing on too many fronts and being forced to respond to allies and enemies who change colors and issues with amazing speed.
Some players try a shift in strategy (charging first serves-Federer) some resort to surgical repair(Del Potro) but injury and time inevitably prevail.Older drivers make increasing use of taxis,limos, Uber and Lyft( the latter putting pressure on the former)but the day of the driverless vehicle is acceleratingly close.On the national and international stage the temptation to revert to a sentient based,nostalgic distortion of past glory is gaining popularity.It will certainly succeed in making people feel better for a while but the risk is enormous and the failure inevitable.The mythical past glory of nations was based on the
use of unmatched power but the capability of destruction by the nuclear megatonnage available today makes that untenable.It is becoming clear that Brexit was a mistake for theUK and the Euronations. It is becoming clear that economic blocs will be in competition and cooperation across the world and that individual nations cannot compete or cooperate solo..It is also becoming increasingly clear that military intervention cannot be on an individual national basis.Patience and the ability to err and correct is more important than being right and powerful all the time.
Those who are holding their noses and supporting the Donald in the hope of holding on to the Supreme Court are playing tennis in the doubles boundary and accelerating the entry of robotics into decision making for us and the world..



  1. Original intent was for original citizens.Most have noticed that today’s demographics are quite different and require things like tax & immigration reform ,voting rights etc. This despite the fear and resentment of those who believe that the best is for the best who are knowable in advance and who see any leveling of opportunity as the action of Robin Hood or Zorro.
    Robotic response makes,in my view,compassion and empathy less available in human affairs.I think that constant reprogramming is necessary rather than upgrading both in terms of environmental response and the ability to learn.(err & correct) Reprogramming is overwhelmingly expensive in time and money and leaves older systems in place longer than might be desirable or safe.I feel safer with an informed human response to the possibility of having to open the gates to thermonuclear hell.

    1. The Supreme Court was to judge cases relative to their conformance with the most fundamental law of the land, the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended and it has been amended. What evidence supports the belief that “today’s demographics” are so unique that the normal amendment process is no longer of value – or worse, foments such harm that we should jettison the values and societal rewards associated with individual rights as protected by original intent?
      We live in a place and an age where evidence abounds that millions of individuals of every race, practically every national heritage and every religion, have successfully achieved success in every way that healthy success can be defined. This is true UNLESS the criteria determining what we call “success” require statistically measured equalities of group achievement (leveling). If this is the case, we should ask what source DICTATES our use of such criteria. Adherence to this (religious?) source cannot rationally be called moral if because of its stifling the best among us insufficient resources are generated such that humanity’s potential is diminished.

      Artificial intelligence can become self-correcting (Watson of Jeopardy fame). AI can avoid the subjective biases emotionally inflicting human judgment. Science fiction is outrunning its fiction, but as yet it is fallible humans who are designing and programming our robots. GPS is helping us find our way if we use it correctly. Human judgment displays many emotion-induced stumbles. For instance, humans with “good intentions” have allowed a gate to be opened which will allow the Mullahs of Iran to develop and project thermonuclear hell as a means to clear their path to their vision of heavenly glory. Among a world of irrational cultures technological power is such that all leadership judgments run the risk of triggering a savage future. Life is complicated. Logic tells us that sometimes a war saves lives. War is more costly once one’s enemies have acquired nuclear weapons. Obama’s judgment has opened this gate for the worst of the worst. It has empowered a leadership that proclaims a love a for heavenly death that transcends earthly life.

      1. The normal amendment process is just fine,but it is perverted by gerrymandering, voting rights and accessibilty abuse.Fair play in the implementation of existing process is what is called for and who says that this subverts fundamental values? Equal acces,s as DS well knows, does not mean statistical evidence of equal outcome.This kind of false dichotomy is equivalent to a statement of validation of a status quo ante which altered demographics clearly denies.
        The significance of Robotics or as DS better states AI,becoming dangerously critical in a Trump regime is related to the trigger happy,globally financially enmeshed band of uninformed brothers and sisters who would have to respond to sequential global crises brought on deliberately by sophisticated “frenemies”.Their response to professional advisors ( no doubt differing) is, in my views,likely to be slow(best case?) or Armageddon pugnaciously swift.There is an alternative,I.e giving it over to an inept congress.
        I heard Trump’s economic speech this a.m.Aside from an outrageous cost and an outrageous benefit to those who need it least,the worst dissonance was in the “the Fed should stop Ford from taking its small car production to Mexico” vs ” I’ll get rid of intrusive Fed regulation”.With this kind of ignorance a super Watson is not enough.The only question is who’d build and program it?

        1. In Daedal2207’s comments note the importance given to “demographics”. Thinking in terms of “demographics” illustrates a mindset that shifts the criteria for judging qualities of “success” and “fairness” away from individuals to that of selected groups.
          Perhaps the idea called “equal access” needs some analysis. Nature did not give us (as individuals or as groups) equal abilities to recognize opportunity or equal abilities to take advantage of opportunities. Also, randomly we are all born into varied environments, both geographic and cultural. NATURE DICTATES that there will always be wide inequities of both access and of outcome. But, we humans can structure our laws such that no matter these unavoidable differences each citizen will be treated equally under the law. This is the essence of our Constitution’s original intent. The subverting of a most fundamental value occurs when “justice” (for all) is transformed into something very different called “social justice”. It is the value called JUSTICE that is jeopardized as we allow the Supreme Court to be progressively transformed into “living constitution” majorities.

  2. It is easy to understand that the time rate of technological change is accelerating. Less easy to understand is the idea that “the time rate of historical change seems to be increasing”. What actually happened in the past (history) does not change. Our perceptions of history will vary (change) to the degree that we adhere to (or cease to adhere to) the disciplines that help us avoid subjective distortions. Also, significant future events, which will be read as the substance of tomorrow’s history, may crowd upon us in an accelerated fashion. I think that this is the sense of “history” referred to by Daedal2207. And I think that he is correct. But how well does this support his political conclusions?
    Our ability to accurately predict future events hinges greatly on our ability to accurately understand the objective realities of history (and the objective realities of today). This is another way of saying that the premises on which our predictions rely should be accurate.
    Daedal2297 writes: “Those who are holding their noses and supporting the Donald in the hope of holding on to the Supreme Court are playing tennis in the doubles boundary and accelerating the entry of robotics into decision making for us and the world.”
    “Holding on to the Supreme Court” is presented as something likely to be harmful. Would Daedal2207 please clarify what is it about the original intent for the court that is in conflict with our best path into the future? Also, how and why would the use of “robotics” as a factor in our decision making NECESSARILY have a negative effect?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.