Participating in a discussion is a great way to learn and contribute to ideas for superstructing. When you post a comment, try to provide information that others may not know, and avoid getting into arguments. Winning discussions are all about working together to get smarter.

Please login or register to post


    21st Century Ideas: Slow communication down

    Is communication really helpful or is it a threat to anything workable?

    Started by: fransgaard Raves:1 Badge Winner! Emergensight

    Subscribe » RSS

    I've been thinking about all sorts of ideas for 2012 since I joined the game recently and each time communication seems to get in the way. I think for something truly workable to grow it needs isolation and time to evolve. But every time something starts looking good news spread and it drowns in people wanting to join to get a piece of the action until the idea is ruined. I think (unfortunately) that the only way to progress is to significantly slow down communication so news spread much slower giving areas with good idea time to evolve. Hindering communication may well help lowering state of wider panic and it may also help news focus on local areas making people focus on local problems rather than worry about global issues. In turn this may fragment the world so much that each isolated area can almost re-build from scratch until mature enough to venture outside and join other isolated areas (this may not be in a peaceful way btw) Finally it may be a big help in removing the superthreat Outlaw Planet

    Could you give an example of a good idea that's been drowned by too much communication? I'm not quite sure I understand.

    I would agree that localizing the reaction to threats is probably one of the best ways to deal with them as they effect every day life. People don't generally set out to solve the world's problems because they have their own to deal with. If we focus on local issues and discover something that works for us, we can then spread the word, but only after we've tested and proven the method. I don't think it's so much a way of dealing with outlaw planet, but it wouldn't hurt. Maybe a localized communication network would be more beneficial than a global network. We could break things down and have community billboards. Literally, an established physical location where local people can meet and share their own progress.

    Interesting idea. Might it be that this process of an idea being ruined helps to show us ideas that are not well suited for our use? The really good ideas seem to stick around, changing and evolving both in isolation and not in isolation.

    Good point Horizon. However, some systems need time to grow independent of outside forces, maturing in isolation. You don't throw a baby into a fighter jet and expect it to know how to fly. That takes years of development into adulthood, not to mention years of training in simulated flight conditions. To throw a brand new system or approach into a disaster ridden world and hope something works will just cause more chaos.

    I actually think that our current communication technologies are one of our biggest assets for dealing with global problems. The interconnectedness of global communities enabled by the internet, email, cellular, etc. enables collaboration on a scale never seen in history. Think of the man-hours it would have taken to assemble Wikipedia in its current form if created by a small team. Another example is Linux. What started with Torvalds has evolved into a highly successful technology platform that is refined and supported by a global community of voluntary developers that collaborate using current communications technology. Their product is arguably more stable and bug-free than competing platforms (e.g. Windows) that have been developed in a proprietary fashion with closed, well-defined teams that can sit down in the same room together. Now, both Wikipedia and the Linux development community have created structure and rules/etiquette/standards to guide development and collaboration. But it is up to the idea holders to create and enforce such structure--you can't depend on the communication technology to do this for you. In summary, I believe the ability to communicate rapidly, cheaply, and pervasively is a game-changer for us, and is part of the foundation that enables real collaboration between nation-states, private enterprise, and any other institutions or global communities working to solve our most pressing crises. The onus for controlling or giving structure to the communication lies with the source, not the technology.

    You're not really describing what happens when there's too much communication; you're describing what happens when stupid people have voices equal in volume to smart people's voices. Stupid people tend to have opinions on everything, even things that they are completely unqualified to talk about. If you listen to them, and give weight to their words, you will make mistakes. But if you slow down communication, without paying any attention to the quality of said communication, all that you're doing is slowing down the change that that communication is intended to effect. Scientists of all stripes figured out a way around this problem a long time ago. They stopped listening to people who didn't know what the fuck they were talking about. They demanded credentials and research to participate in discussions. It's a simple solution, but it works.

    "Could you give an example of a good idea that's been drowned by too much communication?" Well, let's say a village of sorts managed to become entirely self sufficient. Given the shortage of food this is great. But the news would spread so fast and draw so many people to it that it would destroy the self-sufficiency almost instantly. Now, if the news didn't spread the village could in it's own pace start teach the surrounding areas and spread in a pace that maintained the self sufficiency.

    "You're not really describing what happens when there's too much communication; you're describing what happens when stupid people have voices equal in volume to smart people's voices." Not necessarily. To use the example I just posted clever people would also be drawn and ruin a village like this. But yes, you are right, adding a substantial amount of people who act on something they don't know about will only speed up the proccess

    "Think of the man-hours it would have taken to assemble Wikipedia in its current form if created by a small team. Another example is Linux." True, but on a more basic level neither wiki or linux feeds people. They are information which is great, but only in a society where the basic needs are met, food, shelter, safety. Otherwise I am tempted to say they are useless. I mean what good is Wiki if you don't have power to turn on your computer? Food for thought: News yesterday in the uk: Some councils are turning off street lamps to save energy. Imagine where that could lead to in 11 years

    I think the problem is not communication, but intrusion. To come up with an idea and be able to communicate its success and therefore spread the good idea is a good thing. The problem you refer to, I think, is more about 'death by success', opportunists and invaders who instead of applying the idea to their own means, they come to take advantage and a 'free meal'. So, communication is essential. Communicate the good ideas, communicate results, and communicate the need for protection if your crop gets assaulted by less nicer people.

    This comment resonated with me. I think what I'm hearing is sometimes better stuff comes out with some time for the input to percolate within. Speaking frankly, I tend to skim these discussions looking for something to hang my hat on - I don't give them the proper consideration I would if I didn't feel this time crunch built into the process here. Unlike a real emergency time isn't slowing down for me trough this. I feel it speeding up!




    Nominate For A Badge

    Badge:
    More detail on badges



    NOMINATE CANCEL