|
|
|
|
Achievement, Respect and other Notions in the Orion's Arm Setting |
This is in reply to issues raised (on the mail list) regarding what exactly baselines (and nebs and superior and even transapients) do in the OA nanotopias. Particularly what they do to develop feelings of self worth. Which, I think, is what a lot of this discussion (and the concerns expressed in it) boils down do
Respect. Respect for oneself and respect from ones peers.
In RL we tend to use either money or material goods as a 'measuring stick' for how much respect we should feel toward others or ourselves. If we have a lot of either or both we have been memed to believe that what we do to acquire those things (money, possessions) must have worth and value. In essence these things become a method of 'keeping score'.
The problem that arises for many in the OA scenario seems to arise in large part from the apparent absence or devaluation of the things we have come to see as marks of achievement and thus respect in our society. Material goods in an OA nanotopia are essentially free for the taking by anyone and everyone who wants them in practically any quantity we can readily imagine. Travel is just as freely available. So is information, energy, living space, etc. And any sort of human achievement can be matched or exceeded with ease by the superhuman transapient intelligences. So where is the opportunity for a 'mere' human level intelligence to gain the feelings of self-worth that we all feel are so important?
Here are a couple possible answers, one from me and on in the form of a quote. Hopefully I will be able to express this properly. Please note that although I am writing this in present tense it is intended as a proposal not a statement of how things in OA necessarily are already.
Direct Respect or Reputation as Currency:
In the OA nanotopias 'respect' whether for oneself or from others, is no longer such a nebulous concept. Rather it has become a much more direct and 'real' aspect of peoples lives. Consider for a moment the 'rating' system used on the eBay online auction system and also (in various forms) on some other sales oriented websites. On these sites the buyer and the seller (or maybe just the buyer) are able to rate each other based on their satisfaction with the sales transaction, the quality of product or service, and perhaps other factors. Now lets extend this idea (this was actually done (somewhat) in an SF novel called Earthweb by Marc Stiegler a few years ago, I recommend it. Also the book Voyage from Yesteryear by James Hogan) further.
Imagine a society in which the respect engendered by ones actions and/or the quality of ones actions could be either directly rated or judged by everyone around you. So, if you are an artist whose work is popular you will likely be given a great deal of respect as recorded by 'instant commentaries' or 'blogs' of anyone interested enough to rate your work, by those who in turn read these ratings and are inclined to invite you to social functions, by peoples reactions to you at those functions (which they can in turn 'write up' and post) and so on. If you are a craftsperson, then people will rate not only the quality of your work, but also how good or bad an experience a 'customer' had when they either viewed your work or requested a custom piece from you or took a piece of your work from the gallery. And you could rate them as well. And so on. What are now 'commercial' transactions in our society would be replaced by transactions in which the quality and personality of the people involved (and the reputations they developed in society at large as a result of this) would take the place of the material things we now use to mostly make judgements about peoples worth in society (either their own or others).
A variation of this system would even be applicable for people who don't directly interact in a 'commercial' manner. Consider the archaeologist who was mentioned in another thread earlier. Does e work hard? Is e respected for eir personality, treatment of peers and subordinates, quality of research and argument and so on? If the answer is yes, then that person will be respected in society as a whole and (hopefully) by themselves since they can check the ratings on themselves as readily as anyone else can. In a sense the peer review and reputation ethos that is employed in academia would continue but in a more automated and widespread manner.
Basically the idea is that some sort of combination of a rapid survey/rating system is readily available on the public data channels and that practically everyone has a public dossier that anyone can access to learn about them and what others think of them. What constitutes the points of measurement would likely vary depending on area of expertise or milieu although there might also be some common ratings for things like pleasant disposition.
Ok, several questions and possible answers
1) What does this get a person?
Social standing without the 'middleman'. We currently measure social standing based on wealth or the appearance of it. In this system social standing is measured directly by what members of society have to say about you. And (rather like in the RL actually) ones social standing results in social advantages. If you're consistently rated as a pleasant, witty, intelligent person who provides high quality work in a reasonable time, then you're going to get more requests for your work or opinion or time. Including getting invited to more parties, mixers, fox hunts, or whatever (figure that in nanotopia there is lots of time for parties) which means you have more opportunities to meet potential mates/sex partners/new friends/social contacts (which is part of what we do with increased wealth now btw)etc.
2) How does 'competition' from the transapients fit into all this?
The advantage of this system is that (properly designed) it eliminates the 'advantages' that the transapients have in terms of standing in society. Society below their S-level anyway.
Consider the example of a neb author/artist/whatever and a transapient. The neb may be able to produce a good or even very good piece of work while the transapient can churn out hundreds of masterpieces with barely a thought. So the transapient 'wins', yes? No.
Think of the products of the two beings as being like diamonds. The neb author's work is like a natural diamond, produced after lots of time and effort and is relatively rare. The transapient's work OTOH is like an artificial diamond. It can be churned out like jellybeans with little or no effort. Which, in a society that respects the effort or thought that goes into a work as an intrinsic part of the works value (which we do as well really), means that the transapients work, while perhaps useful in some instances (much like industrial diamond), has less value then the work of the neb when considered in terms of the amount of societal respect that each engenders.
This same sort of ethos can apply to virtually any other instance of a transapient performing a task or creating a product vs a baseline/neb/etc doing the same task. In OA society, everyone knows that a masterpiece (or just a very good piece) produced by a baseline is the 'real deal' the product of real effort, while the transapient product required no significant effort at all.
Look at this another way. Imagine a child building a sandcastle on the beach or in a sandbox (parents on the list may not need to imagine). Now, what is the reaction if an adult comes up, takes the child's bucket and shovel away from them and proceeds to make a sandcastle that is bigger and fancier then the child could manage on their own. Is the reaction to this from onlookers generally approbation of the adult because they 'beat' the child? Almost certainly not. More likely the adult will be censured (either in word or in mind) for being so immature or socially lacking as to think out producing a child is in any way a positive reflection of their abilities and character. At a certain age it may even engender the anger of the child (No, I want to do it!).
For this reason, things like a transapient coming in and taking away the work of an archaeologist (to mention an example brought up earlier) and getting the credit would be looked at *very* negatively both by the baselines, and (perhaps more importantly) by the transapient's peers (Wow, I bet you really feel like a man now). They (in this model) would look at such an action in much the same way we would view an adult who insisted on coming in and building a sandcastle for the child or doing their homework for them to ensure that they always got an 'A'. Social derision from its peers (and perhaps ostracism) would likely result.
Perhaps some sort of bidding or first come first serve or drawing system would determine which being (transapient or baseline) would get to go and explore the potential archeological dig.
Basically, in this model, the source of a product or action or thing is as important or more important then the thing itself. And among baseline types, the product of another baseline is going to have more value then the same product produced by a transap. For that matter, if the transapients buy into the same ethos then they wont want to 'compete' against the baselines either because its beneath them. They will be interested in doing things that enhance their standing among their peers whatever that may be.
That said, this is not to say the transapients would be totally 'hands off' in regards to lower S-levels.
To use the child analogy, there are some things that a child needs that only an adult can do/produce. And sometimes an adult needs to step in for the safety of the child. And often even the child knows this (kid gets scared, goes running to parent for protection, etc).
So if there is something that the baselines need done that only a transapient can do, or do as fast as the baselines need it, then they will certainly be OK with the transapient stepping in. In fact they will likely request it (alternatively, the transaps may just provide the baselines with some 'magic' tech to let them produce an end product (raw datawise anyway) equal to what the transaps could do). In a sense the material/info/energy/etc wealth of OA civ is the foundational part of this. Sort of like a parent providing a good home for the child. We don't generally charge infants room and board and do our best to give them as safe and comfortable an existence as possible.
Also, if danger threatens the baselines may call for help, or the transapient types may summarily step in (no Johnny, thats a piece of glass! Sharp! Don't touch that, let mommy take it) or some such. But this would not be an instance of the transaps out competing the baselines.
Much of this sort of thing might be woven into the fabric of OA society thru various means, some subtle some direct. A lot of it would be based on the societal viewpoint or ethos operating in the society as a whole (the effort that goes into creating a thing directly effects the value of a thing) as well as the ready access of all members of society to data systems which let them publish ratings and opinions of everyone else for all to see.
I would like now to quote from John Wright's concluding book in the Golden Okumene trilogy. Alan reviewed the first book recently and has cited it as being relevant to OA in its description of an incredibly advanced and powerful far future society. This particular description does not directly relate to life in the nanotopias (at least those that have dispensed with money entirely, not all necessarily have. There are levels of nanotopia I think) but might very nicely deal with the NoCoZo.
From The Golden Transcendence pgs. 113-114
Diomedes said, "Aren't men right to fear machines which can perform all tasks men can do, artistic, intellectual, technical, a thousand or a million times better then they can do? Men become redundant."....
Phaethon "Efficiency does not harm the inefficient. Quite the opposite. That is simply not the way it works. Take me, for example. Look around I employed partials to do the thought-box junction spotting when I built this ship. My employees were not as skilled as I was in junction spotting. It took them three hours to do the robopsychology checks and hierarchy links I could have done in one hour. But they were in no danger of competition from me. My time is too valuable. In that same hour if would have taken me to spot their thought-box junction, I can earn far more than their three-hour wages by writing supervision architecture thought flows. It's the same with me and the Sophotechs."
"Any midlevel Sophotech could have written in one second the architecture it takes me, even with my implants, an hour to compose. But if, in that same one second of time, that Sophotech can produce something more valuable--exploring the depth of abstract mathematics, or inventing a new scientific miracle, anything at all (provided that it will earn more in that second than I earn in an hour)--then the competition is not making me redundant. The Sophotech still needs me and receives the benefit of my labor. Since I am going to get the benefit of every new invention and new miracle put out on the market, I want to free up as many of those seconds of Sophotech time as my humble labor can do.
And I get the lion's share of the benefit from the swap. I only save him a second of time; he creates wonder upon wonder for me...."
