The Stross thread on the history of 1700-2300 smashed his longest thread record. It took till comment #1315 to throw up this nugget.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/09/the-present-in-deep-history.html#comment-1981091

---

Americans, by and large, think that they can control history, basically by sheer force of will and gumption, and the one thing I've noticed in this thread is that no one shares this assumption- not even for humanity as a whole. Currently, that's obviously not true, but the one game changer that I see, the one truly significant innovation that could completely dominate history for the next thousand years, if it's possible of course, would be if humanity learned how to plan it's own future. If we could actually set multi-century goals, and meet them. If Psycho-history became real. If the Imperial Planetologist actually knew what he was talking about. If Humanity collectively became an transcendent AI (at least in effect).

Obviously not a capability we currently have. Is there any reason we might move toward it in the next three hundred years? We have advanced significantly in our understanding of complexity, nonlinear dynamic systems, and how the ecosystem, the economy and human behavioral patterns interact with one another. We are starting to do the math. Could we get there? Could we actually design systems today that would have an intended impact say, 200 years down the road?

If not, what's the barrier?

---

This got mixed in with thoughts about "The Roman Empire Never Ended" and the differences between pyramid-structured, command and control systems and emergent-behavious hive mind systems. I've been pushing the idea for a while now that the USA likes the first while China is more like the second, using the universal Starbucks vs Chinese takeaway as an example. People nod their heads but it doesn't really lead anywhere. They still expect Chinese Imperialism to be planned in the same way that they're told and they believe that Western Imperialism is planned. Perhaps the truth is that it's all emergent behaviour and the apparent belief in our ability to create specific futures by force of will is just a post-facto rationalisation. This has scary implications for things that are long term and multi-generational like climate change.

As humans we have trouble actually exercising free will. A lot of the time what we call free will looks like the brain fooling itself with post-facto rationalisation for what we did without any conscious direction. Apparently this applies to humans en-masse as well.

It's hard to talk about this stuff without mentioning Godel, Escher, Bach.  "What's below the emergent behaviour?" "Oh, its just emergent behaviour, ALL THE WAY DOWN". 
 The present in deep history - Charlie's Diary »
I'm head-down, redrafting a book right now. But in the meantime, I am mulling over a question. Assume you are a historian in the 30th century, compiling a pop history text about the period 1700-2300AD. What are the five most influential factors in that period of history?

[from: Google+ Posts]


[ << When we had a death penalty and capital punishment in the UK, at least we had a trial first. But apparently... ] [ Luna: New Moon by Ian McDonald >> ]
[ 20-Sep-15 8:50am ]