"The unstated premise is that rule by elites may be preferable to rule by the people if science should someday discover that average people will be irredeemably swayed by their prejudices and will not make their political decisions based on their intellects."
I disagreed. In my opinion, the argument of the paper suggests nothing of the kind. While your idea is interesting, I believe it delves too far between the lines and looks for some deeper meaning. The Boston Globe is not challenging our form of government. They're merely commenting on the research that suggests people are hard headed, generally speaking.
While your paragraphs about the US Constitution and system of Checks and Balances are spot on, they have nothing to do with the article in question.
I agree that the article is not implying a preference for "rule by elites", especially in light of this statement:
And if you harbor the notion...that the solution is more education
and a higher level of political sophistication in voters overall,
well, that’s a start, but not the solution. A 2006 study...showed
that politically sophisticated thinkers were even less open to new
information than less sophisticated types. These people may be factually
right about 90 percent of things, but their confidence makes it nearly
impossible to correct the 10 percent on which they’re totally wrong.
While the idea of increasing nuclear power is one of the leading solutions, it still has to get past some negative fall-out from previous events (i.e. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island). These incidents are the reason why the law (in the U.S. anyway) makes it hard to build one and why there hasn't been one built in the last thirty years. The other critical point nuclear power plant supporters have to break is the popular idea of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). The fear of nuclear meltdowns is so great that coal-plants can't build hyperbolic cooling towers (one of the most efficient type) because the public at large believe the towers are nuclear reactors.
To sum it all up, until the public at large welcomes the idea of nuclear power and gets past previous nuclear mishaps, you won't see many reactors built in America.
On one hand, this is great. It will lead to new technology which will inevitably lead to better video games.
On the other hand, this provides the opportunity for total loss of privacy. Forget freedom of speech, people might start to attack the freedom to think certain thoughts. In other news, China and Iran are thrilled at this new science.
I wouldn't claim the West lacks political repression but it seems obvious that any repressive states would love have such technology. Your argument seems to discount this.
Don't get me wrong- it's amazing stuff, and I'm all for the advancements it can bring. But the mind really is the last bastion of privacy in our increasingly policed world.
Think about it:
1) When you make a call, it can be logged and recorded.
2) When you walk into a bank (or a million other locations), your actions are on camera.
3) When you visit a site, your IP address, as well as other information, is logged.
Almost everything is monitored.
Granted the advancement of technology has brought FAR more benefits than costs, but sometimes I wonder what it would be like to live in the 1800s, when you could do something and not have to worry about your actions being "logged" to some eternal database.
Of course, it's fairly easy to control actions. Don't send really personal stuff via email, don't scratch your crotch in front of a security camera. But when it comes to thoughts, it's a different story. Try not thinking about something, and you'll find you can't do it.
I'm sure every single person in this world has had thoughts he/she would not want to reveal.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. It will probably be a while before we have to seriously worry about the implications of this technology.
Granted the advancement of technology has brought FAR more benefits than costs
So far.
I don't think we've given it enough of a trial run. Global warming and overpopulation are two results of technological advancement that could potentially outweigh all the benefits of progress if they get bad enough.
In the long term technology like this will end privacy for those who want to participate in the modern economy. But you shouldn't assume it will happen in a 'top down' way that will benefit totalitarian governments. Totalitarian governments require secrecy to do their evil deeds.
Look at the spread of mobile cameras (mostly in phones). These have allowed many an injustice to be exposed. The police no longer feel like they have immunity to do whatever they want.
Consider the benefits of being able to scan the brains of those accused of crimes against humanity. If people understood that in the long term there are no secrets they would hesitate to do evil deeds.
I think that our exposed thoughts would fall under freedom of speech in America. That, and the 5th amendment ("...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...").
But don't forget the part about "without due process." I think that in the future, we will definitely see the use of technology like this to read the minds of accused felons. I also predict the court will declare this perfectly consitutional, as your right to privacy is effectively waived given the right court order (and the motivating "probably cause").
TRULY innocent people will probably like this tech a lot.
Not only that, but it should be perfectly clear now that if this technology is perfected and inexpensive in the future, then doing things now that you wouldn't want people to know about in the future is usually a bad idea as well. Act and think as though everything about your thoughts and actions will eventually be known to everyone who might be interested.
I guess how you think and act, then, will be a measure of whether you want to be thought of as moral or interesting. ;)
When I click the buttons: * Public Statistics * Per-Visitor Drill Down * Track Multiple Sites * Live Website Stats * Track Visitors without JavaScript - the entire site shakes. I'm using Mozilla Firefox if it's any help.
Thanks! I'm not really concerned about getting the site working for non-Javascript users right now, I'm primarily looking to work on the functionality side of things before I worry about that. :)
I disagreed. In my opinion, the argument of the paper suggests nothing of the kind. While your idea is interesting, I believe it delves too far between the lines and looks for some deeper meaning. The Boston Globe is not challenging our form of government. They're merely commenting on the research that suggests people are hard headed, generally speaking.
While your paragraphs about the US Constitution and system of Checks and Balances are spot on, they have nothing to do with the article in question.
This is simply my humble opinion.