Emerging technologies are reshaping our future
Safeguarding You Against Free Expression - Costs & Consequences
God granted mankind the task of sorting out good and evil. Today society is battling to protect its interests v those of extreme individualism.
LAST WEEK'S WEBINAR
Campuses Conflicted over Free Expression
Join us 4:00PM MST Thursday
Have you considered the potential threats to democratic freedoms, such as the freedom to assemble, vote, and speak? As governments, institutions, and special interests work to contain so called "harmful" expressions, there is growing concern about their proposed safeguards.
Last week's newsletter and webinar - “Campuses Conflicted over Free Expression” https://youtu.be/9RZ0WbWUSJw was focused on the conflict over free expression on campuses, conflicts triggered by institutions striving for inclusivity and limiting "hurtful" discussions. We learned that the attack on faculty and academic freedom has eroded the research and educational capacity of the affected institutions. Fear has driven some faculty underground. Sympathetic students dare not speak up. The losses are viewed as irreversible, including a dumbing down of debate and discussion, institutional distrust and intimidation, and the loss of academic leadership to stem the decline.
This week, we will explore the broader wave of conflicts over free expression triggered by measures to suppress discussion while accusing oppressors for various social and economic abuses and inequities. The public measures proposed for further increasing safety are numerous, ranging from social media safeguards against misinformation and AI-generated insults to WHO's proposed pandemic management strategies, increased data surveillance for social compliance, and evermore government intrusion into private affairs.
Join us Thursday for an open discussion about suppressing freedom, the cost and consequences. Share your views - brave the new world. - Editor
HOST – Perry Kinkaide to interview …
Robert McGarvey is an economist, economic historian, strategist and geologist specializing in intangible assets and founder and director of Rethinking Capital HERE. He is an Executive Committee Member of the UK-based Economic Research Council (ERC). Robert has developed a unique perspective on modern capitalism and the deep forces impacting our economy and our lives. Author of Futuromics: A Guide to Thriving in Capitalism's Third Wave.
Thought starter -
“Escaping the perils of extreme individualism" by Robert McGarvey
The root causes of our present crises lie deeper than the threat to “free" expression. We are in a paradigm shift on the scale of the 16th century. I’d like to broaden the discussion to the four major forces driving change (1) Economic (Intangible asset) revolution, (2) Communication revolution (rise of internet, social media), (3) Social revolution (rise of neo-romanticism - woke), and (4) the fourth… well it's simply a political quagmire as any semblance of vision and integrity has vanished from our political life. We’re paralyzed politically - behaving like the proverbial ‘deer in the headlights', largely from misunderstanding the nature and scale of the transformation.
Neoliberalism’s ‘extreme individualism’ is the root source of our present predicament - undermining society in fundamental ways. We’re hoping to replace it with a normative governing orthodoxy that is both (1) progressive - incorporating society’s evolving sense of social justice, and (2) conservative - drawing lessons and institutional forms from western culture. Once established, there’s a possible solution involving restoration of the value of society.
Normative theory differs from Neoliberal theory in placing ethical value in both the individual and society - bringing society back into play as a source of virtue and knowledge. Secondly, normative accepts the long-term emancipative forces in western civilization - hence it is a progressive philosophy, but most importantly normative theory is Lockean (i.e. both rational and historical) in its approach, rather than (after Rousseau) violent, blameful and angry.
Editor – Can technology such as generative AI - by curating society’s input, contribute to the restoration of the value of society as a source of virtue and knowledge? Will it too be hijacked?
Invited commentators ..
Brian Giesbrecht was a Provincial Court Judge in Manitoba from 1976 to 2007. During that time he served as Acting Chief Judge, and Associate Chief Judge. Brian has since retired and is today a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and a regular a contributor to Troy Media.
Sinclair MacRae is a philosophy professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary for more than 25 years. He is an expert in Axiology (Value Theory). As a speaker and a teacher he strives to encourage those he interacts with to become more autonomous persons and professionals. His delivery style is casual, accessible and humorous, and helps improve business profitability and organizational performance by enhancing employee engagement, workplace culture, and ethics.
Jeff Uhlich an international career as practitioner and consultant (currently Obleeq Solutions) in Human Resources Management including: Abu Dhabi and Qatar Universities, NorQuest College, Alberta Pensions Services Corporation, KPMG Consulting among others. Jeff is well known as a frequent KEI Network commentator and recently had an illuminating chat with Randal Adcock also a Network contributor I asked ChatGPT to summarize the chat
In a conversation about social justice and its promotion, Randal Adcock and Jeff Uhlich shared their perspectives on the current state of affairs in society. While both agree that social justice is important, they offer different insights into the methods used to promote it.
Randal acknowledged the importance of pursuing social justice but believes that the tactics used to force ideas of social justice on everyone are logically contradictory. He argues that social injustice arises as people fail to use reason, and then those who lead the charge for social justice use emotional tactics that created injustice in the first place. Randal suggests that fear is not an effective motivator, and that we should appeal to reason instead. He proposes a paradigm shift to reason, and suggests that we start by talking about what it means to be human and our common nature.
Jeff saw the polarization in our body politic as largely responsible for the current state of affairs regarding social justice. He agrees with Randal that browbeating tactics are being used by both sides, and that in the resulting din, voices of reason are drowned out or shouted down. And he argues that attention rewarding algorithms drive "engagement by enragement", but that in reality, there are many more moderates than fringe voices. Jeff suggests that instead of using labels like "politically correct," "conservative," "progressive," or "woke," we should focus on discussing policy differences. Jeff believes that social media and the broader media play a big role in the current state of affairs, and that the anonymity of social media allows for the spread of lies, misinformation, and propaganda.
Both Randal and Jeff offer insights into the current state of affairs in society and the methods used to promote social justice. While Randal focuses on the need for reason and a paradigm shift in the public dialog, Jeff highlights the role of polarization, attention rewarding algorithms, and social media in driving engagement and spreading misinformation. Ultimately, both perspectives suggest the need for greater nuance and focus on policy differences rather than labels or emotional tactics.
IMPACT AND REQUEST
We are monitoring how emerging technologies are driving change and their impact on people and society, the economy and geo-politics. We and our partner - Troy Media, want to interview advocates for change, the leaders and the victims of e.g.: climate change, identity politics, energy transitions, healthcare reform, regulatory overhaul. Share your concerns, insights and recommendations. We are seeking stories of how people are adapting or not to change and the organizations that are or are not helping. Advances in technologies continue to shape our future for good or for otherwise. Are we vulnerable? Are our institutions capable of mitigating the risks of these technologies being used/abused in the interest of advancing utopian visions of post-modernism and identity politics? Do you have a story to tell? Let us know. Editor@KEInetwork.net