An initial grass root bottom up social revolution is needed to counter the coming technological revolution.
Sterling in his post #12 is very much in tune with the fact we need to be rescued from the elite as he describes below,
Our capability to use pitchforks and torches to challenge these technologies with laws in our favor are quickly diminishing. We best wrest control of these new technologies from the hands of those who will want to manipulate and harm us while we still have the chance. Frankly we are the cavalry that needs to come to our own rescue.
The use of pitchforks and torches is traditionally viewed as an angry crowd from days of yore violently attacking the elite to remove unjust inequalities. But this tactic of bygone days will yield little results in the modern era. Rather, a more subtle non-violent approach is needed to come to our own rescue. With the coming technological singularity, there are plenty of injustices to fight against. For example, there is the possibility of starting World War III.
Alibaba’s Jack Ma warns evolving technology could cause World War III
Josie Cox, June 22nd, 2018
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 02051.html
Chinese business magnate Jack Ma said that evolving technologies are likely to pose a threat to more than just the job market and could in fact trigger a Third World War.
In an interview with CNBC, the billionaire chairman of Alibaba said that world leaders have a duty to educate people to prevent the pain caused by a rapid rise in automation and artificial intelligence.
"The first technology revolution caused World War I," he said. "The second technology revolution caused World War II. This is the third technology revolution."
Another injustice as a reaction to new technology is the possibility of infecting political systems with fascism.
Technological Revolutions Bring About Fascism. Who Will Save Us This Time?
Nicolas Colin, Oct 19, 2018
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolascol ... 36aaa834dc
Over the short term, however, countries responded to the technological revolution in very different ways. The UK embraced an incremental approach to institution building, from David Lloyd George’s National Insurance Act of 1911 to his successor Clement Attlee’s founding of the National Health Service in 1948. Other countries simply couldn’t stand the shock of the paradigm shift and fell victim to a dissolution of their political system. In Germany as well as Italy, conservative business leaders and members of the old aristocratic guard grew so afraid of the labor movement that they set about countering it using far-right, anti-union organizations as their proxy: Mussolini’s Fascists and Hitler’s NSDAP. Sadly, we all know how that ended.
The US was the first country that showed how a nation could be saved from fascism during a paradigm shift: with a new Safety Net designed for the paradigm of the day.
Who are the Roosevelts of our time? Obama raised such expectations when he was first elected in 2008, but he arguably fell short: you’ve hardly succeeded with a new New Deal if you’re succeeded by Donald Trump. Does Emmanuel Macron represent a European version of that kind of political entrepreneurship? It’s too early to tell, but he needs to hurry up. Or is the modern equivalent of Roosevelt outside the realm of politics? It’s a distinct possibility!
Meanwhile, fascism, the backward-looking, violent reaction to a technological revolution, is rising again, from Hungary to Italy to Brazil and even to the US itself. We’re in a global emergency similar to that of 1935. And it’s up to all of us to avert the danger, just as our great-grandparents did last time.
To address this article's question, "Or is the modern equivalent of Roosevelt outside the realm of politics? It’s a distinct possibility!" I am of the mind it is more than a distinct possibility our salvation will not be dependent initially upon a single individual from a single political party. The answer lies more in a grass roots bottom up social revolution to counter the technological revolution. This will not necessarily be dependent upon the spotlighting of a single individual but eventually could put pressure upon the political process to select such an individual as a champion of the cause.
From the original FRC website, under the topic of The Community Business Venture, then under Aspects of the BASIC CONCEPTS, then The Community Business Venture (A GENERAL OVERVIEW DISCUSSION), post #3 , I presented my views on revolutions and will reiterate the post here once again,
From: wiki How to Start a Revolution
To create a revolution, you need to unite people around a shared purpose. It’s possible to start a revolution, although it can take a lot of patience, organization, and passion. It will be more likely to succeed if you don’t wing it. A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turnaround") is a significant change that usually occurs in a short period of time.
But I think one critical element is missing from the WikiHow process and that is having the necessary financial capacity in place in many instances before starting. The FRC business venture can supply this necessary financial capacity for our use. Also, from what I have seen, the more people are on the line, meaning they have "skin in the game",the more they are willing to participate. Economic inequality puts at least 99% of the people in the world in just such a position. Just here in the USA, that puts approximately 317 million individuals into play. The idea is to take these individuals and focus them around a cause; the cause is their own survival. No doubt, regardless of an individual's knowledge level about economic inequality, there is an instinctual fear that something is wrong. If nothing else, fear will get a person motivated as a shared purpose.
I have had the good fortune to speak with Dr. Heetun on numerous occasions regarding her goal relative to FirstRateCrowd's Fight Inequality. Needless to say, she is passionate about stopping economic inequality. Moreover she rails against any form of inequality be it racial, religious, or sexual. However, her main focus remains on economic inequality. Her clarity of thought regarding this issue stems from the fact that much of the world's suffering stems from this one dominant issue. This includes the creation and exacerbation of those inequalities mentioned above.
Revolutions, as in the colloquial sense of overthrowing a government or economic system, are many times rapid, explosive, bloody, and with unpredictable results. Yet I hear many people calling for revolution in this manner without really thinking about the real consequences. For example, the Civil War here the USA caused approximately 750,000 deaths. This accounted for about 2.5% of the population at that time being lost. In today's terms, with a USA population of nearly 320 million people, this percentage is equivalent to the loss of 8.13 million people. To put this into perspective, nearly all of our largest city, New York City with its 8.5 million people, would be annihilated. It would mean a massive amount of suffering and this does not even account for the associated morbidity.
From our discussions, Dr. Heetun has expressed to me her desire not to invoke this type of radical revolution. Rather it would be the nature of the non-violent type of revolution. This involves creating change more in line with the philosophy of Gandhi's non-violent resistance. Bye the way, this resonates well with my own philosophy of how change should take place. What's more, Dr. Heetun and me are similarly minded in that we do not wish to change from Capitalism to another system. Surely we see Capitalism as being broke and needing repair. It's history in just the past seventy years has created a Great Depression and a Great Recession. Talk about suffering! The process seemingly goes off track whenever there is not a sizeable enough moderating element to counter the power of the wealthy elite. Dr. Heetun's aim is for FirstRateCrowd's Fight Inequality to become this moderating element. When established on a permanent basis, and with sufficient force, it will continually counter the power of the 1%.
Every revolution has a spark, a defining moment for change. I believe FirstRateCrowd's Fight Inequality can be the spark for this type of benevolent revolution here and now. The gravity of our situation warrants your immediate attention and action. We all need to join together to solve this problem. Not doing so would be a grave disservice to us all.