Peer2Politics

What we need are Technologies of Organizational Communion (TOCs) to serve as evolutionary guidance systems for the Technologies of Information and Communication (TICs – aka ICTs) that now stand the chance of connecting us not only with each other, but with the planet, with future generations, and most importantly, with ourselves. * Article: Alexander Laszlo, …

If the ensemble of the managerial class had been educated with handwritten notes, big auditoriums and printed books, the class which will replace them in 30 years will have been educated with screens, interactivity and network-based collaboration. The rules which today regulate our identities, our territories and our economies have all been written for the pre-information-technology physical world… the only one known by humans up until the digital era. This InfoMutation is enabling new ways of interaction, some judged impossible within our traditional views of identity, space and time. The necessary changes for carrying out this massive digital transition are more important than a simple refresh or update.

“The emergence of Partido X (Spain), Partido de la Red (Argentina), Red Sustentável (Brasil) and Wikipartido (Mexico) suggest a new era in politics. Net (InterNet) parties incorporate the open, horizontal and leaderless processes associated with free software and social movements such as 15M.

The spirit of society as a collective Buddha will require more than just the self-organizing tendency toward increasing complexity between the parts of a technologically distributed system of actors and institutions. It will require real human beings to make the inter-subjective bonds of soulful compassion and mutual understanding through empathy. Realizing the power and wealth of the Buddha among and between us will require a deep connection to one another, an unbreakable bond of love and trust that now only our closest relationships can give us within the competitive system of capitalism.

The NRC (Nuclear RegulatoryAgency) Probabilistic Risk Assessment gives the precautionary perspective, which is generally a priori, not manifested or empirical. The risk is stated to be at 1:1,000,000 chance of a nuclear accident. At the moment, there are 432reactors in the world. If we do the math, the probability of an accident is one every 2,500 years or the entire history of Western civilization back to the Greeks. Three reactor meltdowns at one time, that would be 1 million cubed giving 18 zeros; a major problem. I would argue that perhaps since it was in one place there may be a problem with the statistics of time and place, but only slight changes to 18 zeros. Prediction is one thing, and empirical is another. The evidence now shows that instead of a nuclear accident every 2,500years we could expect one every seven years, if we look over the past 35 years there have been 5 meltdowns, or one every 7 years. There were meltdowns before that, but this is giving the technology the benefit of the doubt. If we were to say there were five meltdowns over 35 years, that’s bad enough, but if we say there were three meltdowns in one month, or..over a few days at Daiichi, then the picture looks even worse.