🚪
Enter the Library
/
🏦
Institution, Monopoly, & Dependency in Web3
Institution, Monopoly, & Dependency in Web3
🏦

Institution, Monopoly, & Dependency in Web3

Event Date
Oct 13, 2021
 
Notes
Event Information
 
  • tools turn everything we do into consumers and clients of services
  • only thing we can do is pay for things
  • don't know how to cook or build a house because you can just pay for it even burying your own dead
  • very against professionalisation because they're too efficient and it makes people need that more and more
  • a lot of what Illich is saying sounds like its to go back or be primitive but its more that we should understand the past and realise the direction we are heading are that we have more and more powerful tools that only some people have control over and maybe we shouldn't make these tools over
  • how we're building what we're building - humane relationship with technology, really look to the simpler ways of doing things in the past and apply them to how we might work with this
  • tech to make us feel good rather than detract for it
  • working in web3 is beautiful in many ways but it can feel like living in a casino, so much happening all the time and so much opportunnity. intense roller coaster of emotions can come with this experience.
  • might be helpful for us to talk honestly about these experiecnes and apply to what we're building
  • his concern - tech we make makes us more like robots and machines and in the way we think about the world and ourselves
  • service that removes something we can do ourselves removes our ability to be human in the sense that it removes our sense to deal with it.
  • the more a microscope or telescope is there we stop relying on our eyes anymore. you can say that for VR a lot of these technologies make us forget that we actually live in a body
  • the idea that we are limited, that we are 'creatures' that don't recognise that we are not gods and cannot do everything. by acknowledging our limits we can better change things
  • the tool outsources you so you don't feel like you need to help other people but you end up going to someone else
  • eg. therapy, not that you shouldn't go to therapy but if you feel like you can't even talk to your friend because they're not a professional about what's going on with your life then everything we do we'll say oh i'm not a professional, i'm not qualified enough to do xyz
  • why are we relying on experts so much and do they really know what they're talking about
  • put a lot of power into experts but we're human. we're all vulnerable to dogma and to bias
  • Qn from Paul: illich's piece on silence as a commons.
    • Pan - core argument is that we shouldn't be looking at commons on the basis of resource. the idea of financialisation, you create a resource construct around how people engage a particular thing. changing our relationship to the commons. how we talk about the commons. a commons ends up being rebranded as a resource and it can be allocated. if we do that then we kind of change the public's interaction with that good because you can then allocate. commons as a resource turns it into a commodity
    • talk about Ethereum as a commons but it seems like we have this desire to write the code as law
    • if people think that cars bring people then the whole city will become just parking lots and roads
    • when you turns commons into resource the complexity turns it into something to be planned and held?
      •  
  • not viewing it as a resource might not be the way if we don't track it because may exhaust it
  • he's not really offering viable solutions but at best take his ideas as raising questions
  • was hanging in the village and not went in to help
  • interesting to consider how to extrapolate his observations of what the commons has been and is now
  • if any protocol is executing a certain way how is it considering and at what scale rather than making it available for everyone we should scrutinise what it is doing to do so
  • how we think about seeing things. people used to think that eyes were an organ that shot out at things but now we know optics is how we receive light instead
  • his way of thinking is proscriptive - its not saying what you should do but more of what you shouldn't do
  • if he did present a solution he would be hypocritical to his own idea
  • Mothership SMM measures and completely removing us from our public spaces
  • put rails on utility and make some sense of turning roads into a common good. what can an institution offer if not more of itself. if not more desire for it to take over.
  • tokenisation is a great way to codify the access of control, of a common ground. token governance issues is that it results in outsized power by certain powers that are essentially hard coded
  • how do you create a system that incentivises people to be a part of it without requiring people to financialisation or consider the common good as a resource and based on ethics
  • his main concern is that we're so caught up in how institutions think that we can't imagine an alternative. there are other ways of doing it but we should give it some thought
  • the logic of escalation. that institution can't help but only go up. only thing we know is to spend more money. the answer might be something else
  • that's where the limits come in. what are the tools and institutions we should set ahead of time. can't help but think we should expand it and do more of it
  • most of the institutions that are doing bad are doing it because they think they are doing good
  • we could reimagine all institutions, we have the tools now to build something completely different
  • to think we know all the answers is a paternalistic mindset. we could create new open source frameworks and try things and let them adapt things locally and let them try and not think that we have all the answers
  • we are at the point where we can experiment, build frameworks. the bottom substrate that we can write in things that don't perpetuate the system
  • systems in government and outside of government. rather than these entrenched and extremely corrupt systems. american political issues are far from unique.
  • tonnes of smaller systems that might help with the human floushing puzzle
  • thinking about inflection points, looking at the underpinnings of existing institutions. how do we retrofit these existing institutions. so much momentum and time and capital with them. should we replace or fix?
  • majority consensus vs forking and trying to solve the problem
  • criticise what its about and still be a part of the institution...
  • most of us want to see more power for ourselves because we think we're good people
🚪
Enter the Library
/
🏦
Institution, Monopoly, & Dependency in Web3
Institution, Monopoly, & Dependency in Web3
🏦

Institution, Monopoly, & Dependency in Web3

Event Date
Oct 13, 2021
 
Notes
Event Information
 
  • tools turn everything we do into consumers and clients of services
  • only thing we can do is pay for things
  • don't know how to cook or build a house because you can just pay for it even burying your own dead
  • very against professionalisation because they're too efficient and it makes people need that more and more
  • a lot of what Illich is saying sounds like its to go back or be primitive but its more that we should understand the past and realise the direction we are heading are that we have more and more powerful tools that only some people have control over and maybe we shouldn't make these tools over
  • how we're building what we're building - humane relationship with technology, really look to the simpler ways of doing things in the past and apply them to how we might work with this
  • tech to make us feel good rather than detract for it
  • working in web3 is beautiful in many ways but it can feel like living in a casino, so much happening all the time and so much opportunnity. intense roller coaster of emotions can come with this experience.
  • might be helpful for us to talk honestly about these experiecnes and apply to what we're building
  • his concern - tech we make makes us more like robots and machines and in the way we think about the world and ourselves
  • service that removes something we can do ourselves removes our ability to be human in the sense that it removes our sense to deal with it.
  • the more a microscope or telescope is there we stop relying on our eyes anymore. you can say that for VR a lot of these technologies make us forget that we actually live in a body
  • the idea that we are limited, that we are 'creatures' that don't recognise that we are not gods and cannot do everything. by acknowledging our limits we can better change things
  • the tool outsources you so you don't feel like you need to help other people but you end up going to someone else
  • eg. therapy, not that you shouldn't go to therapy but if you feel like you can't even talk to your friend because they're not a professional about what's going on with your life then everything we do we'll say oh i'm not a professional, i'm not qualified enough to do xyz
  • why are we relying on experts so much and do they really know what they're talking about
  • put a lot of power into experts but we're human. we're all vulnerable to dogma and to bias
  • Qn from Paul: illich's piece on silence as a commons.
    • Pan - core argument is that we shouldn't be looking at commons on the basis of resource. the idea of financialisation, you create a resource construct around how people engage a particular thing. changing our relationship to the commons. how we talk about the commons. a commons ends up being rebranded as a resource and it can be allocated. if we do that then we kind of change the public's interaction with that good because you can then allocate. commons as a resource turns it into a commodity
    • talk about Ethereum as a commons but it seems like we have this desire to write the code as law
    • if people think that cars bring people then the whole city will become just parking lots and roads
    • when you turns commons into resource the complexity turns it into something to be planned and held?
      •  
  • not viewing it as a resource might not be the way if we don't track it because may exhaust it
  • he's not really offering viable solutions but at best take his ideas as raising questions
  • was hanging in the village and not went in to help
  • interesting to consider how to extrapolate his observations of what the commons has been and is now
  • if any protocol is executing a certain way how is it considering and at what scale rather than making it available for everyone we should scrutinise what it is doing to do so
  • how we think about seeing things. people used to think that eyes were an organ that shot out at things but now we know optics is how we receive light instead
  • his way of thinking is proscriptive - its not saying what you should do but more of what you shouldn't do
  • if he did present a solution he would be hypocritical to his own idea
  • Mothership SMM measures and completely removing us from our public spaces
  • put rails on utility and make some sense of turning roads into a common good. what can an institution offer if not more of itself. if not more desire for it to take over.
  • tokenisation is a great way to codify the access of control, of a common ground. token governance issues is that it results in outsized power by certain powers that are essentially hard coded
  • how do you create a system that incentivises people to be a part of it without requiring people to financialisation or consider the common good as a resource and based on ethics
  • his main concern is that we're so caught up in how institutions think that we can't imagine an alternative. there are other ways of doing it but we should give it some thought
  • the logic of escalation. that institution can't help but only go up. only thing we know is to spend more money. the answer might be something else
  • that's where the limits come in. what are the tools and institutions we should set ahead of time. can't help but think we should expand it and do more of it
  • most of the institutions that are doing bad are doing it because they think they are doing good
  • we could reimagine all institutions, we have the tools now to build something completely different
  • to think we know all the answers is a paternalistic mindset. we could create new open source frameworks and try things and let them adapt things locally and let them try and not think that we have all the answers
  • we are at the point where we can experiment, build frameworks. the bottom substrate that we can write in things that don't perpetuate the system
  • systems in government and outside of government. rather than these entrenched and extremely corrupt systems. american political issues are far from unique.
  • tonnes of smaller systems that might help with the human floushing puzzle
  • thinking about inflection points, looking at the underpinnings of existing institutions. how do we retrofit these existing institutions. so much momentum and time and capital with them. should we replace or fix?
  • majority consensus vs forking and trying to solve the problem
  • criticise what its about and still be a part of the institution...
  • most of us want to see more power for ourselves because we think we're good people