TED Conversations

Poch Peralta

Freelance Writer / Blogger,

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is Technology stopping or abetting political apathy? Can we beat political apathy with technology?

Beating Politics with Technology
Peter Sunde thinks Bitcoin is "interesting" and has a fascinating story behind it, but one that he feels is symbolic of a depressing widespread lack of trust in politics.

'"You can't beat politics with new technology all the time. Sometimes you have to actually make sure that politics are in line with what people want. A lot of people are giving up on politics and thinking they can solve issues with technology. These kind of arrogant behaviours towards the rest of the society are a bit disgusting," Sunde told Wired.co.uk in a Skype interview...'
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/18/peter-sunde-hemlis-political-apathy

+4
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Dec 4 2013: Technology can be evolved to do away with the present form of governance, Which requires some representatives to take decisions on behalf the people.
    Using technology the decisions can be taken realtime by citizens.The consensus could be reached quickly using technology. The consensual decision would be acted upon by government employed administrators.
    • thumb
      Dec 4 2013: Now we are talking about changing forms of government.
      Are you suggesting Socialism or any other? I might agree
      with that since we are only a 'democracy' by name and which
      is turning dictatorial.
      • Dec 6 2013: The suggestion is not of Socialism where state ownership is all pervading. 

        From history we find that the form of governance has changed over time.Far back it would be tribe head, then Kings, Emperors,dictactors, and then a group of people put there by democracy or as communist or as Socialists .

        These group of people are there as the entire country cannot sit in a hall to decide on governance issues.But with future technology we can have such big virtual halls. Where nearly all citizens can participate to decide on governance issues.

        Lot many issues come to mind about such a set up, but they all are within the horizon of known technology.

        Technology will evolve governance, increase transparence. Under so many watchfull eyes corruption will be significantly reduced.

        Citizens empowerment will increase with technology. 

        Then maybe we may have a healthy mix of democracy and socialism.
        • thumb
          Dec 6 2013: 'But with future technology we can have such big virtual halls.
          Where nearly all citizens can participate to decide on governance issues.'

          I think this is already possible via teleconferencing and
          megascreens technology. And all citizens participating
          reminds me of Plato's belief that "philosopher kings" should
          be in charge. If a philosopher king is reigning, then surely
          the king would want exchange of opinions which is the
          core of philosophy.

          I think you just made a prophecy AS.
        • Dec 6 2013: Hi AS,

          Your's is an interesting vision and I agree that technology can be used to empower citizens and give them a greater say (I discuss it below). But do you really think that we can eliminate the need for any government at all? My concern is that such a system can lead to popular opinion being the prevailing one, the media being given too much power, and ultimately the long-term consequences of our decisions being ignored.
        • Dec 6 2013: Hi A S

          I've posted this below, but just in case I'm re-posting because we have been working on exactly that same idea for the past year and a half!

          We are developing a software DemocracyOS (here it's live version in spanish www.democraciaenred.org) that allows citizens to get informed, debate and vote how they want their representatives to vote. Our system, Net Democracy has an offline component, a political party, The Net Party, is the vector through which this collective intelligence has direct impact on government (parliament). The Net Party run for elections in October with candidates who took a vow to vote 100% according to what citizens decided in DemocracyOS.

          You can see the code in english: github.com/democracyos.

          My Tedx on the subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOn2IIpj7iY (sorry, english subtitles coming really soon) and a presentation we did at The World Justice Forum (english) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lECAWGkvDlg

          http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/john-izzo/net-party-argentina_b_3786115.html
          http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/138655/networking-as-a-political-party

          Cheers.
    • Dec 6 2013: Oh, yeah, technologically-enabled mob rule!
      • Dec 7 2013: When, in past, the idea of replacing the Kings with elected persons was first tabled, the same Bryan's expression would have come forth "mob rule"

        Our forefathers made the idea possible, functional.
        Its time to move on. To empower citizens to be better abled to make changes in the governance
        • Dec 16 2013: Lynch mobs--the ultimate expression of public opinion. There is a reason why we have brakes on government. The larger the government, the more brakes it needs. Now, split all states up to tiny little polities of a few thousand people, with absolutely no jurisdiction over the other tiny little polities, and a direct system could work. Get larger than that, like a million or more, and it won't work.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.