The Toxic Horseshoe

A recent glut of foolishness on my social media feeds has once again got me wondering what's wrong with people. While I've speculated about such things many times before, likening some of it to cults and anti-cults, and of course good old-fashioned cynicism, here I must go further. Lately I feel that some kind of line has been crossed, that this is all... too much. You people need to get a hold of yourselves. You badly need the proverbial splash of cold water.

Two examples will suffice, which I will not link to. First, the usual pointless comparisons between Trump and Biden, as though the two were in any way similar. Biden isn't a perfect democrat*, so the tired old rhetoric goes, so therefore he isn't democratic at all**; he doesn't do the things I want so he's of no use. And then one that really set me off : the BBC made a mistake in a translation, so therefore supposedly aren't impartial or even truthful.

* Leaving aside whatever the hell "perfect democracy" even means, there being many legitimate ways to call something democratic.
** I'm not American of course, but much the same thinking has been applied to Starmer in the UK, though rather less of late since Labour are wiping out the Tories in polls and by-elections alike.

FFS. Generalising from one example like this is morally and intellectually absurd. These kinds of judgements, coming from the kind of people that find Al Jazeera (!) to apparently be the only acceptable news outlet, are self-righteous, sanctimonious nonsense. As, of course, is saying that the anti-Trump perspective is only due to a white middle-class academic background. Diverting the discussion from the legitimate question as to just how fascist a second Trump term would be into the nuanced problems of Biden's relationship with the unions... snap out of it ! WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT !

This kind of stuff leads me to speculate that naivety and cynicism may be different ends of the same horseshoe. The underlying beliefs might be legitimately different, but the effects are the same or similar. "Things aren't going exactly the way I want", say the hopelessly naïve, "so therefore I hate them and even want to destroy them".

Whereas the devotedly cynical say... "the system is hopelessly corrupt and everyone is in a war against all because of the very nature of the man the beast", and this of course, leads into, "and therefore I hate the system and want to destroy it". 

Others instead are merely content to sit back and take no action because any attempts would be pointless. Neither the naïve nor the cynic are ever content, because neither will be satisfied with any mere improvement less than absolute perfection – and neither ever wants to do the legwork, just bitch and moan about it. Naivety slides all too easily into cynical inaction when perfection proves elusive.

It is not, however, that I find the underlying moral intentions of such people to be questionable. With one or two exceptions, far from it : I think most of you are indeed fighting on the right side, just in an apparently pointless and counterproductive way.

This of course all builds on the previous post about techno-Utopians versus optimists. To develop that a little further, the word utopian can have many different connotations. On the one hand to have utopian thinking can be something laudable, when someone has a clear goal and a direction as to how to get there. One does not need to actually reach the Emerald City to at least be grateful that one has escaped the clutches of the Wicked Witch, or better yet to at least made it to somewhere genuinely nice to be even if it's not actually paradise. When one is conscious of improvements, striving for more but not falling into misery because of any remaining deficiencies, taking pride in progress while continuing the good work... this is healthy. This is productive. 

Continually whining that it doesn't fit your ideal of perfection is not. This is when utopian thinking, absolute insistence that things can and should be only one particular way and no other, becomes a pejorative term.

Fighting for a particular cause can of course be an entirely noble purpose, and to some degree criticism is a necessary engine for progress. I wouldn't trust someone who never complained about anything, who never had any political or moral or social cause they felt the need to promote. But equally, I'm deeply suspicious of those who are permanently in Activism Mode. All posts, or very nearly so, must be about moral causes ! Everything must be framed in the negative about how bad things are ! Nobody can be allowed to enjoy anything so long as a single person is suffering ! There's a distinctly Puritanical, joyless Calvinism about all this, a determination that anyone not in a state of misery needs to experience some kind of perverse enlightenment with the utmost urgency.

This kind of activism is toxic. It poisons the mental health of everyone it touches, not least the activist themselves. Perpetually preaching to the converted* (as is the norm on social media) through self-righteous, chest-thumping memes accomplishes nothing. It persuades nobody. The single effect of it is to remind everyone that things are bad. I repeat, this is toxic. If you want me to take action about something, tell me what I can do. Otherwise, sure, I totally get the need to vent and rant from time to time. But if that's all you ever do... seriously, go home and rethink your life. 

* Or indeed unconverted in the case of the devoutly irreligious. 

Closely related to this of course is compassion fatigue. Most of the causes and problems highlighted seem to be things about which ordinary people are capable of doing very little, so what's the point of dwelling on it ? You can't persuade people to stop believing in God by simply declaring him a fiction; you aren't going to stop climate change by constantly reporting on the mass deaths of penguins or whatever*.

* Although to be fair, lately there have been quite a few more posts about successful environmentalism actions, and this is vital. An uninterrupted stream of catastrophism posts leads to a self-fulfilling belief that we're all doomed, a view I reject with every fibre of my being.

Look, if you really care about people's mental health, as is quite rightly in vogue right now, the best thing you can do is dial it all back. Not to zero ! But back, quite a lot. When you've started making ludicrous claims about the BBC... you aren't acting as a necessary stinging gadfly to avoid complacency. You've started with good intentions, but you're a good way down the road to hell. Remember, those who fight with the abyss should take care not to stare at monsters, or something like that.

Dun Manifestoin'

For the longest time, my friends used to insist I was anti-technology. This was despite that I used Linux long before any of them did, had dealt with the agony that is the vi "text editor", that I know multiple programming languages, routinely use LaTeX instead of Word, do CGI as a hobby, operated the then-world's largest radio telescope as my day job... I mean, what gives ? My whole life is mainly digital, for crying out loud.

It was because at the time, I didn't have a mobile phone, and still to this day have never used Facebook.

I mean, good grief.

But despite a largely digital existence, I do not align myself with the "techbro" culture that dominates Silicon Valley and certain sectors of reddit. Cryptocurrency I believe is an outright scam while NFTs aren't even at that level of credibility. Believers in such things are at best extremely foolish and misguided techno-Utopians, which is not a description I'd apply to myself. I would, however, very happily profess to being a techno-optimist.

That is, until I discovered the Techno-Optimist Manifesto. Now I'm going to have to be very much more careful in applying that label to myself, because I don't want to be associated with such things. I'd sooner spit at the author in the street than join that club.

First (and be advised this post is mostly prologue), let me clarify what I mean by utopian and optimist in this context. I'm an optimist in that I believe technological development is generally, but not exclusively, a positive thing that makes life better. I believe some problems are purely or largely technological in nature, and that solutions to such problems lie mainly in further development : if your code has bugs, the usual solution is to fix the bugs, not delete the code. I believe some aspects of life can be best improved with R&D rather than political or economic solutions. I believe that the desire to learn more is inherently a good thing, that knowledge for knowledge's sake is a valuable end unto itself, that tool use, curiosity, and the desire to improve our material conditions are innate parts of the human condition, not some peculiar by-product of modern civilisation. 

"Life is not a problem to be solved,", said Frank Herbert, "but a reality to be experienced". I agree. But part of that experience is in the joy of solving problems, finding things out, experiencing new realities. There is no paradox or contradiction here, only a pleasing linguistic irony.

And note the many provisional clauses above, because these really are vital : mainly, generally, some, usual. Not all problems are technological or even material, and even not all of these are necessarily best solved through research : sometimes it may be necessary to take a new development and burn it in the fire. In the main I doubt this, but sometimes this can happen. 

Herein lies the difference, as I see it, with techno-utopians a.k.a. techbros. They omit all these caveats. They essentially claim that all, or at least the overwhelming majority, of problems are technological in nature and thus can only be solved through further development. A techno-optimist might make some exaggerated claims as a rhetorical point of persuasion, or at most get carried away in the moment; a techbro really believes the most outlandishly optimistic projections. A technoptimist might say that maybe technological solutions are the largest, pluralistic aspect of a problem but not the majority; a techbro would say that they are either totally dominant over everything else or that nothing else matters at all.

In short, tech optimism accepts the limitations of technology without denying its importance. Techbros think that all problems are materialistic and nothing else matters much in any sphere of life. Techbros insist that actual miracles will occur within the very near future (but never quite right now), and, perhaps most importantly of all, demand everyone else believe the same thing. Techbros are very much against unbelievers whereas technoptimists think life's too short to join such a silly cult.

All this lengthy introduction means I can now deal with the so-called "Manifesto" very briefly. Honestly, it's the stupidest thing I've ever read in my entire life. Most of my notes scrawled on it are expletives. It's not often I read someone's stuff for the first time and immediately wish unpleasant things to befall them, but this is one of those times.

And remember, I have literally argued with people about triangles. When I say this is even stupider than that, this claim should have some force to it.

As this perfectly respectable article points out, manifestos are supposed to fire up your own base. They aren't intended to rigorously prove a point or consider alternatives. They're chest-thumping, emotive pieces. Fair enough I suppose, but this feels like a really stupid issue to write a polemic about. If I weren't so darn busy, I'd probably be tempted to write my own counterpiece of vitriolic nonsense in response. 

Fortunately I just don't have time for that. I think I've probably given enough of the gist of the bits of the manifesto-polemic I do agree with (and there are a few) already, so I'm just going to pick a few highlights of the bits I most detest. Here I omit all the extremely irritating "we believes" which begin practically every sentence.

Developed societies are depopulating all over the world, across cultures – the total human population may already be shrinking.

There is no material problem – whether created by nature or by technology – that cannot be solved with more technology.

Centralized planning is doomed to fail, the system of production and consumption is too complex. Decentralization harnesses complexity for the benefit of everyone; centralization will starve you to death... Markets prevent monopolies and cartels.

Even in totalitarian regimes, an incremental lifting of the repressive boot off the throat of the people and their ability to produce and trade leads to rapidly rising incomes and standards of living. Lift the boot a little more, even better. Take the boot off entirely, who knows how rich everyone can get.

Central economic planning elevates the worst of us and drags everyone down; markets exploit the best of us to benefit all of us. 

Our planet is dramatically underpopulated, compared to the population we could have with abundant intelligence, energy, and material goods. The global population can quite easily expand to 50 billion people or more, and then far beyond that as we ultimately settle other planets.

However, we are not Utopians.

We are not victims, we are conquerors.

A Universal Basic Income would turn people into zoo animals to be farmed by the state. Man was not meant to be farmed; man was meant to be useful, to be productive, to be proud.

My expletive-laded hyperbolic comments include such simple things as "fuck off and die", "I hope you boil", "please die now quietly in a ditch somewhere", "seriously, fuck off", "you are utterly mad", "you're all idiots and I hate you", "HAH HAH HAH HAH !" (in response to "we are not Utopians"), and, "you're like what would happen if Stephen Pinker and Rutger Bregman made a baby and dropped it on its head".

I mean, I did think about righting a proper rebuttal. I did consider pointing out the contradiction in saying that technology makes all work redundant but also generates more work. I thought about ranting about just how much of this verbal diarrhoea is about market forces rather than technology. And I thought about pointing out, in fairness, that yes, perhaps research and development will allow ever-more progress in technology and economic growth without causing ever more depletion of the natural world (human economics being a largely artificial construct anyway), while all the while having nothing but the most scathing attempt for the notion that the planet could or should support 50 billion of us.

But I decided to do none of that. This rambling bit of effluence is clearly not aimed at fostering rational argument, so I see no need to bother. 

Plato's Tweets

I liked that one about Epicurus so much that I decided to read another BBC Future post by the same author : Would Plato Tweet ? And this one's pretty good too. Before I dive back to the usual consciousness/reality posts, I think here I'll stick with the theme of social media instead.

Long before philosophers were writing books and papers, their thoughts had to be transmitted in a way that could grab their audience's attention – there was an element of public display. Early philosophers also developed highly elaborate public personas. Empedocles, who's credited with inventing the idea of the four Classical elements, made his public appearances with extravagant flair – a purple robe, a golden belt, sandals of bronze – and referred to himself as an incarnate god. 

These Socratic dialogues, which are the fountainhead of the whole philosophical tradition that follows, can be read as a fictionalised biography of a career influencer – the Collected Twitter Threads of Socrates, liberally reinvented, yet perhaps faithful in spirit. 

In the age of social media, we may be returning to a state in which a thinker's claim to wisdom relies on their ability to effectively perform it – with the additional requirement that they're able to transmute that performance into content.

That's quite interesting. I've been vaguely thinking about deepfakes and other AI-generated misinformation. I see many claims that some coming deluge will be nothing less than apocalyptic for out faith in news reports, about which I'm extremely skeptical. A more likely worst-case scenario, I think, is that it would return us to a pre-video era, when no videos could be trusted as the gold standard of accuracy because none existed. 

Even this, I think, is not really plausible, but the parallels of social media taking us back to a worse, less well-informed past is a healthy way of stopping us from getting too misty-eyed about a lost Golden Age when you could believe everything they put in the newspapers. It never existed. Today's misinformation problems are just the latest in a long line of attempts to confuse instead of convince; different in their specifics (very importantly so !), but not pointing to some fundamental change or decline in human psychology.

As Plato represented him, Socrates was unimpressed by moral posturing. And so according to the journalist Olivia Goldhill, he would well feel the same about this characteristic of social media, wherein people often hypocritically implore others to be more kind and virtuous. The more you display certainty in your self-righteous posting, Socrates might have argued, the more likely you are in fact ignorant of your own moral shortcomings.

Oh very much this. Not so much for Plato's likely perspective (I'll get back to that), but for the whole accusative, holier-than-thou tone of social media in general. Endless memes about what's wrong with the world, who to support and who to blame... I hate it. The petty judgements, the culture wars that make moral issues out of things which have no moral aspect to them whatsoever... and the endless anti-religion memes ! Just who the hell is it these are appealing to ? Who is ever going to be persuaded by them, and if they're not supposed to be persuasive, what are they for ? And what in the world – this one particularly confuses me – is the point of posting very long articles but then not be willing to have a discussion about them ?

Look, I get the need to vent and rant (he says, going on a rant). I don't get the need to do nothing but state your moral beliefs over and over again. And I don't for the life of me understand why we're not supposed to have a conversation. It's okay to argue with people. Arguing is good for you ! We should be encouraging actual discussions, not just sanctimonosity !

But let's move on.

The sophist Protagoras was said to have espoused a theory of "relativism", which essentially suggested that since our individual perceptions differ, we are each limited to our own subjective construction of reality. One can see how this thesis is exemplified by aspects of the social media experience, as we scroll through an apparent infinity of information, yet always within the confines of our private information bubbles. 

As I was saying, we all live in our own multiverses, which helps explain why the concept is such a good bit of science fiction even if it relies on lousy physics. This brings us to the titular question of whether Plato would in fact participate in social media. Here I somewhat disagree with the conclusion : 

To combat the problem of distinguishing desirable from undesirable information – good from bad influencers – Plato introduced an infamous degree of censorship into his theoretical city. Jenny Jenkins at Swansea University has speculated as to whether he would have allowed citizens to use Facebook, surmising that this would have been a resounding "no". "Facebook does not have the intention of promoting morality, and does not particularly seek to educate its users," she writes, "so I think Plato would have disapproved of it for this reason alone."

This question of filter bubbles / unwelts / multiverses is one that keeps gnawing away at me. We should absolutely and unequivocally clamp down hard on abject misinformation. But beyond that, what do we want social media to be ? A place where we can only ever hurl judgemental, petty memes at each other ? A pseudo-encyclopaedia where factual accuracy must be reinforced at all times ?

The best answer I can come up with is "something like real life". Where we generally agree on most issues with most of our friends, but not everything. There's overlap, but never a complete one, and our attitudes are similar enough that disagreements (at least on issues of no immediate importance to us) aren't at all likely to lead to slanging matches; and of course best of all is when slanging matches don't actually matter and nobody goes away permanently angry.

Now as to Plato, I disagree because I think looking at his ideal society is the wrong approach. Plato didn't actually live in his ideal society, and the article quotes a famous admonishment of his against the written word :

"They will be hearers of much, without learning anything; they will appear to know much, yet for the most part know nothing; and they will be miserable to be around, having become wise-seeming, without actually being wise." (Phaedrus 275a-b; my translation)

But the context is missing here. The point is that you can't take everything literally, that everything is subject to change and cannot be determined with absolute certainty (even if he was indeed after a search for objective truth). Above all, Plato stressed most emphatically that if can you can ever arrive at real Truth at all, it's only through extreme effort and through a process of dialogue with others. So while he might well reject specific implementations of social media, and certainly most of the business models that foster it, I doubt he'd reject the notion itself.

For unlike the physical agora, where the whole crowd may be deceived at once by the ideological seductions of an itinerant sophist, the virtual agora is different for each crowd member. We receive the proffered wisdom of the modern philosophers and sophists "alone together", to use the social scientist Sherry Turkle's phrase. We are each deceived uniquely, adding ever another layer between us and our collective grasp on what's actually there. And it is we ourselves, when we post and repost, tweet and retweet, who deceive one another, circulating our own sophistries.

When social media works well (and it often does work well), it connects interested people with genuine experts, or people of similar interests and levels of knowledge but with qualitatively different perspectives and backgrounds. When it fails it connects idiots. Plato would definitely not approve of the latter because nobody would, but equally, who would disagree with the former ? To disagree with people having productive friendships just because they occur digitally rather than physically wouldn't make any sense. More on that in an upcoming post, but for now :

It may be that some Stoics – whose ranks included people of all classes and extractions, slave and free, Greek and Roman – would have had at least an ambivalent, and perhaps a guardedly optimistic view of the possibilities offered by online social networks. Insofar as they offer a mechanism for connectivity, they can foster real community – particularly when their users are engaging with one another in good faith and to mutual benefit, as may indeed be the case with content creators who provide education, community empowerment or therapeutic support to their audiences. 

A Stoic might ask, are you using this platform as a rational contributor to human well-being and the community of the Universe? Or to aggrandise, entertain or escape from yourself? If the former, go for it; if the latter, delete your accounts.

And I think Plato would probably agree with this. As with all critiques of social media, the problems aren't usually with the messaging system per se, but with the business model around it. Whether you send a letter or a tweet or a phone call, if your dialogue helps you learn or foster genuine connections, this is generally a Good Thing. Plato would certainly not approve of the kind of social media that feeds endless adverts (especially the political kind) to its users, and would undoubtedly insist on strict regulations. But if it could be devised in such a way as to allow good, thoughtful discussions, or just for the typical sorts of everyday conversations everyone has anyway, I don't see him having any objections.