[FRIAM] Collapse of the Information Ecosystem/Noosphere

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

I chose not to respond specifically to the link/point you offered in my
last response because I felt this was a (useful) tangent and wanted to
address it more directly. 

I do appreciate the analogy drawn between our physical ecosystem and
what the author calls the Information ecosystem and that this threat may
well be existential.   I also believe that such a collapse as is
suggested might be much more imminent than *other* existential threats. 
I'm tempted to distinguish this "information ecosystem" from de
Chardin/Vernadsky's "Noosphere".

It feels to be, by analogy, somewhat like the difference between talking
about the collapse of the biosphere *strictly* in terms of the
geochemical basis of it...  while CO2 Absorption/acidity of the ocean is
the *basis* for the collapse of pterapod/shellfish/coral/etc.
populations/health and average temperatures, humidity levels and weather
patterns are the direct result of our heightened greenhouse gas
emissions, it may well be the collapse of the flora and fauna that
collapse in response which defines the sharpest end of the consequences
(to humans?).  

I wonder if perhaps the real crisis of our unhealthy/collapsing
information ecology is not *just* in the way information is generated,
flows, etc.  but more acutely what might be doing to the individual and
collective "spirits" of humanity and a subsequent "collapse of
culture".   It feels as if some involved in what has been referred to as
"the culture wars" may well be trying to engineer (or trigger tipping
points) such a collapse. 

If we contemplate the
noosphere/anfosphere/anthrosphere/biosphere/geosphere as a complex
adaptive system, then it is not surprising that there have been (and
will continue to be) patterns of "punctuated equilibrium".   The
(imminent?) information ecosystem collapse described in this article may
well be in some sense inevitable but my own illusions around individual
(and by extension, collective) free will suggests that such a thing
might be avoidable.

This Guardian Article reads *almost* like an infomercial for their own
product, however.   My week in Austin included a visit with Mary's son
and D-in-Law.  He works for the Texas State legislature editing bills
but has degrees in journalism and education, both fields he seems to
believe he came to too late to be able to participate in righteously. 
His wife is an archivist for the Presbyterian University there (she is
not Presbyterian) and so has her *own* take on meaning, reality, and the
value of recording and archiving words both written and oral, formal and
informal for future reference.   She is less pessimistic, but both
(early 40s) share a strong cynicism about the state of
information/truth/coherent-culture.

- Steve

On 11/19/19 9:24 AM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
> To contribute to my spam score, I'll try again to suss out what is
> meant by owning the means of production. Here it is again:
>
> The collapse of the information ecosystem poses profound risks for
> humanity
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/19/the-collapse-of-the-information-ecosystem-poses-profound-risks-for-humanity
>
>
>> William Randolph Hearst owned the means of production and was free to
>> publish made up stories to sell papers and stoke the Spanish-American
>> war. Today, everyone is free to be their own propagandist.
>
> Is this a proper use of the concept of "ownership of the means of
> production"? I know I'm simple-minded. But while it's clear to me what
> it means to own, say, a screwdriver, it's not at all clear to me what
> it means to *own* the process/tools by which one produces propaganda.
> It reminds me of being "owned" (or "pwned") in some trashtalk context
> like before a boxing match or an argument on 4chan. It's a stretched,
> poetically licensed, sense of ownership and actually means domination
> or humiliation, not at all like owning a hammer or printing press.
>
> But this concept of pwning does seem closer to the sense I was getting
> from both Marcus' and Steve's explanations, that seemed to target
> exploitation, asymmetric power, or some sort of inappropriate hoarding
> or market monopoly. If so, I would maintain my skepticism that using
> the words "ownership" and "production" is *conflating* things that
> could be better analyzed in another way. I just don't know what way
> that is.
>
> But thanks to y'all for changing my mind. The phrase no longer
> irritates me now that I have a sense that those using it are simply
> trying to describe something they are ill-equipped to describe.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove