6 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2020
    1. The charitable read of government today is that it’s generally reactive — literally putting out fires. Conversely, Bezos is oriented for creative, additive achievement.

      oof this is a huge flattening of human labor/effort into two camps, the latter, not to be conflated with purpose and fulfilling, meaningful types of work just because they are "creative and additive".

      I bet this guy hasn't read anything on the value of Maintenance and Care, much less on cooperatives and much much less on feminist economics.

  2. Sep 2020
    1. Harder to get funding for counterfoil research, I suspect. But it is not hard to imagine how useful it might be. At the very least, we would do well to have in our critical toolkit the concept of a threshold beyond which the value of a tool or institution is jeopardized, beyond which, in fact, what had been good and useful becomes counter-productive and destructive. Illich allows for great deal of latitude in how such an insight might be applied. It would be possible, in his view, for tools or institutions to have what he called “an optimal, a tolerable, and a negative range.” Furthermore, he acknowledged that different societies would have different goals and ends and, thus, different ways of arriving at an appropriate techno-social configuration. “The criteria of conviviality are to be considered as guidelines,” Illich wrote, “to a continuous process by which a society’s members defend their liberty, and not as a set of prescriptions which can be mechanically applied.”But it was clear to Illich that we must acknowledge that such limits and scales exist. Written in the early 70s, Deschooling Society especially makes frequent use of an analogy to the American war effort in Vietnam. Illich refers to escalation as “the American way of doing things,” and he hardly means it as a compliment. So, for example, in the closing lines of the first chapter of Tools for Conviviality, Illich writes, “It has become fashionable to say that where science and technology have created problems, it is only more scientific understanding and better technology that can carry us past them.” He goes on: “The pooling of stores of information, the building up of a knowledge stock, the attempt to overwhelm the present problems by the production of more science is the ultimate attempt to solve a crisis by escalation.” Solving a crisis by escalation seems not to have gone out of fashion. It signals, of course, a failure of imagination, but also an institutional imperative. What can an institution possibly offer you except more of itself? For example, the one remedy for the problems it has unleashed that Facebook cannot contemplate is suspending operations. What is never questioned is the underlying ideology that connection is an unalloyed good and we always need more of it.

      @krish

  3. Aug 2020
    1. First, they are small and agile. Unlike committee-ridden, centralized organizations, their structures are tight and optimized for quick decision-making, which enables them to move fast. Second, the members are emotionally or operationally invested in the outcomes. There is a sense that we are all “in this together,” which gives them a personal stake in the survival of the locality as a whole. But perhaps the most significant factor in hyperlocal groups’ efficacy is that they can identify needs faster than traditional governments. They don’t learn about needs through a report, a town-hall discussion, or a dashboard. Instead, they hear directly from their neighbors. And members can see the immediate effects of their efforts, whether they work or not.

      I've been thinking about needfinding for the past year, but never thought about the intersection of speed and agility and needfinding in such an explicit way. I think with MeTime I'm learning how to keep trying new approaches to problems we seem to stir up and want to find solutions to.

    1. We’d like to be able to tell the difference. Just as we must seek a more fluid ground in ethics (neither pure deontology nor pure consequentialism), we need more fluid approaches for our open-ended work.

      Interesting word choice, "We'd"... I wish there were more emphasis on who "we" is and what type of people are thinking about this kind of problem... hmm

  4. Jun 2020
    1. Cities are cradles. Nests made of carefully knitted infrastructure holding us up. When a city's infrastructure is exposed - a hole in the pavement, arteries under sun - we're reminded of our dependence on a deeper physical reality and our implicit vulnerability as a result. We're reminded that our cities are engineered and technical places as much as they are natural expressions of the Human and the Social, whose buildings echo ancient grouping of people at work, play, or home. What we expect from infrastructure is that it works, because when it doesn't , it isn't. We want infrastructure to seamlessly integrate with the existing world — in the ground like water rather than an accessory above. After all, infrastructure is here to support us; an expression of what may be our most endemic myth, that the world is here for us. But with every receding seam, from cable to code, comes a techno-political risk. Without edges we cannot know where we are and nor through whom we speak.

      "our most endemic myth, that the world is here for us."

      I thought about the article about how we have a bad understanding of mapping the exact placements of utilities under manhattan.

  5. May 2020
    1. That is the strength of web annotation software – it can allow a spectrum of interaction that still gives context to reader and writer alike.

      like this a lot, starting to get familiar with Hypothesis now!