Note: Stephen has suggested that the following is a little too long for the show notes for Sunday’s show, so I’m presenting it here as a stand-alone entry.

I. The Question

The question is whether accelerating and converging technologies are leading us to a future in which we can all fully understand the world around us, and what kid of transformative effect on the world such an understanding wil provide. HapyCrow gives the example of repairing his own Jeep, and points out that doing the repairs himself it not always the economically effective approach. He then says:

It’s a tall order to say that massive social change will happen when we can all work on our cars — but when we can all comprehend the rest of the physical and political infrastructure around us, and represent them in a way that aids this comprehension, vast social and political change will be upon us. For starters, it will cut the legs out from underneath progressivism’s assumption that technocrats need rule on our behalf. While that will discomfit political liberals, it will also provide cold comfort to the other sides of the aisle(s). If poorly-distributed, it could lead to techno-oligarchy (the informed making better decisions), or else it could lead to something radically less hierarchical and more communal.

It’s unlikely that it would empower Marx’ dream that one could be a fisherman in the morning, a painter in the afternoon, and write operas in the evening…for now, anyway, I suspect that not even brilliant software would make any opera of mine enjoyable. YET.

Let’s put aside the question of political infrastructure — for now — and just look at the physical infrastructure.

Initial sniff test: Is understanding as big a deal as HC says?

Although I believe that massive increases in individual understanding of the world are on their way, I question the possibility of people achieving a full understanding of the world around us. But before we go there, let’s spend some time pondering why it is that we don’t already know everything.

II. Why we don’t all know everything (a): distribution of knowledge

It is by design that we each don’t understand everything about our physical world. If each of us could carry all human knowledge around, the total amount of human knowledge would have to be a tiny subset of what’s available.

So each of us understands just a slice. This specialization of knowledge has been going on at least since the hunter-gatherer days. After all, some of us were hunters; some were gatherers. When the total amount of knowledge exceeded what one human being could reasonably carry around — or even what one human being might reasonably need — we started distributing knowledge amongst ourselves.

Today, knowledge is massively distributed amongst the population.

Not only do we not work on our own cars, we don’t perform our own root canals.

Direct TV sends a guy out to calibrate the satellite dish — most of us have no idea how to do that.

Many of us have someone do our taxes for us

Just this past weekend I spent $60 getting the sprinkler guy to come out and adjust watering times — because I couldn’t figure out the dials!

Distribution of knowledge is tremendously empowering. If all doctors were required to know everything about treating illness and injury, once again there would be a lot less TO know, and we wouldn’t have specialists. No oncologists, pediatricians, endocrinologists, OBGYNs. A century ago, the model for medical practice was much closer to this. Today, we as consumers of health care benefit from the fact that doctors are empowered to specialize in whatever interests them most.

This brings up another interesting point: distribution of knowledge has been — for the most part — self-organizing. A more or less free market lets us have a society in which appropriate numbers of people earn how to be auto detailers, beauticians, civil engineers, and astronauts.

Interestingly, the wide distribution of knowledge is a problem for those who emphasize self-reliance and who worry about what to do if civilization hits some kind of reboot. One of HC’s commenters says:

I have two advanced degrees, and AT BEST I think I could get me and mine back to the early stone age. I mean, sure, I can use a flint and steel if I’ve the gear, but I’m not your go-to guy for taking raw iron ore out of the ground. Tanning hides, making felt, and some VERY elementary spinning is about all I’m good for in that department.

Here’s my problem with post-apocalyptic survivalist scenarios / fantasies: If things really do fall completely apart to the point that I’m going to have to spin my own yarn, tan my own leather, and freaking smelt my own iron ore, the chances that I personally will be one of the remnant of human survivors trying to set up Farnham’s Freehold are close enough to zero that I just don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it, much less preparing for it. If the world falls to that point, most of us won’t be here well before we get to that point.

Plus, I believe there are strong arguments to made that we probably won’t get to that point.

Yes, everyone’s house should be well stocked with emergency supplies. But should we all learn how to tan leather so we’re ready for the Mad Max world? Count me out.

Sure, he wears leather, but we never see him tanning any.