Now is love to see some good sense making tools like Argument maps applied to this whole discussion such that we can have a meta discussion of were are discussing in posi to be ways or just talking past each other.

I’m deeply interested in the motivation - misunderstanding of what S. Diehl articulates here. This is the fundamental discussion we just had here a few days ago. there approaching from the surveillance capitalism tangent —- again where are “our” future of coding tools to show which members ant which month over the years had which opinions. Which books / materials where recommended ? Where other habits changed? How do measure meaningful impact?

Here is a reply from Charles H.

It seems if we cannot even talk to each other then we are in really big trouble...

I will try to explain what I agree /disagree with regarding Stevens critique or perspective. As a general perspective I really like the conceptual overview of Yuval Noah harari - sapiens https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23692271-sapiens from which I borrow from the chapter - the unification of mankind -three orders: 1. Empire 2. Religious order 3. Money. Now it’s really interesting how money and coinage was linked to empire (faking coins would harshly be punished as crime against the crown) so from the beginning there is a interesting interplay between monopolies of power and aspects of collaboration. Now lately there have been people explaining crypto currencies as a kind of printing press technology which means it posses the potential of democratising access to currencies. I think in the capitalism thread we had arguments stating that culture is largely an emergent phenomenon. As such our “current” state of civilisation is , well , our best effort and a aggregation of all that had come before. Even now for a single person to perceive the culture of science is quite a difficult adventure. (Though I would it really recommend it to Steven diehl- but I think he somehow likes to remain in the doing science space rather then introspecting science space ) So as a technology for potential impact on culture crypto currencies have huge potential to be used for actual a better and more positive live. And it this that I miss from Stevens criticism. That he acknowledges that crypto could have positive impact. I agree with him that “non-productive” assets are a failure of the economic system. I also agree with him that most crypto projects are sadly located near that realm.

Now as crypto is a technology so is Haskell or other programming / software systems. And it now seems that we?(who is we here? Who is we in Stevens post?) want to think about ethical impacts of technology on society and culture.

How do we create meaningful practices to steal the culture ?