Talk:Technological utopianism

Lulz Security

I think Lulz Security should be included in this Techno-Utopianism article, perhaps a section on the Hacktivist self-empowerment events could also refer to Anonymous Group and WikiLeaks?

Link regarding Lulz Sony-hack http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13633011

86.186.63.56 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

The Pirate Party could also be mentioned in conjunction with Lulz and Anonymous. The Pirate Party is mentioned by many third party sources. I was reminded of The Pirate Party because Lulz is using bitcoin for donations (Bitcoin is also mentioned by many third party sources). Rick FalkVinge recently stated he was putting all his savings into Bitcoin.

The Lulz Security issue has reminded me that a big chunk of techno-utopianism is missing.

86.186.63.56 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Here's a good front page of the WSJ regarding a Lulz hack: http://i.imgur.com/DsgWI.jpg

86.186.63.56 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Here is a good quote from Forbes linking together the three issues of WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and Lulz:

"One member of the LulzSec hacking group, calling himself Whirlpool, told me in an interview this morning over Instant Message chat that the hack had been a nod to WikiLeaks and Anonymous, after many who support the larger online collective were angered by the PBS documentary “WikiSecrets” and its portrayal of whistleblower Bradley Manning when it broadcast a week ago."

http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2011/05/31/interview-with-pbs-hackers-we-did-it-for-lulz-and-justice/

86.186.63.56 (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Technological utopianism refers to any ideology based on the belief that advances in science and technology will eventually bring about a utopia, or at least help to fulfill one or another utopian ideal. Regardless of whether or not they are motivated by a techno-utopian ideology, groups of hackers committing acts of vandalism or theft are not noteworthy in an encyclopedic article about technological utopianism unless reliable sources explicitly state that technological utopianism inspired them to commit highly-publicized acts of vandalism or theft. Even then, we have to be careful not to indulge in recentism. --Loremaster (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We have had the recentism discussion before, Wikipedia doesn't prohibit recentism: recent events are included in Wikipedia. Regarding these recent events, they are part of an ongoing picture that is developing over a period of years. Lulz, WikiLeaks, Anonymous, The Pirate Party, and Bitcoin are all facets of a technological-utopian thrust forward where self-empowerment, contrary to Government restrictions, is the mode of operation. The aforementioned five factors are frequently mentioned in the same breath by many third party reputable sources. Freedom of information and protests regarding Wikileaks smears by PBS (not mere vandalism) are very much a utopian thrust. At least one representative of Anonymous has previously been quoted in CNN news stating their goal is utopia. Lulz are very clearly trying to bring about utopian ideals, as is Wikileaks and The Pirate Party etc. 86.183.13.7 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

As explained in our previous debates that are now archived, I disagree with all your dubious arguments and oppose your edit suggestions, which is nothing more than original research since you need to find reliable sources that explicitly state that “Lulz, WikiLeaks, Anonymous, The Pirate Party, and Bitcoin are all facets of a technological-utopian thrust”. Ultimately, since you've always failed and continue to fail to find consensus, stop wasting your time here and focus on improving the Hacktivism article where your edit suggestions would be far more relevant. --Loremaster (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe you are correct to say they shouldn't all be lumped into the same utopian thrust therefore I suggest each group should be mentioned separately. The BBC reports that the motive of Lulz is "fun" combined with some ethical righting of wrongs regarding WikiLeaks. The actions of Lulz seem to be clear example of utopian idealology: fun. See what the BBC states:

Humour forms part of the group's agenda, as outlined on its website. "Considering fun is now restricted to Friday, where we look forward to the weekend, weekend, we have now taken it upon ourselves to spread fun, fun, fun, throughout the entire calendar year," declares a message on the front page. The humour references seem to be intended to separate the group from others that hack for money. But not everything LulzSec does is for the fun of it. The group also hacked the website of America's Public Broadcasting Service because it made a documentary critical of Wikileaks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13671195 86.135.34.131 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

I can't believe I actually have to say this but there is nothing inherently utopian about spreading fun! You're grasping at straws and you need to stop obsessing over ways to mention hacktivist groups in this article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia header description of technoutopiaism describes advances in science and technology that will "at least help to fulfill one or another utopian ideal." Fun combined with Hacking FBI related sites and hacking a news website to address unfair reporting on Wikileaks is clearly helping to fulfill at least one or another utopian ideal. 86.162.82.74 (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Your intepretation and opinion is irrelevant. You need to find reliable sources that explicitly state that an individual, group, movement or project is notable for its promotion of, or being motivated by, techno-utopianism. If you can't, stay quiet until you do. --Loremaster (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is explicit usage of the word utopia required? This article is not an article regarding usage of the word "utopia" or "utopian" regarding technology. If you want to change the description to something such as: "Techno-utopianism is usage of the word "utopia" or "utopian" to describe highly beneficial sociopolitical technological improvement."... well then, go ahead and make the change, but currently the criteria for something being utopian (part of technological-utopianism) doesn't require a specific mention of the word "utopia", it is about a utopian ideology. The ideology is the important thing not the superficial mentioning of the word utopia. For example "Libertarian Future" is consistant with the techno-utopian ideology: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/06/02/digital-currency-libertarian-future-0 86.135.33.227 (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

As you have demonstrated, many things can be misinterpreted as being utopian when it isn't. To avoid original research, it is better that we find reliable sources that explicitly state that an individual, group, movement or project is notable for its promotion of, or being motivated by, techno-utopianism to avoid any mistake. Although the ideology behind the “bitcoins” discussed in the news article you linked may seem at first glance consistent with right-wing libertarian techno-utopianism, we still need a reliable source to state that it is. Furthermore, a few articles doesn't necessarily make it notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article since we don't know yet “bitcoins” will be nothing more than a flash in the pan hence the danger of writing or editing this article without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in the article being overburdened with content of flimsy, transient merits. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the LulzSec situation, it's probably still not there yet regarding a mention in the techno-utopia article but I feel it is important to keep an eye on these matters. LulzSec seem to be making statements/manifestos which embody the ethos of "Self-empowered knowledge workers" and while clearly libertarian the question of utopianism is not decided yet: http://gizmodo.com/5813560/lulzsec-and-anonymous-declare-open-war-against-all-governments-and-fat-cats

86.186.61.31 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Bitcoins

I think Bitcoins should be mentioned in this article. I was reading in Forbes about how US$7,000 have recently been donated to Lulz. There are wide variety of articles about Bitcoin published by Fox, Time, Washington Post, Financial Times, EFF (incidentally I am surprised EFF is not mentioned anywhere in this Wikipedia article), and Forbes; Rick Falkvinge has also made references to Bitcoin, and he states he is changing all his money into Bitcoins. Here is the Forbes link: http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2011/06/06/lulzsec-hackers-posts-sony-dev-source-code-get-7k-donation/

Clearly Bitcoins comply with the Wikipedia header description of technoutopiaism, in that they "at least help to fulfill one or another utopian ideal." Being able to electronically trade via an unregulated currency where transactions cannot be monitored by Governments or financial institutions, and transaction charges cannot be applied, this clearly fulfills "one or another utopian ideal". 86.162.82.74 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

I will say this one last time: Your intepretation and opinion is irrelevant. You need to find reliable sources that explicitly state that an individual, group, movement or project is notable for its promotion of, or being motivated by, techno-utopianism. If you can't, stay quiet until you do. --Loremaster (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How about the following article from Gawker? The Gawker article is about how you can buy any drug imaginable online and it states to do so you need Bitcoins and it describes many users of Silk Road as being from "Bitcoin's utopian geek community", which seems to be a clear description of Bitcoin being utopian (at least partially). Would you say the Gawker quote is a third party source? I shall do some more research into this "utopian geek community" at Bitcoin. Loremaster, please note this a discussion thus don't expect results instantly; via debate and discussion we could find a possible way to improve this article. It is not unreasonable to suggest a reference to Bitcoin or Lulz in the article. Try not to immediately shoot down any possible new ideas. If you so interested in this techno-topianism article it could be helpful if you also did some research.

Since it launched this February, Silk Road has represented the most complete implementation of the Bitcoin vision. Many of its users come from Bitcoin's utopian geek community and see Silk Road as more than just a place to buy drugs. Silk Road's administrator cites the anarcho-libertarian philosophy of Agorism.

http://gawker.com/5805928/the-underground-website-where-you-can-buy-any-drug-imaginable

86.135.33.227 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Here is some info about from Fox about Bitcoins be used to buy illicit drugs: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/06/02/digital-currency-libertarian-future-0 86.135.33.227 (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Although the description of Bitcoin has having a utopian geek community is promising, Gawker is not considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, a few articles doesn't necessarily make Bitcoin notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article since we don't know yet if “bitcoins” (or Lulz) will be nothing more than a flash in the pan hence the danger of writing or editing this article without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in the article being overburdened with content of flimsy, transient merits. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is Gawker not reliable? The same reference to "Bitcoin's utopian geek community" is also published in Wired Magazine but if Gawker is not reliable then I assume Wired is not reliable either, but why are they unreliable sources? What specifically about the Wikipedia guidelines makes them unreliable sources? Regarding the long term relevance of Bitcoins it may well turn out they they are irrelevant or merely a passing phase of minor interest, it may also turn out that humans all die off via nuclear war within the next 10 years (anything is possible) but in the meantime Wikipedia and our knowledge evolves. Future editors may choose to expunge all references to Bitcoin, Lulz, or Wikileaks, or a minor mention made now could be expanded in the future as information evolves. Wikipedia is not a group of historians dissecting the past many years after it has happened. Wikipedia does NOT prohibit inclusion of recent events, Wikipedia actively encourages the inclusion of recent events and I believe there is a even a tag-notification stating the information concerns recent events thus the information could change rapidly (although perhaps such a notification is not relevant in this case). So regarding the historical view, I say we are not historians safely dissecting events centuries or decades after they happen. Articles constantly evolve but it seems you want to keep this techno-utopia article very static.

109.152.138.23 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Here are the tags I mentioned

109.152.138.23 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

1. According to Wikipedia guidelines, articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. That being said, Wired magazine has over the years developed a good reputation as a source of reporting on how new and developing technology affects culture, the economy, and politics. Gawker, on the other hand, is nothing more than a newsmagazine/blog that bills itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip" and focuses on celebrities and the media industry. Most people would therefore agree that Wired is a reliable source while Gawker isn't.
2. One mention in a Wired magazine article or blogpost (as well as Gawker and Fox News) that something like “Bitcoins” is being developed and promoted by a “Utopian geek community” doesn't automatically mean that it is significant and notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article about technological utopianism. Ideally, we need to find a third-party source in the form of an expert like Douglas Rushkoff or Mark Dery or Richard Barbrook who (after reading news reports like the one in Wired magazine) has analyzed the significance of Bitcoins or Lulz in a critical essay about libertarian techno-utopianism.
3. I have never argued that Wikipedia prohibits the inclusion of recent events and I am fully aware that Wikipedia encourages the documenting of SIGNIFICANT recent events that are NOTABLE and tagging certain articles accordingly. However, Wikipedia ALSO warms its contributors to not write or edit an article without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in the article being overburdened with content of flimsy, transient merits. The impeachment of a president or the eruption of a volcano is significant and notable while some small group of hacktivists getting some press for some act of theft or vandalism or appropriation of a technological innovation isn't, especially in an article that deals with a much larger topic than hacktivism.
4. Ultimately, I am open to radically improving the Technological utopianism article. However, I will resist any attempt to overburden this article with content of flimsy, transient merits, especially when it is clumsily added by someone with bad writing skills and no sense of Wikipedia's style...

--Loremaster (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, we shall suspend this discussion for the time being; we see how things develop. We shall see if more reliable people/sources add their voices to the notion of Bitcoin (etc) being utopian or a step in a utopian direction. I think we have made a good start for possible future references dependent upon how Bitcoin develops and the ideology associated with it. 86.184.245.180 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Good. --Loremaster (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable a source The Atlantic Wire is but nevertheless regarding this ongoing discussion I feel the following article is worthy of a mention because bitcoin is spefically described as being "utopian":

That basic formula with the utopian "decentralized" caveat drives the Bitcoin model. Nakamoto forged the original 50 units of Bitcoin (BTC) currency in 2009 supplying a small number of users with the money and outlining an algorithmic system through which more units could be created. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/06/bitcoin-mtgox-hack-collapse-anonymous-lulzsec/39023/

See also this article "From the start, Bitcoin has been a fairly utopian project."

Although considering there has been a BitCoin heist maybe the days of BitCoin are numbered.

86.135.37.177 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK86.135.37.177 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Many projects can be and are dismissed as utopian by critics, especially when they fail, but it doesn't automatically mean that they are. Once they succeed, they are no longer described as utopian. Therefore, it would make more sense to find reliable sources in the form of essays or books by scholars (rather than IT journalists) who discuss BitCoins (or Lulz) in the context of technological utopianism. --Loremaster (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bitcoin project is not being dismissed as "utopian", the word utopia is not used in a pejorative sense. Bitcoin is being described as utopian due to it's unregulated decentralized nature, it is not an issue of critics dismissing it as utopian. Furthermore regarding the Bitcoin robbery, the BBC thinks Bitcoin will recover.

Regarding the writer for Atlantic Wire (Adam Clark Estes) who described Bitcoin as utopian. The editors of Big Think mention the utopian Bitcoin description by Adam Clark Estes so it seems the references to the utopian nature of Bitcoin are mounting up: Wired and Gawker mention the utopian geek community of Bitcoin. The Atlantic Wire (Adam Clark Estes) refers to the utopian decentralized nature of Bitcoin and Big Think repeats the sentiments of Adam Clark Estes and Big Think suggests LulzSec and Anonymous could be the people to save Bitcoin regarding the robbery. Here is the Wired link, which I have not previously added. 109.150.222.240 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)109.150.222.240 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

The unregulated and/or decentralized nature of a scheme doesn't automatically make something “utopian”. It is the perceived unpractical/unrealistic nature of a scheme that makes critics describe something as “utopian”. However, even if utopian wasn't being used in a pejorative sense, it doesn't change the fact that BitCoins are not yet note-worthy in an article about technological utopianism. By the way, if we mentioned every single technological scheme that has been described as “utopian” or “techno-utopian” by the media, this article would be overburdened with trivia. So you really need to stop obsessing about this. --Loremaster (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not I who claims that the unregulated and decentralized nature of Bitcoin indicates it is utopian, it is the journalist who states Bitcoin is utopian for those reasons (unregulated and decentralized). You say we can't mention every technological scheme that is described as utopian but as far as I am aware there are not many technological schemes that are described as utopian, or do you have corroborating evidence to contrary? Furthermore I am not "obsessing"; this is merely a discussion of a developing issue and when new information comes to light I will add it to this talk page. Considering many noteworthy media organisations such as the BBC states Bitcoin has a future; and there are at least 4 sources describing Bitcoin as being utopian then I feel it is valid to at the very least discuss this matter without being told I am "obsessing" about it. 109.150.222.194 (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

My point is that we've discussed this more than enough. Let's move on. --Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Article needs to be rewritten to conform to Wikipedia's standards, the article seems to be pushing an ideology over WP:Fact.

"Technological utopianism (often called techno-utopianism or technoutopianism) refers to any ideology based on the belief that advances in science and technology will eventually bring about a utopia, or at least help to fulfill one or another utopian ideal. A techno-utopia is therefore a hypothetical ideal society, in which laws, government, and social conditions are solely operating for the benefit and well-being of all its citizens, set in the near- or far-future, when advanced science and technology will allow these ideal living standards to exist; for example, post-scarcity, transformations in human nature, the abolition of suffering and even the end of death."

to:

"Technological utopianism (often called techno-utopianism) is an ideology that holds the belief that advances in science and technology will eventually bring about a utopia, or conform to utopian ideals, in which the laws, government, and social conditions, are operating for the benefit and well-being of its citizens."

Dark Liberty (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Principles?

The citation given for "the four principles of modern technological utopians in the late 20th and early 21st centuries" is from a book published in 1977 (Bernard Gendron's Technology and the Human Condition).

Original research in "Principles" section

I'm looking at a copy of Rushkoff's "Renaissance Now!", and it appears that the list appearing in the "principles" section which recounts the principles of "Renaissance Now!" is analysis. The bolded phrases are not explicitly stated by Rushkoff but instead have been synthesized from his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.254.132 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Origin of Term "Digital Utopia"

I believe I was the first to use this term, in my book A History of Modern Computing MIT Press, 1998, first edition, pp. 33, 348. The first instance was referring to a statement in the July-August 1954 issue of the Harvard Business Review, bu Roddy Osborn, referring to the installation of a UNIVAC I computer at the General Electric plant in Louisville. The second was referring to a cover of Byte magazine, January 1977, depicting an Altair 8800 personal comp0uter, an image of a beautiful city on the scree, while in the background is a rust-belt polluted city.

If anyone knows of an earlier citation, let me know. If this belongs in Wiki Quotes or elsewhere, please let me know.

Paul Ceruzzi

Techno-optimism, e/acc, effective accelerationism

Marc Andreessen published an essay The Techno-Optimist Manifesto describing some terms and defining what is "techno-optimism" and what is "techno-pessimism". Mentioning de-growth, depopulation and nihilism. Can an essay be cited as a credible document describing techno-optimism? Should e/acc page be created? Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: Irrational social narrative

Cultural critic Imre Szeman argues technological utopianism is an irrational social narrative because there is no evidence to support it.

I think we need to take an even stronger stance on this. It is not just cultural critics saying this, there is a larger, wider consensus that many of the things we take for granted in tech are highly irrational with no evidence to support it; it's just that this kind of thing gets very little media attention and is extremely unpopular to point out. One of the most current examples in this regard is the subject of the philosophy of space exploration. The leading people in this field all agree that space exploration has no sound, rational justification. In other words, as much as many of us are in favor of pushing the boundaries of what is possible (myself included, as I'm a proponent of space exploration), we have to be honest about our irrational, emotional investment in these kinds of ideas. The leaders of NASA have all said, for example, that the reason we need to go to space is because we are, at the end of the day, "explorers". That's their ultimate justification. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)