> Otherwise we are postulating or at least heavily implying that conservatism is always wrong.

This point isn't that all of conservatism is always wrong, but that that romantic nostalgia aspect of it mostly is. Of course, conservatives hardly have a monopoly on romantic nostalgia.

I think the fact that these "good 'ole days" style arguments seem to be timeless suggest an underlying fallacy of some sort driving them [0].

Having said that, I don't think that invalidates all conservatism since the value of the casualties of progress is subjective.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

> Is it not plausible that sometimes we periodically really do lose something valuable...

Absolutely plausible. I'd even say it's probable! But we usually gain something valuable as well.

I see this in context of automation system with feedback loop.

Look here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Change_w... This are responses of different PID controllers to the change of target value. You can notice that controller can overshoot target value to get near target value faster. I see conservatives working for one side of this graph and liberals for the other. You probably just need both.

I've often observed the same thing with a different machine. It's a great metaphor for many things.

There is something about cybernetics and control theory, that, if applied to governance would be of enormous value, but I've never seen a real world application. I wonder if we'll get to see such a thing in our lifetimes.

In the cyberpunk Pyscho-Pass there exists a nice fictional account of such a system.

> You probably just need both.

Yes, today. My complaint is that this is a very crude algorithm! There has got to be a better way that represents people's true interests. My own hypothesis is that in the year 20XX there will exist a <country> with a combination of intelligence agency with a vastly expanded remit and a computer system which produces most central governance.

Did you believe/think/feel X today? Your inputs have been factored and there are Y resolution proposals! The resolution you have chosen shall be weighted against counterproposals and if selected shall be converted into contracts for activities that a new arm of the State shall spring into existence to deal with. Government functions can scale backwards and forwards in an orderly and consistent fashion with the desires/knowledge of the citizenry.

I think it can only work by illustrating trade-offs in order to keep stakeholders in the loop. As long as the system is comprehensible it should work. Pray we never fork.

We should try experiments like these on a Seastead first before we kill everybody.

Out of curiosity, have you heard of project cybersyn? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

Yes I have. I don't know much about it though. In my imagination I see crates of Cybersyn machines being shuttled away for good measure like the Ark of the Covenant into that warehouse. I can see them thinking, "ah, let's revisit this in, say, a century or two".

It is high time these kinds of projects were revisited, not as an attempt to provide a new economic system per se as some envisioned in the past, but to change central government.

As you probably already know many governments in the West are approaching half of the real economy. Things are starting to get weird, which is normal when the territory has evolved beyond the map. I think there shall be a phase change sooner rather than later in how government is managed. I mean a deep structural change in how administration works and not an ideological one.

The question is not so much how and why, since there are lots of productive lines of inquiry and the value proposition is endless, but what must be done to accomplish political decision making moving from a network of men to one partly/wholly composed of machines making autonomous decisions?

My guess is that governance does not require an AGI. It is already a slow moving narrow AI that lives partly in the legal realm and partly in the human realm. I suspect the technology to do this existed decades ago and the real reason the idea has not been developed is inertia. That and it's slightly scary. It is like fiddling with the boot sector! Better recreate a backup...

We could lose things of value all the time, but losing things of value isn't always bad. Plus we are gaining things of value all the time as well. Seems we are generally on the winning side of things given how well humans have done.

> Is it not plausible that sometimes we periodically really do lose something valuable and the conservatives in society notice this?

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Edit: parent edited out the political stuff.

I don't think the GP is about party politics.

It makes perfect sense if you replace "liberal" with "neophilic" or something like that. Looks like a bad choice of words, I don't think it is aligned with the meaning of "liberal" and "conservative" on US politics, but I'm not from there, so I'm not sure.

I've edited my post to remove the mention of political orientations (and if you edit your post, they will disappear).

I believe some political discussion is on topic should the political circumstances be particularly novel e.g. Brexit, but not the everyday fighting that goes on all the time I agree.

Actually I am not an American but am Irish.