AI won’t determine the future nearly as much as how the gains end up being distributed. I think what the AI faff has exposed is the gap between economic systems and human needs.

It’s a fair aspiration to remove work from human hands (ongoing for millennia), but it’s not fair to gate-keep the value that comes with it.

Bigger Q:
What happens when intelligence is a commodity in a system built on scarcity?
How will our identities, structures, and search for meaning change?

Entering a small elevator, especially if someone’s already inside:
First “Bom dia/tarde/noite”, then “Posso?” before entering

As you reach to press your button:
“Com licença”

When exiting:
another “Bom dia/tarde/noite”

It may sound too formal, but I’m firmly on the side of these small pleasantries. They’re the soft edges of a community… a small “price” to pay to stop a place from feeling like everyone’s just passing through each other. We are wired for connection, after all.

Tbh I’ve said “bom dia” to more people in a month, in Portugal…. than I’ve done in 30 years in London.

I read Moxie Marlinspike’s (Founder of Signal) critique of democracy recently, that there are problems inherent to the system itself:

• Democracy turns people into passive selectors of pre-made options, implying that those who control the agenda hold real power.
• The majority imposes decisions on minorities, even though technically the “majority” is often just the largest minority group.
• Built-in (unfixable) vulnerabilities include: demagoguery, lobbying, and corruption.
• It presents itself as the only legitimate system, and synonymous with freedom. But voting gives an illusion of control, real power remains elsewhere.
• Participating in elections legitimises the system. It channels dissent into safe, limited actions instead of direct change.

Their alternative is anarchy (self-organisation and direct action), which is great for smaller scale matters, but how would that work for the public service elements? Transport, power grids, healthcare. These things necessitate long-term infrastructure planning, oversight, maintenance, standards, among other considerations. Fragmented decision-making from loose voluntary groups most likely cannot deliver outcomes efficiently enough. There would still be a need of some form of large-scale coordination system.

I always think about, “How do we keep large-scale coordination, but give people more direct influence and control?”. Some rabbit holes:

• Preferendums during elections (rank issues on priority, giving leaders a mandate to follow)
• Energy co-operatives in Schönau and Feldheim. Owned and run by the people.
• Use tech for faster feedback loops. Continuous engagement by proposing policies and voting more frequently
• Citizens assemblies to deliberate on specific issues
• Participatory budgeting: Schools vs roads vs parks etc

In the 1860s, a man named James Croll began writing about how the Earth’s movements shape our climate, particularly ice ages.

Fascinatingly, he wasn’t even an academic, but a janitor at Strathclyde University (formerly Anderson’s University). He spent evenings in the uni library, teaching himself physics, hydrostatics, mechanics…whatever he could get his hands on.

What fascinates me just as much though, is who gets remembered (and who decides that). We all know of Einstein or Newton, even if we can’t quite explain their work. But there are countless others who’ve helped make sense of the world, including teachers, priests, and gardeners.

Some people wait for Glastonbury, Coachella, the new season of X Factor, or Stranger Things. Meanwhile I’m just here, patiently waiting for pomegranate season.