I guess you can’t change human weakness, or preference with clever technology.
I don’t think whuffie automatically make things more meritocratic. Maybe it would just go in the other direction where things would be more about what people like socially…so popularity. So if anything it’ll be more political and cliquey.
Regarding your “nepotism”, I think it would just reflect human nature in the sense that even now children of respected parents —say, the child of a respected physicist—is afforded a sort of social standing and goodwill, and kind appraisal, because of how people appreciate their parents. But if the child is bad then that won’t be extended and it won’t save them. Similarly, if the child acts in a way that people see as against the good legacy of their parents, it wouldn’t save them. I don’t think there’s anything wrong looking kindly at the children of people you like. But I don’t think that’s really the kind of nepotism that you’re against, is it? I don’t know tho.
I know there’s other kinds of nepotism based on supposed influence or whatever, which I think is more what you’re talking about here, but I think they may be may be less under that reputation system. The example you cite of the guy’s girlfriend (I think)—a child of prominent Imagineers-I imagine her whuffie accrued simply because she wasn’t all bad and people respected her parents. It wasn’t the pernicious kind that I think you’re so against. So perhaps there’s a distinction you’re interested in considering more then.
Anyway, those collectively form part of what are just the negative side. Which I think would be less commanding and influential than the positive side.
I definitely think there is a positive side of whuffie where if you’re doing good work, which people respect, that isn’t in the current system necessarily remunerative—like in the story, the guy is earning lots of whuffie from being a missionary and helping people out— then you’ll always have more than enough. Where is in the current system you wouldn’t.
And I think that positive benefit far outweighs any amplification of already pre-existing negative human traits.
But of course I haven’t yet lived long enough in this particular version of the future so I could be wrong. Maybe it will turn out to be disaster or maybe we’ll all end up hating it.
But I think it’ll be fun to try, don’t you?
as long as it’s not administered by some centrally controlled government or state, where it could be tied to how compliant you are with not spouting “dangerous misinformation” or whatever the heresy of the day is deemed. Haha
Complete agreement on all fronts, though I still wish there better forces for giving children without influential parents the same opportunities as those with (or at least a decent fraction of). Regardless, I blast some Whuffie in your direction, good sir.
Thank you! I will spend it, not all at once, on something wonderful! :)
Minor correction: influential good parents. good is the important thing here otherwise there’s more suffering than opportunities, which only hampers not supports. Not to wish poverty, but there can be goodness and even less suffering in relative poverty. It all comes down to how good people choose to be.
I don’t think whuffie automatically make things more meritocratic. Maybe it would just go in the other direction where things would be more about what people like socially…so popularity. So if anything it’ll be more political and cliquey.
Regarding your “nepotism”, I think it would just reflect human nature in the sense that even now children of respected parents —say, the child of a respected physicist—is afforded a sort of social standing and goodwill, and kind appraisal, because of how people appreciate their parents. But if the child is bad then that won’t be extended and it won’t save them. Similarly, if the child acts in a way that people see as against the good legacy of their parents, it wouldn’t save them. I don’t think there’s anything wrong looking kindly at the children of people you like. But I don’t think that’s really the kind of nepotism that you’re against, is it? I don’t know tho.
I know there’s other kinds of nepotism based on supposed influence or whatever, which I think is more what you’re talking about here, but I think they may be may be less under that reputation system. The example you cite of the guy’s girlfriend (I think)—a child of prominent Imagineers-I imagine her whuffie accrued simply because she wasn’t all bad and people respected her parents. It wasn’t the pernicious kind that I think you’re so against. So perhaps there’s a distinction you’re interested in considering more then.
Anyway, those collectively form part of what are just the negative side. Which I think would be less commanding and influential than the positive side.
I definitely think there is a positive side of whuffie where if you’re doing good work, which people respect, that isn’t in the current system necessarily remunerative—like in the story, the guy is earning lots of whuffie from being a missionary and helping people out— then you’ll always have more than enough. Where is in the current system you wouldn’t.
And I think that positive benefit far outweighs any amplification of already pre-existing negative human traits.
But of course I haven’t yet lived long enough in this particular version of the future so I could be wrong. Maybe it will turn out to be disaster or maybe we’ll all end up hating it.
But I think it’ll be fun to try, don’t you?
as long as it’s not administered by some centrally controlled government or state, where it could be tied to how compliant you are with not spouting “dangerous misinformation” or whatever the heresy of the day is deemed. Haha