A box of a trillion souls

I read Stephen Wolfram on the future of humanity:

I often imagine some kind of “box of a trillion souls” that’s sort of the ultimate repository for our civilization. Now at first we might think, “Wow, that’s going to be such an impressive thing, with all that intelligence and consciousness and knowledge and so on inside.” But I’m afraid I don’t think so.

You see, one of the things that emerged from my basic science is what I call the Principle of Computational Equivalence, which says in effect that beyond some low threshold, all systems are equivalent in the sophistication of the computations they do. So that means that there’s not going to be anything abstractly spectacular about the box of a trillion souls. It’ll just be doing a computation at the same level as lots of systems in the universe.

I read Mohamedou Ould Slahi's Guantanamo diary:

The cell – better, the box – was cooled down to the point that I was shaking most of the time.... I don't remember sleeping one night quietly....

When I failed to give him the answer he wanted to hear, he made me stand up, with my back bent because my hands were shackled to my feet and waist and locked to the floor. █████████ turned the temperature control all the way down, and made sure that the guards maintained me in that situation until he decided otherwise.

I am not sure if Mohamedou Slahi's box could in future be used for a trillion souls. Perhaps it would be too small.... I wonder, how big a box will be needed, to be the ultimate repository of our civilization?

So long, Marianne. On bullying and bossing about

Today I completed my online Diversity in the Workplace training. Guess what? It was a fatuous waste of time! These courses exist, I think, to stop the employer being sued when a manager screws up and e.g. tells a female job candidate to stay home with the kiddies.

Luckily they can be clicked through at great speed. In the multiple choice questions, avoid the very silly answer – "she'll probably leave when she gets preggers, so let's save time and not hire her!" – and choose whatever is most self-righteous and/or supine from the rest:

"Your university sends you a survey asking about... your sexual orientation... select TWO options:
(a) Information on sexual orientation will be misused by the university
(b) It's too personal - there is no good reason for the University to ask it
(c) It's important for the University to have this information about staff
(d) It's OK - noone should feel they have something to hide"

(a) and (b) are wrong. No buts. It is inconceivable that anyone at the university would ever misuse this information, now or in future. Also if the question seems too personal, chillax and get over it with option (d).

Last week I saw this sign at French customs, instructing "everyone" (but we all know who) what they can and cannot wear:




You see:

Real oppression, real bullying of the weak, doesn't wear a big ugly mask, or come in a costume marked oppressor or racist. It dresses up in noble images of Republicanism and freedom. It has elegant graphics and well-put slogans: La Rêpublique se vit à visage découvert. It has no laws against it; it is the law.

One cannot fairly say that, if this awful stuff ever comes to the UK, those who designed Diversity in the Workplace will be churning out courses on Integrate yourself into our Grand Old British Society. But someone surely will. Meanwhile: what can make a society freer, fairer, or even kinder? Is it lawyers, regulatory compliance, and compulsory online courses with a multiple choice component?