Specificaly this form:
There is no way to equally judge another human being or bring back what the violation has caused equally. The attempt will lead to mistakes and cruelty. More insidious is the notion someone can bring justice. I bring this up because the smart men and women I know (asked 40) all agreed this is why they still believe in the religion they believe in. Some cited fear of death as number 2 but all said they believe there has to be justice from higher power ultimatey. And that this is the only solace they have in this world. They believe someone who took so much life, like a Dahmer, would have to be judged by something eternal. I said someone in war may take 100's of lives but this is judged justice because they did it under orders or for a "just" cause.
Justice does seem to be hard wired instinctual.Most social mammals show different degrees of abhorrents to inequality.Especially primates.
But essentially isn't the pursuit of real justice not possible? Calling it necessary means this will make those who deem the power to wield it, to better humanity, unjust from the beginning? Isn't justice another way of claiming superiority? Doesn't a despot in the world use it to claim there power? If we agree justice is not a noble pursuit and clearly impossible (like following the word of god), what laws or punishments should be changed or updated? How would you feel if a mass murder or child molester was treated with a kind hand, rather than the visceral feeling of gutting them like a pig and dancing in the entrails as they slowing die. I am the first to admit this sounds more like justice at a primal level. But should we be smarter than that?
If someone steals my cell phone, I can lock it up or even wipe it from my desktop machine or my tablet. That's if I don't use GPS to tell the cops where it is.
If a robber stops me and demands my cell phone, I'll just toss it in one direction and run in the other direction. Chances are, he'll go for the phone only to discover it's passworded.
You're right. Fewer transactions require money and we'll be carrying even less money in the future. We are starting to be able to make purchases using our cell phones,
I'm a lot more worried about cyber criminals than street criminals. Ones who can shut down a power grid or water supply or cause a nuclear power plant to go Fukushima.
Requires a lot of work to understand how to do those things and then even more work to manage the people who would do those things. I do think it makes a powerful world govt more of a likelyhood no matter how fierce the opposition. Because it doesn't have to have approval by the people to exist.
I saw the future of convenience retailing about 10 years ago. Visiting a friend in Brooklyn NYC, we went to a local convenience store. We were in a glassed-in room. We pointed to what we wanted and the clerk gathered it. We payed through a sliding drawer under a part of the window, and our goods were delivered through a larger sliding door under that one. At no point were the goods available until they were paid for.
But is the flash mob more a fear for the govt's of the world. Imagine how much braver an activit can be if they can meet in private and show up in mass. Seems like it topples hardline regimes in the world already.
Knowing TED, this will probably be good.