Scan barcode
A review by andrewspink
Doe zelf normaal by Maxim Februari
challenging
informative
slow-paced
3.0
A couple of years ago, I read Klont by the same author. I was disappointed (see https://app.thestorygraph.com/reviews/89112db4-9a42-4929-9416-de911a392149), in part because it was supposed to be about AI, but it did not really provide any insights into or have much understanding of the subject. This essay was an improvement on that. There were no passages that I read with raised eyebrows because they were technically incorrect (other than the odd remark about his book being a sort of open-source text).
Maxim Februari has clearly read up on the subject since he wrote Klont. He also explained that he doesn't have a technical background, so we should expect insights more on the legal/philosophical/ethical aspects. He delivers on that promise. " In wezen is democratie een manier van omgaan met het conflict over waarden [in essence, democracy is a way to deal with value conflicts]". That thought, which he also develops further, was certainly food for thought.
He does fall into the trap of regarding the current system as perfect and therefore making false comparisons. For example, he questions how representative the data is, but of course, there are also plenty of elections in which specific segments of the population don't vote and so are not very representative either. Incidentally, the entire argument that the current democratic system might be replaced with data is a bit of an Aunt Sally, I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that?
He also repeatedly presents climate policy as being something imposed from above, rather something that a significant section of the population wants. Apparently, all the activities of Extinction Rebellion and the huge climate march passed him by.
I also think that in some places he exaggerates the moral implications of technology. For example, he tells an anecdote about how someone was upset because they could not take a shopping trolley away from a car park next to the shop, not only because it was forbidden but became the trolley had a mechanism to prevent it. According to Februari that was not good because it removed the possibility of moral choice from that person. Really? So I should not put a lock on my door because that removes the possibility of moral choice from a burglar?
Nevertheless, despite those quibbles, this was a thought-provoking book that I enjoyed reading.
Maxim Februari has clearly read up on the subject since he wrote Klont. He also explained that he doesn't have a technical background, so we should expect insights more on the legal/philosophical/ethical aspects. He delivers on that promise. " In wezen is democratie een manier van omgaan met het conflict over waarden [in essence, democracy is a way to deal with value conflicts]". That thought, which he also develops further, was certainly food for thought.
He does fall into the trap of regarding the current system as perfect and therefore making false comparisons. For example, he questions how representative the data is, but of course, there are also plenty of elections in which specific segments of the population don't vote and so are not very representative either. Incidentally, the entire argument that the current democratic system might be replaced with data is a bit of an Aunt Sally, I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that?
He also repeatedly presents climate policy as being something imposed from above, rather something that a significant section of the population wants. Apparently, all the activities of Extinction Rebellion and the huge climate march passed him by.
I also think that in some places he exaggerates the moral implications of technology. For example, he tells an anecdote about how someone was upset because they could not take a shopping trolley away from a car park next to the shop, not only because it was forbidden but became the trolley had a mechanism to prevent it. According to Februari that was not good because it removed the possibility of moral choice from that person. Really? So I should not put a lock on my door because that removes the possibility of moral choice from a burglar?
Nevertheless, despite those quibbles, this was a thought-provoking book that I enjoyed reading.