I’ve been reading this interview with Ray Kurzweil, a futurist/technologist/scientist who’ve been aware of for a while and whose ideas I am interested in. I lack the depth to fully endorse or innovate or thoroughly critique them, but I think I can take on little bits. In this case, an important tangent where I think he hopes things will work themselves out… and things may work out, but will effort by others. Sometimes his optimism for technological progress should considered in the context of political reality (not political correctness).

An example:

There‘s a lot of talk about existential risks. I worry that painful episodes are even more likely. You know, 60 million people were killed in WWII. That was certainly exacerbated by the powerful destructive tools that we had then. I‘m fairly optimistic that we will make it through. I‘m less optimistic that we can avoid painful episodes. I do think decentralized communication actually helps reduce violence in the world. It may not seem that way because you just turn on CNN and you‘ve got lots of violence right in your living room. But that kind of visibility actually helps us to solve problems.

I’m not entirely sure that’s a convincing argument right there. The broader idea that decentralized media is an improvement, a catalyst for problem solving and violence reduction is one that I tend to buy into, and have acted explicitly to support.

But, CNN is not a great example – nor does most of the blogosphere seem to be at any given point. There are obvious notable exceptions. Maybe the Enough Project, to pick an example that is reputable and focused on informing about a certain kind of catastrophe the rest of the world is nominally aware of.

CNN is neither decentralized (I suppose it may be more so, technologically, than before) and certainly could be doing a better job, if we think its mandate is to report on global problems and inform its audience enough for them to understand who the stakeholders are and what the possible motivations and causes are.

We need media that less habitually cites mostly official sources, and that constantly questions ostensible motivation and intent, that keeps track of credibility and gives credit where credit is due, rather than to the bearers of titles, and rather than accepting what is given as a reason or goal or assuming such without evidence. The individual reporters (both independent and within large commercial institutions), certain non-profit institutions, activist-journalists, and other media makers who do this consistently seem hardly visible to the general population at the same level as entities like CNN. I only hope that they do catalyze attention and informed change enough to be helpful.