Socialization, Politicization, Weaponization, Militarization
In college, I was taught that what made some information factual (“truthful”) was that either it was (1) from an authority; (2) scientific (repeatable); or (3) statistically relevant when referring to large groups. Each, of course has its limitations. I’ve recently been investigating a fourth venue, that of M-Superstring Theory, but the details have yet to be fleshed out.
It is with some trepidation that I have followed the evolution of “information” in our “new age” In the absence of any one overriding “proof” of truthfulness or factualness. I’ve watched information become socialized (whatever’s buzzing on social media must be true), politicized (whatever is stated publicly by trusted politicians surely must be true), and weaponized (whatever I can be made to believe is true can and will be used by someone to further their specific agenda). People used to call these “propaganda.” All represent “Logical Fallacies,” and, by definition have no “truth value” at all, despite their spread. Oddly, the same has been true of COVID-19 “information.”
Recently, I heard a BBC report that China was testing a SARS-vaccine that might confer immunity against COVID-19. What disturbed me was that it was reported that China had decided to first immunize its military. So, add to socialization, politicization and weaponization, militarization. In colloquial Trumpian terms, “Military First.”
Now, it might be that China is testing it first in its military to gain sufficient information about side effects before introducing it into the civilian population. I’d like to believe that. I’d like to believe that a nation as populous as China would sacrifice its military before its civilians. According to the World Atlas/World Bank/U. S. Census Bureau China’s military forces account for roughly 0.2% of it’s population, which might not constitute a heavy price for a comprehensive field-testing program, with the collateral benefit (should it prove both effective and safe) of having an immune military force. On the other hand, what better way to gain the upper hand in global militarization. Either way, I remain concerned about the militarization of information. What could possibly be next?
I don’t discuss this concern in THE EDGE OF MADNESS (Aignos 2020), though perhaps I should have anticipated it and included it in the “future,” but I guess I am astounded enough at the power of the first two, without wanting to consider further the vicissitudes of a world preparing for war.
It is with some trepidation that I have followed the evolution of “information” in our “new age” In the absence of any one overriding “proof” of truthfulness or factualness. I’ve watched information become socialized (whatever’s buzzing on social media must be true), politicized (whatever is stated publicly by trusted politicians surely must be true), and weaponized (whatever I can be made to believe is true can and will be used by someone to further their specific agenda). People used to call these “propaganda.” All represent “Logical Fallacies,” and, by definition have no “truth value” at all, despite their spread. Oddly, the same has been true of COVID-19 “information.”
Recently, I heard a BBC report that China was testing a SARS-vaccine that might confer immunity against COVID-19. What disturbed me was that it was reported that China had decided to first immunize its military. So, add to socialization, politicization and weaponization, militarization. In colloquial Trumpian terms, “Military First.”
Now, it might be that China is testing it first in its military to gain sufficient information about side effects before introducing it into the civilian population. I’d like to believe that. I’d like to believe that a nation as populous as China would sacrifice its military before its civilians. According to the World Atlas/World Bank/U. S. Census Bureau China’s military forces account for roughly 0.2% of it’s population, which might not constitute a heavy price for a comprehensive field-testing program, with the collateral benefit (should it prove both effective and safe) of having an immune military force. On the other hand, what better way to gain the upper hand in global militarization. Either way, I remain concerned about the militarization of information. What could possibly be next?
I don’t discuss this concern in THE EDGE OF MADNESS (Aignos 2020), though perhaps I should have anticipated it and included it in the “future,” but I guess I am astounded enough at the power of the first two, without wanting to consider further the vicissitudes of a world preparing for war.
No comments have been added yet.
