IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2020 - 59

References

[2] D. Ramirez-Cano and J. Pitt, Follow the leader: Profiling agents in an opinion formation model of dynamic confidence and individual mind-sets, Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 660-667, 2006.
[3] E. Ostrom. Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. American Economic Review, 100(3):641-672, 2010.
[4] W. R. Ashby, Design for a Brain. Chapman-Hall, 1952.
[5] J. Ober. Democracy's wisdom: An Aristotelian middle way for collective
judgement, American Political Science Review, 107(1):104-122, 2013.
[6] [Pitt17] J. Pitt. Interactional justice and self-governance of open self-organising systems. In 11th IEEE SASO, pp31-40, 2017.
[7] J. Ober. Demopolis: Democracy before liberalism in theory and practice.
Cambridge University Press, 2017.
[8] J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.
[9] J. Pitt, R. Cardoso, E. Hart, and J. Ober. Relevant expertise aggregation for
policy selection in collective adaptive systems. In 3rd FAS*W, pp136-141,
2018.
[10] C. List and R. Goodin. Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet
Jury Theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9(3):277-306, 2001.
[11] J. R. Schermerhorn, M. Uhl-Bien, and R. Osborn, Organizational
Behavior 12th Edition. Wiley, 2011.
[12] J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano, The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice, Justice in the
workplace, 1993.
[13] N. Rescher, Distributive Justice. Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.
[14] D. Burth Kurka, J. Pitt, P. Lewis, Al Patelli and A. Ekárt. Disobedience as a
Mechanism of Change. IEEE SASO, pp1-10, 2018.
[15] E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[16] D. Acemoglu. Politics and economics in weak and strong states. Journal
of Monetary Economics, 52(7):1199-1226, 2005.
[17] M. Olson. Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and
Capitalist Dictatorships. Basic Books. 2000.
[18] J. Lansing and J. Kremer. Emergent properties of Balinese water temple
network: coadaptation on a rugged fitness landscape. American Anthropologist, 95:97-114, 1993.
[19] K. Stockdale. Police understandings of restorative justice-the impact of
rank and role. Restorative Justice, 3(2):212-232, 2015.
[20] M. Weber. Politics as a Vocation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965.
[21] J. Pitt, D. Busquets, and R. Riveret, "Procedural justice and 'fitness for
purpose' of self-organising electronic institutions," in Proc. PRIMA 2013, ser.
LNCS, vol. 8291. Springer, 2013, pp. 260-275.
[22] A. Artikis, "Dynamic specification of open agent systems," J. Logic and
Computation, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1301-1334, 2012.
[23] H. Leibenstein. Economic Backwardness and Eco-nomic Growth.
Wiley, 1957.
[24] J. Pitt and J. Ober, "Democracy by design: Basic Democracy and the
self-organisation of collective governance," in Proc. IEEE SASO, pp. 20-29,
2018.
[25] S. Zuboff, "Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an
information civilization," J. Information Technology, vol. 30, pp. 75-89,
2015.
[26] G. Hinsliff, "Has coronavirus opened the door to mass elec-tronic surveillance in the UK?," The Guardian, Apr. 15, 2020; https://www.theguard
ian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/mass-electronic-surveillance-uk-app
-lockdown-download.
[27] N. Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capital-ism. Knopf
Canada, 2007.
[28] D. Bollier and S. Helfrich, The Wealth of the Commons: A World
Beyond Market and State. Levellers, 2012.
[29] A. Nowak, P. Lukowicz, and P. Horodecki, "Assessing Artificial Intel-
ligence for humanity," IEEE Technology & Society Mag., vol. 37, no. 4, pp.
26-34, 2018.
[30] J. Robbins, "If technology is a parasite masquerading as a symbiont -
Are we the host?," IEEE Technology & Society Magazine, vol. 38, no. 3, pp.
24-33, 2019.
[31] R. Conant and W. R. Ashby, "Every good regulator of a sys-tem must be
a model of that system," Int. J. Systems Science, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 98-97,
1970.
[32] M. Lewis, The Fifth Risk. W. W. Norton, 2020.

[1] J. Dryzek and J. Pickering. Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance. Ecological Economics, 131:353-360, 2017.



with environmental sustainability and communal wellbeing. In this way, we believe that algorithmic reflexive
governance can sustain socio-techno-ecological systemof-systems within a Zone of Dignity that balances control
(minimal/maximal recognition of the right to self-organize) against "taxation" (minimal/maximal levels of
resource-extraction for socially-productive coordination).
However, there remains much work to be done, and
at least three advances need to be made. The first
advance is integration of the four algorithmic processes
within a common computational framework, ensuring
consistency and mutual support. The second advance is
integration of this framework within a value-sensitive
design framework, i.e., in the design of socio-technoecological systems, the values to be achieved and sustained by algorithmic reflexive governance should be
considered as primary "supra-functional" design requirements, not afterthoughts to be addressed after the system has been developed and deployed (cf., [24]). Thirdly,
we need a demonstration of efficacy: an exemplar which,
by bringing together ideas from Artificial Intelligence and
Democratic Theory, convincingly demonstrates the sustainability of a socio-techno-ecological system.
Such advances are fraught not just with technical
problems, but social and political ones as well. It is quite
reasonable to wonder how well an algorithm based on
expertise could work in the modern day, given the levels
of animosity that can be generated against "experts" on
social media and the general hostility of populist politicians against the "reality-based community," including
journalists and academics who offer evidence-based policies or speak truth to power. It comes down to not just
having a viable technical proposal and a systematic prescription for implementing it, but also the courage and
persistence to deal with denial on this scale.
Denial often follows three stages: firstly refusing to
accept that there is a problem; secondly, acknowledging
that there is a problem, but refusing to accept that its
consequences will be "that bad"; and finally, conceding
that there always was a problem and its consequences
have been "that bad," but it is too late to do anything
about it now. We refuse to accept that it is too late.

Author Information
Jeremy Pitt is with the Dept. of Electrical & Electronic
Eng., Imperial College London, U.K.
John Dryzek is with the Institute for Governance and
Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, Australia.
Josiah Ober is with the Dept. of Political Science,
Stanford University, CA, U.S.A.

JUNE 2020

∕

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

59
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/mass-electronic-surveillance-uk-app-lockdown-download https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/mass-electronic-surveillance-uk-app-lockdown-download https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/mass-electronic-surveillance-uk-app-lockdown-download
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2020
