Are We Ready for Post Scarcity? Part 3

So technology has brought us a new world.  The new technologies developed in the 20th and 21st centuries have created a world with changes as drastic as the invention of agriculture over 10 millenia ago.  This new world is awe inspiring in its productive capabilities.  Like the soviets upon seeing American grocery stores or backyard pools, those of us from the old worlds look in disbelief on the abundance the highly automated modern world offers.  Will that disbelief be an awestruck hopeful wonderment, or a horrified cringing at the dystopian nightmare on display?

What becomes of the human being, the individual in the post-scarcity world?  While objectively unanswerable, for now, science fiction and current trends can give us an idea.  Star Trek provides the most hopeful vision, a humanity that devotes itself to self improvement and growth, bravely venturing out to explore the universe or just starting a small restaurant to share the joy of old family recipes (like Joseph Sisko from DS9).  People engage in their passions and become the greatest captains, scientists, or chefs that they can thanks to the freedom from desire and from the struggle for the basic necessities of life.  While this optimism is one of the reasons we love Star Trek it doesn't strike us as realistic.

On the other side of the spectrum we see the 'dystopian,' or broken utopia, genre of fiction.  The lack of scarcity in information and communication enabled by the internet has made government surveillance and monitoring so easy that the protections for citizens seem to come only from law these days.  And that can easily fail, as the victory of the ACLU against ongoing programs of the NSA showed.  The NSA's activities have many shouting that, "1984 was not an instruction manual."  A conversation from the video game Deus Ex indicates another interesting, and all to realistic, future:

JC Denton: Some people just don't understand the dangers of indiscriminate surveillance

Morpheus (an AI system who is 'a prototype for a larger system'): The need to observed and understood was once satisfied by God.  Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms.

JC Denton: Electronic surveillance hardly inspires reverence.  Perhaps fear and obedience, but not reverence.

Huxley's Brave New World gives us one vision of a post scarcity world that's also terrifying.  People are raised from conception to death to fill a certain role, with much of the population raised to lack mental faculty and drive so that they can be contented with menial jobs.  Innovation is suppressed if the rulers decide it doesn't support the economy.  The population is essentially drugged into compliance and acceptance of the system that promotes nothing but the status quo ad infinitum.  At least everyone has a job, though.

These uncomfortable futures are just fiction, for now, but sadly they seem to strike us as truer to reality.  One of the consequences of post-scarcity living is that power can evaporate.  It can also become much more concentrated.  Abuses by law enforcement that were once prevented by their sheer infeasibility now need laws in place to protect citizens (the supreme court decision on GPS tracking is a good example of this to add to the NSA's recent abuses of power).  However when laws are needed the question inevitably arises of who will write them.

The genius of American government is the idea of the powerful individual, that every citizen has strength enough to make their voice resonate in the halls of power.  The idea has caught on so strongly that it's easy to forgot how revolutionary and unthinkable this idea would be only 500 or so years ago when monarchs were the norm, and for basically all of human history before that when the strong took what they wanted without regard for whether or not the man they were taking it from cared to give it up.

The same power of technology that can eliminate scarcity could also conceivably eliminate freedom.  Corporate influence over lawmakers could barely be necessary if companies like John Deere, Apple, and Comcast continue along their trajectories.  Imagine the power the tractor company would hold if they were able to dictate whether or not their machinery were allowed to be repaired or you would just have to buy a new one to continue sowing grain.  Consider the power of a company with similar power over electronics and personal computers.  All the innovation and creativity in the world doesn't mean a thing if a company controlling the means of distribution for new products and stories can decide to refuse their service.

How can we dilute these powers, without only strengthening centralized government power, and while still providing opportunity and daily bread for the individual?  I don't know.  I have some ideas, but truly I can't say what I'd really do if I were ruler of the world, or even just the US.  What I can say is that no one else really can either.  There's a dearth of ideas and solutions floating around out there because we're not addressing the issue.

The idea of a post-scarcity economy and society is so revolutionary that it doesn't sound real.  Talking about robotics and computing replacing human beings as the driving force in the economy sounds like science fiction, despite the fact that we continually experience it as reality.  The whole issue is so massive and so out there that it's not addressed seriously in politics, and rarely in thoughtful conversation.  If this continues we'll find ourselves in a world clinging to obsolete social mores and struggling to make them fit in the modern world.  We can't let that happen, so let's think about getting ready for post-scarcity.

Are We Ready for Post Scarcity? Part 2

It's easy to romanticize scarcity when looking to address the problems that arise as it fades from the eyes of humankind.  Recent bouts in popular culture of "paleo-nostalgia" show us just how absurd our longing for "the good old days" can get.  But the good old days were never as good as we pretend they were.  The fifties had Jim Crow laws.  Pre-industrial society was awash in the filth of both the horses that pulled carriages and the humans that rode in them.  Why I should have to point out the scourges of humanity in medieval, bronze age, or stone age days is beyond me, but I'll mention crusades and inquisitions, the slavery that built the pyramids, and war among rival tribes of cave men just to be safe.

I bring this up because it's important to note that I'm not advocating we avoid creating a post scarcity world.  Precisely the opposite, I want to acknowledge that we're in the middle of doing so, and embrace the change.  To do that though, we need to be wary and accepting of the consequences.  Some of those may be unimaginable and have to be addressed as they come.  Others are more predictable, especially when we consider history.

I mentioned the abundance of food in part one.  Now consider farming, the production of that food.  Farming is remarkably different in the modern world, and it's so efficient that we can produce so much food that our primary concerns don't regard abundance.  We take abundance of food for granted, instead seeking better quality and solutions for what to do with the excess.  This has come at a price, though.

The great depression featured, "Farming communities and rural areas suffer[ing] as crop prices fell by approximately 60%." (wikipedia, citing three other sources)  The abundance and efficiency of farming is so staggering that only through heavy subsidies is agriculture profitable today.  These subsidies are so severe that Lawrence Lessig in his book Republic, Lost titles his chapter on government farming subsidies, "Why don't we have free markets?"  We recoil at the realization that government is deciding what food gets grown, and yet this might be important and beneficial to society, since we all like to eat.  Surely subsidizing agriculture is better than milk being spilled into gutters while thousands only a few hundred miles away starved, a characteristic image of the depression?

Food is one thing, it's physical and tangible.  We're all familiar with it and easily understand what it means.  Information is quite another, yet it's the next thing whose scarcity is being obliterated.  Personal computing and the internet have done a pretty good job already, once again changing the problems from availability to find-ability of information of high enough quality and relevance.

What have humans done with this?  We haven't become a society of well read polyglots that understand the conflicts between relativity and quantum mechanics as we might hope.  We're very well entertained, though.  Entertainment is just a form of information, after all.  A textbook has roughly the same form as a storybook.  With Netflix, Hulu, & Youtube,  for videos alone we can spend our entire day being entertained for probably not quite $100 a month.

This doesn't (necessarily) mean we're stupid or shallow, though.  Many of the most popular shows are sharply written character and political dramas like House of Cards, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Game of Thrones.  The recent revival of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series did well.  It could be argued more people are writing than ever before thanks to blogging sites like what you're reading now and maybe even social media.

OK, I'll admit I might not be buying the idea that the lack of scarcity in entertainment is improving us as a people either, but on the other hand I'm not going to dismiss it outright.  A stronger example might be video games.  The juggernaut game Minecraft is almost exclusively a creative tool rather than a traditional game.  Gaming has a strong community of "modding," or learning some basic (or in some cases extremely complex) programming tools used in a game to create a variant of that game. These variants span anything between the original game with a failure message changed from, "You died." to "Thanks, Obama!" to entirely new games built on the same graphics and gameplay engine.

In both food and entertainment we do see demand for quality now that availability is so high.  People grow from just being happy to have something to eat to wanting something that is organic, gluten-free, or maybe even something actually important.  People start paying attention to what their food is over whether or not it's there.  Likewise in entertainment we are demanding quality more and more.  We are seeking entertainment that we can, as Kevin Spacey says, "engage with...with a passion and an intimacy that a blockbuster movie could only dream of."

Bertrand Russell writes in his essay In Praise of Idleness about the odd disconnect that exists between our valuation of production and consumption.  While we admire productivity we don't highly value consumption.  Those who earn money have prestige, but not those eager to spend it.  He points out the oddity of this, particularly when we only earn money is by others' spending of it.  "We think too much of production, and too little of consumption. One result is that we attach too little importance to enjoyment and simple happiness, and that we do not judge production by the pleasure that it gives to the consumer."

Russell also alludes to the caste and class scaffolds that these attitudes seem to stem from.  He even goes so far to argue that the traditional work ethic arose largely as a tool of slave-owners and autocrats to keep their populations  content with their tyrannical rule.  If this is starting to sound like Marxist thinking to you then you're actually very clever.  A serious point of departure I must take to this essay is his praise given to the (only ten years old at the time of writing) Russian revolution and newly formed USSR.

We all know how that experiment turned out, so how can I possibly be suggesting that going at it again is a going to be a good thing?  The short answer is that I'm not.  I am arguing that an economy with abundance for humanity requiring very little input of labor from humanity is on the horizon, or even just finishing its arrival and is starting to settle in.  One of my great concerns is the way this could create a dictatorship masquerading as efforts to provide equally for all men like existed in communist Russia.  I'll delve into this a little more in part 3.

From an Aspiring Medical Professional

I've always been a scientist.  Some of my earliest memories are wanting to use beakers, test tubes, & microscopes in school.  My mother tells me that one of my favorite toys as a child was an old radio I was allowed to disassemble and rebuild, being fascinated at how the pieces fit together.  I've always seen science as exciting and fun.  For most of the time that I understood the concept I've seen it as a noble pursuit as well.  "The glory of God is intelligence," I was taught, and science is a rigorous pursuit of understanding.

I've learned since then about the very human nature of this endeavor.  Learned things like how Newton's preference for a 'corpuscular' or particle theory of light, rather than the wave theory which works better, probably set back the field of optics a century or two, but few wanted to propose ideas that would dare contradict the great and powerful Newton.  I've learned this about religion, philosophy, sports, families, and just about everything else humans do as well, though.  These days science may have trouble acknowledging its limitations, but it does good and improves the human condition.  And yet the ranks of those who share this view are suffering loses.

This seems mostly in the field of medicinal and health sciences.  This rarely used to bother me, but it is more and more lately.  Maybe it's because I'm getting older and the issues are closer to affecting me and involving choices I'll have to make.  Maybe it's just because things that were more fringe in the past are getting talked about more these days.  Maybe it's because part of me agrees that this field of science is a lot more blurry than the physics and mathematics I originally studied, but entering into the field I'm seeing the strength of the science.  I'd be remiss not to have mentioned these possibilities in a writing about science, rigor, and emotion, but I don't think they're the reason.  At least not the primary one.

I am an aspiring medical professional.  I'm going into radiography or clinical laboratory science, depending on which program accepts me and a few other factors.  I feel like scientific thinkers, which would include many medical professionals and certainly myself, rarely make effective arguments that would entice someone not scientifically inclined to rethink their ideas.  This is likely because anecdotes, emotional pleas, and pithy quips will not change the fundamental forces of nature and therefore aren't the first thing reached for in scientists' mental toolboxes.  So it feels odd for me to speak about my emotional and personal reactions in the context of understanding biomedical science, but it may be just what some need to hear.

There always seems to be an edge of accusation toward the medical profession by those that eschew its methods.  It's difficult for me to say this as I don't believe it's intentional, but it is the truth.  The message is that the medical profession, and therefore medical professionals, is a bumbling ignoramus unwilling to understand the simple truths that should be instinctively understood, a shadowy or scaremongering elite seeking only power and control, or an uncaring power more interested in processing patients to collect their checks than healing them.  It may be some combination of the three, but these are the primary narratives with their implications laid bare and made plain.

I believe they are all wrong, but moreover I know they are all insulting.  I think this might be why I've been more affected by those who leave the ranks of accepted science for other conceptions of fulfilling medicine.  The secret message in those actions, words, and thoughts are that I don't care about my patients.  I do care about my patients, and I don't even have any yet.  I study hard and ensure I understand the concepts of my classes because I worry about making the wrong call and endangering someone's health.  I've listened to opposing views, considered the ideas, and always been unconvinced that those methods and practices would best serve the sick or the healthy.  I want to get paid for application of the skills I'm acquiring, sure, but I did when I worked other customer service positions as well and was still driven to serve the client.  When I see someone taking medical risks I'm annoyed because so often those risks are unnecessary, and I care about them.  So, from an aspiring medical professional, please reexamine your ideas if you're forgoing modern medicine.  Please give me and my ilk the benefit of the doubt and some level of trust.  We're absolutely doing our best to deserve that much.

Sadly, The Porn Must Flow

There's been a white house petition going around lately that I've been saddened to see many friends of mine supporting.  The petition is promoting a measure similar to one that was proposed a while back in the UK, that internet service providers be required to block pornography by default.  I remember hearing this news back then and thinking of it as an oddity of British politics, and feeling thankful that we weren't foolish enough and that the American spirit had principles of liberty well enough ingrained that we wouldn't support something similar here in the US.  Sadly, it seems I'm being proven wrong.

I'm no lover of pornography.  Well, I mean, I'm a normal red-blooded heterosexual male so there's the obvious vulgar desire to check it out, but I do avoid it and would counsel anyone to do the same.  I actually block pornography on my home network using OpenDNS, which has proved to be a fantastic solution.  Make no mistake, my objection is not pro-porn, I object on the grounds that what we'll lose if we try this will be greater than any gains.

So what do we have to lose, except our pornography?  The fact that this question needs to be asked is part of what saddens me.  It bespeaks a naivete in our society that borders on, if not diving all the way into, a dangerous area.  Pornography is very hard to define.  Any reasonable person will admit that not all nudity is pornographic.  Once this is acknowledged the waters immediately muddle quite a bit.  Some might try to avoid this difficulty by saying that our efforts only need to filter out 'the worst kinds of porn' or 'extreme and hardcore pornography' but that only pushes that very hazy line back in hopes that it will reach an area where enough people feel shameful about being on the wrong side of it that they avoid being anywhere near it.

That approach doesn't help when we're talking about electronic content filtering.  Our computers, networking routers, or servers aren't like our parents that can look at us and tell when we think something might not be right and ask us in a stern voice if we're really making the correct decision right now.  The petition states as one of its concerns that, "Parents and individuals have to go to great lengths to install Internet filters that often don't weed out all porn."  I'll get to the first part (oh believe you me I'll get to it), but let's look at the worry that they "don't weed out all porn."  Short answer, that's because they can't.  Let's get into the two ways to filter pornography (or really anything, the same methods can and are used for your computer's anti-virus): blacklisting, whitelisting and heuristics.

Blacklists are a list that's been built of sites known to be pornographic that are blocked.  The obvious flaw with this is that new pornographic sites arise everyday, and there's a delay before these would be added to the blacklist.  The less obvious flaw is that it will inevitably be based on the opinions of people making decisions about whether a site is pornographic or not, and your opinion may not agree with the blacklist makers.  I'll go into this more after explaining the counterpart to the blacklist, the whitelist.

 Whitelists are the inverse of blacklists, building a list of known safe and OK sites that don't contain objectionable material and only allowing a user to visit those sites.  It should be fairly apparent that this essentially reduces the internet to barely useful, but then again in certain contexts may be a good solution.  Parents installing a whitelisting program on their home computer or network for their children, requiring them to get parental approval before visiting a site, or non-technical users that only use a relatively small amount of web applications (i.e. only visiting facebook, youtube, amazon, and one or two other web applications related to their job).  That's not what this petition is about though, and whitelisting would be far too restrictive for an ISP to ever implement for a solution to their customers.

So neither are a good solution for a government mandated ISP pornography filter as they either 'don't weed out all porn' or throw the baby out with the bathwater and cause huge gaps in service in an effort to do so.  Again, though, the issue of what porn is comes up.  One pornography filter I installed, K9 web protection, was absurdly restrictive for me and blocked sites like facebook and youtube (though admittedly I think this might have been for reasons other than porn).  I had to disable these filters while leaving the rest in place.  There is some pretty saucy content on these sites, though, and some parents might not want their kids exposed to that.  Would you want your ISP to block youtube, since after all you can see videos of girls in bikinis and lingerie or lesbians kissing (albeit that media is often behind youtube's own adult content protections) and then if you wanted to watch a youtube video be forced to tell you ISP to 'turn off their porn blocking' for you?  Are you OK with never using facebook since, after all, if an attractive woman who is 'friends' with you posts a picture of her in a bikini or otherwise scantily clad it might as well be porn?

Maybe our final method, heuristics, can help us out.  Heuristics will inspect data and websites for specific behaviors, content, or properties and then block it if they meet certain qualifications.  Heuristics can easily get false positives, a popular example being filters that scan images for exposed skin or genitals blocking medical journals for having instructional images when examining a disorder.  This leads to similar problems as before, either too much is blocked because it might be porn, or not all porn is weeded out.  Heuristics also have the problem of requiring much more processing power and access to your information.

The first concern means a huge investment in equipment for ISPs, which will effectively pass on the cost of porn filtering to customers that may not want it.  Is it really fair to force people to pay for a service they don't want?  The second means it's tricky to impossible for connections that are properly secured to be filtered. It's entirely accurate to say that for an ISP to comply with any law created from this petition they might be within their rights to say, "This traffic is encrypted and has been blocked as possible pornography," when you're accessing your bank or other financial institution's website.  Lest you consider this an extreme example of hyperbole to make my point there is precedent for this; the NSA in its data collection efforts collect all encrypted communications they come across despite the fact that they're prohibited from collecting communications from American citizens saying that encrypted communications are essentially by definition unable to be verifiable as between Americans.  If you allow the ISP to allow encrypted connections you've approved to connect normally you've short circuited the system, and disabling heuristic filtering for certain approved sites with secure, encrypted connections increases the overhead requiring even more costly processing power.

What can the government and ISPs do to block pornography, then?  Well, here's the thing, we still haven't defined what pornography is.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints actually provides what I believe is a very accurate definition in their manual True to the Faith, "Pornography is any material depicting or describing the human body or sexual conduct in a way that arouses sexual feelings."  The question here is, how do we know what arouses sexual feelings?  To some a painting such as the Venus de Milo might seem sexual, while to others it might not.  Pornography, like so much involved with sexuality, is a deeply personal thing, and as such is hard to define, let alone regulate, effectively.  Regarding pornography Justice Potter Stewart famously couldn't give a definition other than "I know it when I see it." (and, interestingly, the film referred to in the case where he said that was not, according to him, obscene).  We may know indecent content when we see it, but computers don't so any hope of creating a computer system that will block all that out for us is doomed to fail.

The Fourth Amendment in the Information Age

In my last post I mused on the nature of data and how the information about us defines who we are.  I was spurned to write this and finished off the post presenting disappoint with Verizon, my cell carrier, and their failure to protect users' privacy and respect their charge in holding data about us.  Lately Verizon has been in the news for handing over call records to the NSA, so the wound has had salt thrown in it rather than had time to heal, so to speak.  In my investigations into jumping ship from a company so cavalier about it's responsibility to protect who I am in the form my data I've had some interesting experiences.

I sent an email to Sprint asking if their company does anything to protect users' data and privacy.  Their response was,

Sprint as a company is not commenting on this report. We do not have 

any information to share, and that Sprint will not be commenting on the 

subject. 

which I found alarmingly curt and evasive.  Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting anything terribly profound or telling, I was expecting a sorta non-committal PR department generated canned response along the lines of, "Sprint is committed to protecting customers' data and ensuring their privacy, however we still must comply with any lawful U.S. Government agency request."  There's no real way to peer behind the curtain and discern why they responded with the air of, "Oh geez I don't want to talk about this please don't make me say anything why are you doing this to me?"  My speculation on the subject, which I feel such a curious response deserves, would be that either Sprint is just as uncaring when it comes to customers' data and privacy and can provide no unembarrassing response to a customer asking these type of questions, or that they are actually fearful of what might happen should they take a stand.

Both could of course be true, in fact the latter may be the cause and the former the effect.  I find the latter more interesting, though.  It's easy to dismiss concern with how a company protects (or more often fails to protect) our information as unfounded worry about "government conspiracies" (in fact, that's exactly who a T-Mobile salesperson ended up characterizing my concern when asking about it at a store location).  While the fact that most citizens probably won't be much affected is true and the majority of people (including myself with all my seditious comments coming out on this blog) aren't interesting, influential, or dangerous enough for the government to take the effort to spy on, the issue is far from unimportant for everyone save a few security advocates, legal scholars, and tech enthusiasts.

As I pointed out in my last post we're seeing the importance of the physical diminish.  The things that are important to us are increasingly in the form of data accessed in a number of different ways?  As these changes in the way we communicate, work, and create emerge so the laws which will govern these new methods of living.  And they are being changed.

"The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause."  This worked well for many years when communication took place between two people in the form of physical letters that they could keep on their property and evidence showed up as physical items that, again, could be held on someone's property. These laws are essentially being re-written as more and more of what's important to us has a digital presence.

The fourth amendment seems to grow out of the presumption of innocence.  We aren't to be observed, investigated, or seized until some degree of proof of guilt can be obtained.  This is what's being eroded by modern electronic surveillance.  It echos the complaints by so many in gaming when considering many invasive digital rights management (DRM) systems, "I'm being treated like a criminal when I haven't done anything wrong.  They're just assuming I'm going to steal things."

Privacy and the internet is always, and may always be, a thorny issue.  There's many conflicting theories, ranging from the internet being a surveillance state, to the assumption of privacy which is continually being shown to be unsupported, to complex privacy policies written by lawyers and mostly ignored by users, to understanding that privacy is only there when one takes the steps to encrypt their data and secure their connections.  The internet is increasingly how we live our lives-in both private and public contexts-and after fighting for our rights and freedoms in the physical world we need to take up the fight once more for cyberspace, whether that means holding elected officials accountable, suffering the inconvenience of using security software, or considering privacy and data security when selecting service providers.

Taxes and Taxation

I recently did my taxes and have also been reading The Federalist Papers and have been thinking a lot about taxation lately.  One thing that always strikes me at tax time is the labyrinthine extensiveness of the tax code.  I'm terrified of filing next year, trying to figure out how I'll file after getting married, having an HSA, and who knows what else is still to come.  The complexity of the tax code is always what has struck me as the most immoral thing about it.
In The Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton said, "The genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise laws." (emphasis added)  We are living a world of privacy concerns.  We watch our internet service providers eavesdrop on their customers at the behest of the entertainment industry or for advertising profit, the web services we use constantly collect that details of how we're using them, we keep devices in our pockets which may upload our exact location throughout our day, and we're told to be careful about grocery store discount cards as they can easily lead our eating habits getting sold to an insurance company to raise our rates.  In this world of shrinking privacy our government should be working to protect what we have left, but instead we see it complacent and then at tax time bold faced enough to ask and expect us to answer a slew of questions about our investments, medical bills, work location, housing, and 'anything else you might have missed.'

An uncle of mine that prepares taxes has said that he would be unable to do so without the aid of computers.  The fact that we have created such a situation is ludicrous. I have more than one uncle who makes pretty decent money preparing people's taxes, so let me make one thing very clear: I don't think there's inherent corruption in the tax preparation industry.  There's competition, people concern themselves with following the law, and try to be honest.  That said, I don't think it should exist.  The fact that the layman cannot pay those who govern him without going through an entity that's insinuated itself through great deal of study and hard work is unnerving.  I don't want a people that separated from their government, especially regarding something affects them so directly.  This can only be done through an exceedingly simple tax code, far from what we have now where only one who devotes his life to understanding the tax code or is wealthy enough to hire someone who does will get the benefits of it.

This country was founded on many things, but one of them was "no taxation without representation."  We believed so strongly that we deserved a say in how and why governments take money from us that we fought for that right.  Has the American spirit dwindled to a point where we accept taxes as an inevitability, overseen by some arcane power that we can only glimpse through the eyes of a few initiated elite among us?

What Makes a Great Debate?

The first presidential debate happened last night.  I've recently uncomfortably found myself to be a political junkie and have been catching up on it, reading the news about it, and in general enjoying the excitement.  There is one thing I'm noticing during all the hubbub; the current debate format isn't good.

I read one analysis that said the debate seemed undisciplined, and seemed to bemoan with Mr. Lehrer the loss of the final section for discussion.  This doesn't really bother me.  Perhaps it's because the nebulous sounding topic "governance" seems a little less interesting than the rest of the debate topics, but I feel it's because the discussion seemed fruitful and intelligent.  Cutting off the speakers to cram in some extra talking points would have diminished what the audience was able to glean.  The article I read also said the debate was too specific, with things like Simpson-Bowles plans and Dodd-Frank bills, but I disagree.  This disagreement actually has a very fundamental basis.

Politics often seems watered down to triviality these days.  Our "sound-byte society," short attention spans, and internet meme making abstracts out deeper understanding of complex issues, and issues like the role of government, economics, and law are deeply complex.  I'm glad the candidates got plenty of time to go back and forth in explaining their ideas, getting into details and nuances that usually get lost in "let's move on to the next topic."

The Lincoln-Douglas debates were three hours a piece, each candidate getting a total of 90 minutes (split into 60 and 30 minute periods for whoever went first).  Now, candidates typically have 2 minutes going back and forth until the moderator wants to move on to the next topic.  You can say a lot in two minutes, but I don't think you should have to.  There are many things which require some time to explain the nuance (and I've now used the word twice within as many paragraphs, but I just find it so appropriate that I'm OK with this generally inadvisable writing practice).

Perhaps I'm informed by a scientific background, how many scientific theories would have ever gotten off the ground if some theoretical Einstein Bohr debates had only allowed the scientists to speak for a few minutes at a time? None of the important mathematical formulations could have been presented, the evidence and experimental methods of testing would be reduced to barely challengeable data tossed into the fray, and ultimately the question of how our world works would be answered not by who had the most complete and consistent ideas but who was more pithy and charismatic.  I worry that's what's happening in how a great and powerful nation is being led.