Internet influences legal paradigm shift

The following will analyze Ray Kurzweil's explanation of the law of accelerating returns, and how it pertains the paradigm shift in the modern legal process. Kurzweil's piece (http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1) deals with evolutionary biology. However, "With the advent of a technology-creating species, the exponential pace became too fast for evolution through DNA-guided protein synthesis and moved on to human-created technology." So, when the pace of an old paradigm becomes too slow to drive the survival-needs of the biological or social organism, a new system emerges to take its place.

The law of accelerating uses exponential growth to model the progress of biological and technological evolution - not only are we progressing faster and faster, but the rate at which we are progressing faster is progressing even faster. The rate of technological advancement comes into direct conflict with biological advancement then, in my mind. Where our species had to suddenly rely on its own fabrications to overcome its own biological restrictions, there is a major reconciliation that must be addressed. And we see it today, as humanity begins to recognize that technological acheivement does not always mesh well with a sustainable environment.

But that is a conversation for another time. I'm infinitely more interested in how technological evolution meshes with social evolution. The evolution of governments, social order, and with the technological advancement of literacy - laws has had a significant impact on social order. The law tells us our place in a society, and the history of the law tells us how to act properly in a society. Laws help most of us to feel comfortable, they give most of us a pillar of stability to look toward for guidance and justice. Legal systems, in general, have this reputation.

According to Kurzweil, the rate of technological evolution is such that we will experience a what would be a century of technological growth within the next 25 years. Drawing on a Mcluhanist idea, indeed an almost common sense maxim, technology has drastic ramifications on social order. The printing press ushered in a era of massive literacy, and was instrumental in breaking the strangle-hold of the catholic church in European government, for example. If within the next 25 years, the world were to experience technological breakthroughs that equaled a century's woth of achievement, then within the next century the world will see technological achievements on an monumental scale - this could be extrapolated to also mean rapid, drastic social change on an unprecedented rate and scale. So, how does a conservative institution such as law handle this potential situation? How can a highly bureacratic, traditional monument to order handle rapid changes in the movement of ideas, commerce, social stratification, etc.?

As the system currently operates, at least the American legal system (which I'm most familiar with), by the time decisions are considered for review, they will be obsolete socially. This is happening even as we speak. The years it takes to set up cases and arguments, the time it takes to hear them, and the time it takes for appeals and re-decision render these issues moot by the time they meet any substantial legal end. The approaching paradigm shift will see methods of restructuring the lega system to take on cases and issues with greater speed and accuracy, but also will usher in a revolution in human cognitive growth.

Societies and their constituent members must begin to evolve to not rely on central authorities and physical boundaries as safegards - whether they provide real protection or perceived protection. The rapid change of pace due to, say, the internet, will only increase as new methods or transmitting data (i.e. information) become available, and as more and more people gain access to those terminals. The resulting system relies on the countless voices informing its processes and substance, and the system loses its physical boundaries. The evolution of this legal system pushes it to recognize all voices, otherwise it faces extreme inefficiency and invokes rage and disorder.

The legal system cannot define the future landscape of social and global relationships based on its traditional ways of conduct. It can try to redefine old legal concepts to conform with growing virtual spaces, but to do so will result in either failure, or in hindering the capabilities of emerging technologies. The intertia of evolution will break those constraints, however, and the revolution may become bloodied. Instead of looking to the past for predictability, the legal system needs to look forward to the massive cloud looming. Traditional legal institutions may stand in a few decades, but their power will certainly be diminished. Physical boundaries, political boundaries, and even social boundaries are being erased, redefined and reorganized via virtual space.