China has blatantly declared that all activities that are under the umbrella of ‘cryptocurrency’ are illegal, which in turn converges the power and attention to the centralized government as the primary agent once again. This news sparked up propaganda which created a schism where one end of the spectrum argues that if we adopt a technological lens to view the matter, we would see the convergence back to the centralized government as a good thing. Crypto currency is rudimentarily based in technology with any and all activities being performed on a screen via a technological device. That said, physical interactions in dealing with this facet in specific, is non existent. Hence, with the eradication of crypto in China, the use of technology as a means to check and engage with financial matters will drastically decrease. Now veering our attention to the other end of the spectrum, some would argue that the power skewed back to the centralized government is just as bad, if not worse, than crypto because we would be giving up our autonomy and putting it back into the hands of the system. Alas, technology and the stripping of autonomy are not mutually exclusive, in fact, some go so far as to say they are terms that are used interchangeably in this day and age. This issue leaves many people saddling on the fence which calls for a dire need to discuss and converse on the issue in hopes of fleeing from the grey area and finding some steady ground. So what are your thoughts on the matter and whether, using a technological lens of course, we are better or worse off with a centralized bank versus crypto.

Knowledge is a peculiar thing. If you ruminate on the knowledge you currently identify with and ultimately adopt, hence is lurking in your long term memory, you’ll find that it is cultivated by past cultures and historic notions of what the capital T truth is. Knowledge is formed by the unwelcome aid of narrow biases, that some can even argue are archaic since the universe is rapidly changing. With that being said, scientists cannot leave their biases at the door, and even if they can, what about the biases they are unaware of? We need to earnestly be aware of all the knowledge we garner, and somewhat take it all with a grain of salt. Because again, like knowledge, perception is culminated by preconceived notions that we have been conditioned to think through via our cultural, social, and historical template of deriving meaning from experience. The fact of the matter is that knowledge is somewhat fleeting and there is dynamic/rapid change in our universe which in turn dubs the solid, ingrained information that we once thought was capital T true, to being debunked if not by the minute, by the second. This will continue to happen throughout the timeline of the universe since there will always be a new theory to why X is that particular way and not another, for instance. Ultimately, I’m not saying that all you know is wrong and should be elbowed out in the poppycock section of the brain, but alas, one must realize that biases pervade and culturally and historically constructed ideologies and what is deemed as being Capital T true, could very well not be the most optimum or virtuous answer. Then again, what really is the truth in this era of advanced modern technology where people are contradicting themselves left and right whilst dabbling in “convenient” facets that they are in no way shape or form qualified to partake in. Advanced technology, as a byproduct, mass communication has unfortunately opened the doors for people that have no sort of solid enlightenment about a topic, to blatantly rejeugate their so called two cents on an issue. Case in point, empty veins beat the loudest. Time will tell that more often than not, the wrong people have the mic, so called “Enlightening” us and bestowing their knowledge upon our ignorance. The limelight views mass communication as a step towards interconnectivity and development and in turn shoots us forward, when in reality, we’ve never been further behind.