Informationalism and Privacy

One might ask, and one would not be foolish for doing so: How can the privacy of the individual be protected under Informationalism? If we value the pursuit of information above all else, how can one not allow other individuals to know the most intimate part of their lives?

This question cuts to the heart of the very nature of information. First, I will present an ideal. This is an ideal not in the sense that it is what informationalists strive for, but a fictitious creation of a society. In this ideal world all known information flows instantly from individual to individual. There is no delay beyond that of the currently accepted speed of light. In reference to the earth, it is possible to immediately know all that is know by every other fellow human being almost instantly. If this were the case, there would essentially be no individual. Thought would be the collective thought of the entire human society. In this world the nouns which we use to identify ourselves would be greatly depreciated in meaning. Is this society possible? And if it is, is it what an Informationalist would want?

Such a society is, of course, not possible with our current technological circumstances. But, if it were, would Informationalism dictate that the privacy of the individual must be eliminated?

My theory is to the contrary:

As stated earlier, the philosophy of informationalism is dedicated to the pursuit of information. The pursuit of information is a simple fact of volition and the will to power, but the choice to be an informationalist is not. It is possible to interject here the value of feeding data into as many individuals as possible.

Let us turn to the process of evolution for an example. If a species is present everywhere, such as humanity is today, it becomes difficult for variation to take place. If no community is isolated, then the processes of evolution become dubious. It is good, in the natural world, for some species to undergo isolation, as this gives birth to the different structures within the genetic code that allow for specific advantages. When suddenly combined with close cousins in cooperation, one can expect to see a burst in variation activity.

Likewise, the privacy of the individual thought could be treated this way. It is my theory that allowing the individual privacy of personal information can lead to unique points of view that might be stagnated if it is subjected to the pressing power of the whole. Intellectual variation might be destroyed if we lived in the presupposed ideal society.

But, where do we draw the line? What is private and what is public information? Where is the boundary between the private information that cultivates the individual, and the public information which betters all of humanity?

I suggest that the individual must be protected in their ideas and their identity. No one should be allowed to steal the idea or identity of another human being. A follower of informationalism seeks the information, but it cannot be forced, it must be given freely. So the informationalists themselves will respect the ideas and identities of fellow informationalists, and since their paradigm goals are the same the social harmony should suffer minimal disruption.

What about information from people who chose not to follow the philosophy of informationalism?

As has been stated before, informationalism is a choice. One cannot be forced to be an informationalist. However, in the instance that a non informationalist possesses information that is paramount to an issue such as the survival of the human community as a whole, regardless of my opinion, humans will do as nature dictates.