[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Mad SCO Disease

[gepr at tempusdictum.com]

Jeme A Brelin writes:
 > 
 > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 gepr at tempusdictum.com wrote:
 > > There's an old philosophical argument against Utopianism.  If everyone
 > > were well behaved, that leaves the door wide open to the innovative
 > > bad-behavor to come in and exploit her fellow man.
 > 
 > That "old philosophical argument" is based on exactly the ideas that keep
 > us living in fear and violence.

No, actually.  It's based on a hypothesis by a guy named Thomas 
Malthus.  That hypothesis has to do with the concept of a finite
set of resources and a (theoretically) infinitely extensible 
set of consumers.  The point is that as long as the resources 
are finite and each consumer needs more than an infinitely small
amount of those resources, then the system cannot support an 
infinite # of consumers.

So, there must be some limit.

Up to now, that limit has been evolutionary selection (a.k.a. death).

When/if we come up with reasonable mechanisms for population control,
then you have an argument.  (or, I should say, you change the argument
from the malthusian resources to _which_ method for population control...
guns and inter-individual selection is just as effective as anything
you might propose).

 > The goal is to create a world in which it is not necessary to attempt to
 > exploit others;

[ahem]  "The" goal?  Does that mean "God's goal", "Jeme's goal", 
or what?

 > where people are given enough support and proper nurturing
 > to respect others so that we minimize the number of people willing to go
 > along with an exploitation scheme and proper education so that they
 > recognize exploitation easily and early and bring the situation back into
 > harmony.

Exploitation cannot be avoided.  There's a rather abstract
cosomological theory that all potentialities will be explored.
I.e. if something is possible, the universe will find a way to make it
happen.  (Yes, monkeys might fly up my butt.... If we believe Wheeler,
it's happening _right_now_ in a parallel universe.)

_That_ is the cause for the phenomenon we call exploitation.  When
I drink a glass of water, I'm exploiting my environment to suit my 
own systemic needs.

You're not going to legislate exploitation out of existence.

 > > So, NO!!!  This world is NOT short of Utopian just because of people
 > > like Rob who prefer fear and violence.
 > 
 > Utopia is, of course, an unatainable state, being ideal and all.  But, as
 > with any ideal, we can continue to progress toward it until we are
 > arbitrarily close.  The differences between the real and the ideal are our
 > motivation and our tolerance for them will decrease as the differences
 > decrease.
 > 
 > In a century, we should be talking about crime statistics in terms of
 > thousands per decade rather than per year and it will seem gross and
 > unacceptable.

It's good to be optimistic.  I agree.  And I'm not very violent.
But, I understand that violence is the norm across the planet and the
solar system and the galaxy.  So, I'm just a creature of my upbringing.

Just because you've been lucky and have never seen a black swan does
NOT mean that black swans don't exist... or even that they're not very
common.  Don't make this logical error.

 > > The world is not Utopian because people are self-interested and will
 > > exploit other people within the limits of their capabilities.
 > 
 > I think we're smart enough to recognize that our self-interests are best
 > served by mutual aid and global consciousness.

Can you demonstrate to me, like, now, that it is in my best interests 
to aid the people around me?

Of course not.  You can argue it all you want.  And you can appeal 
to those little _concepts_ in my mind (like religion or morals) that
make me _want_ to agree with you.

But, you can't demonstrate it.  In fact, I think it's far easier to 
demonstrate that one can get ahead by ruthlessly exploiting those 
around her.

 > > So, if we were all peace-lovers and there was never any threat of
 > > retaliation, then some arrogant do-badders would ... well... do bad.
 > 
 > Like threatening (or killing) other people with guns for not acting in the
 > way the gun-wielders see as appropriate?

As I said in another post, it's not actually using the gun that 
discourages bad behavior.  It's _carrying_ the gun.  It's setting
expectations in others' minds.  _That's_ the point.

Animals know this instinctively.  E.g. that's why cats turn sideways
and fluff up their fur when they get mad.

 > We don't become less bad by doing more bad.  But it seems that maybe
 > you're arguing that we shouldn't try to be less bad because that will only
 > open the door to badness.  It's rather contradictory to me.

You're simply not paying attention.

 > Have you read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?  We have
 > recognized this need for survival of each and every individual.  We
 > recognize that it's not something for which you should have to FIGHT.
 > 
 > The forces you describe are certainly the ones driving instinctual action,
 > but we, perhaps uniquely on this planet, have intellect that can override
 > our instincts.  And the forces that drive our intellectual actions can be,
 > quite literally, anything we imagine.

Ack!  Nothing frightens me _more_ than a "Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights".  I will fight tooth and nail to keep such a monstrosity
from coming into existence.

If you intended to invoke fear in me, you've succeeded.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com