[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:
 > > Jeme A Brelin writes:
 > >  > ...(and I'm not arguing on any level that we are not biological,
 > >  > silly)...
 > > [...]
 > >  > We should be able to devise ways to distribute resources as they are
 > >  > needed.  We're quite ingenious little animals.
 > > [...]
 > >  > Homogenization isn't a real threat.  People will always vary almost
 > >  > arbitrarily.  We just need to let the individuals decide what their
 > >  > own needs are and just use society as a means for channelling desire
 > >  > into constructive paths.
 > 
 > > Can't you see how these 3 quotes conflict?
 > 
 > Nope.  And I already read your explanation.

That's a shame, because they _do_ conflict.

 > > As you say, "we're ingenious little animals."
 > 
 > Yup.  I think we can figure out some great ways of making fewer resources
 > meet more needs.

And we can think up plenty of ways of taking from the needy and giving
to the wealthy.... and the wealthier one is, the more time she has to
spend time thinking up these techniques for wealth redistribution,
which makes it positive feedback.  So, any attempts to avoid this will
fail.

 > You will need arbitrary and continually evolving ways of distributing
 > resources as they are needed.  You hit that one right on the money.
 > That's one of the reasons why a hierarchical (or maybe any formalized)
 > structure cannot meet the needs of the people.  It's too rigid.  It
 > becomes self-preserving and cannot meet varying needs over time.

So, what is the cost of this overhead?  What percentage of the people
will be consumed by overhead functions like adapting obsolete
redistribution strategies to new conditions?

Who will be left to do productive things like ... exploit the land
for food?

 > > And what about this definition of "need"?  Even if you could define it
 > > so that we can agree upon it _now_, will that definition be the same
 > > later?
 > 
 > We don't have to all agree on it.  We just have to respect it.

Yes, we do have to agree on it, because if we don't, we will always
be trying to fight it.  To respect a definition or a baseline is 
not the same as allowing it to persist.  We can respect it and 
continually change it, which will lead to regions where it differs,
which will lead to some regions having more than others and fighting
amongst each other for the globally finite resources.

 > > No, this argument you're making is way too full of holes!  I really do
 > > like the moral and ethical conclusions you're trying to bring us too;
 > > but, your rhetoric is terrible!  Come on, you can do better than that.
 > 
 > Your assumptions are just all wrong.  Maybe I'm presuming too much of my
 > reader.  I get this alot, actually.  I have to go back and explain things
 > that I didn't mention the first time around because they seemed too
 > elementary and I didn't want to seem patronizing.

Dude.  Please patronize me!  I'm open to being educated.  From what
I've seen so far, your argument is extremely weak.  If it's because
_my_ assumptions are wrong, tell me which ones are wrong and why.

[grin] You seem to have plenty of energy and time for emails about
this subject (which, in my book, means you have waaay more resources
than you need).  So, take some of that time and educate me.

 > I think you misunderstood again.  I wasn't using those "fancy-pants
 > concepts" to prove any kind of a point, I was just enumerating a few of
 > the enabling technologies of our Enlightenment.

No, I understood.  But, you could make your case (nobody is talking
about proof, which is impossible in this context... just rhetoric)
more simple for us uneducated people if you'd stick to things that
have less ambiguous definitions.

I was simply trying to help you make your rhetoric easier for people
like me to understand, therefore, making it easier for you to make 
your case... and making it more likely that your effort is not wasted.

 > > But, I am saying that the _only_ successful scientific hypothesis for
 > > _the_ algorithm that got us this far is evolution, which is based almost
 > > solely on "selection against" (not "selection for", though its often
 > > convenient to consider that dual).
 > 
 > We don't need a system to get us this far, we need a system to get us
 > someplace else.  There is no observable precedent for the future of
 > humanity.

Yes, there is.  We are biological.  Biology has some general "laws"
by which it behaves.  Our future is, in some ways, dependent on our
past.  The future starts with the initial conditions of _now_.  So
our biological (and sociological, psychological, etc) history sets 
a precedent for our future.

And by asking what I was asking, I was not suggesting we _need_ a
system to get us this far.  [grin] I was suggesting that we examine
what a successful algorithm that could result in (what you regard as
successful) things like "the Enlightenment".  Since we know that it
has worked, it is at the very least a good thing to study.

 > > So, I ask you, if evolution got us this far, what type of sales pitch do
 > > you have in your hip pocket that will convince us that there's a better
 > > algorithm out there?
 > 
 > Careful with the words, there.  I'm not arguing against evolution.

You seem to be saying that _you_ have a plan for humanity that is
_better_ than what currently exists.  What currently exists is the
result of evolution.  If you think you have a better algorithm, then
let's _hear_ it!!!  By all means.

 > But to answer your question, I'd say that the processes of fighting and
 > killing have ceased to provide us with progress since the time when our
 > ideals (and progress just means progress toward the ideal) came to include
 > the concepts of compassion, empathy and tolerance.  The old processes run
 > counter to the new ideals and so new processes must be developed.

Why would you say this?  Is it solely because the world, as it is, is
not to your liking?  (which is quite strange to me... when I go sit on
the sidewalk at a cafe', hike through the forest, or have a
conversation with my fellow man, I ultimately enjoy myself and think
"What a very cool world this is!")

You seem to have some problem with the way things _are_.  I suppose
that's ok.  But, you're arrogant enough to suggest that you (or you
and some small collection of people like you) can come up with a
better plan than the one (or many) that's already at work and has a
long history of success!

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