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

[Russell Senior]

>>>>> "gepr" == gepr  <gepr at tempusdictum.com> writes:

Russell> My point is that there isn't an obvious outward sign to
Russell> indicate that one person is a better shot (or tactically
Russell> superior in some other way) than you.  Therefore, "display
Russell> behavior" is unlikely to suffice to avoid actual combat as it
Russell> often is in animals.  They may simply retreat to behind a
Russell> tree and shoot you from there.

gepr> I think it will.  It's just that the properties of the
gepr> particular animal change with the various behaviors under
gepr> consideration.

gepr> [...] 

gepr> These things work.  And the same would be true of gun-bearing
gepr> people.  _If_ bearing a gun gives a person more confidence,
gepr> then, that alone, as display behavior, might prevent the person
gepr> from being mugged or attacked.... just like when a cat arches
gepr> it's back and sticks out it's fur.

Confidence might thwart attack.  Maybe gun-toters and society would be
better served by counseling than packing heat.

I'll address this in more detail below, but "thwarting attack" comes a
step too late.  It assumes a motivated attacker.  I think society
can/should reduce the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Russell> Who wins in a gun battle (amongst civilians, anyway) is
Russell> fairly random and isn't likely correlated with "goodness".

gepr> Do you have evidence for the hypothesis that civilian gunfight
gepr> results are fairly random?

No I don't, it is the null hypothesis.  Maybe there is some evidence
that "good" people are better killers than "bad" people, but I don't
have any direct knowledge of it.  ;-)

Russell> And again, my postulation is that the non-gun-toters are more
Russell> likely to survive because they don't threaten anyone and thus
Russell> are not compelling targets.

gepr> It depends alot on the purpose of the people involved.  I've
gepr> been in and around enough bar fights to know that people who
gepr> were just sitting there enjoying their beer were brought into
gepr> the fight arbitrarily.

My suggestion is only that the probability of injury or death is
greater for the principal antagonists than for bystanders, not that
the probability for the latter is zero.

When I used to fence competitively (many years ago), *the* most
important thing was managing distance.  When the opponent is out of
range, whatever they try, it isn't going to be effective.  The
analogous thing here is to be aware of what is going on around you and
to withdraw when danger emerges.

gepr> And I've known several people who regularly get accused of
gepr> smirking and people start fights with them for no reason.  So,
gepr> again, your postulate might be reasonable; but, there's plenty
gepr> of reason not to believe it off the bat.

Er, not "no reason", but rather because their apparent smirking
incites someone.

I think it is better to say: "there may be other factors that make it
not so in particular circumstances".  I find it a plausible
generality.

gepr> [re: universal declaration ...] Why?  Because equilibrium means
gepr> _death_ to a biological system.  So, if we achieve it, then
gepr> society (if not the whole biosphere) will collapse.

Russell> Isn't the assumption that violence-mediated access to scarce
Russell> resources is immutable a kind of equilibrium?

gepr> No.  Violence is an interaction. [...]

I don't see how that follows from my question.  You say "equilibrium
means death".  Not precisely sure what that means, I wonder if
sticking with the tried-and-true violence-mediation isn't a kind of
"equilibrium" that brings the same or similar death.

Basically, I postulate, given the obvious negative features of
violence-mediated access to scarce resources, that there exists a more
optimal method of mediating that access.  I don't know for sure what
it is, but I am interested in thinking about what it might be.

In our society, we have limited the violence.  I can go into a grocery
store and walk out carrying food supplies with hardly any scratches.
This is accomplished because we have a society with, for the most
part, currency-mediated access to scarce resources, and not a bear-pit
that I have to hack and slash my way through.  It breaks down a little
when not everyone has access to: a) enough currency; or perhaps b) has
some pathology that causes them to expend the currency they do have in
a different way.  These bugs can be patched up by ensuring people _do_
have enough currency and in the case of (b) that someone helps to
resolve the pathology.  This seems to work pretty well when employed.
The alternative is to "not care" and then to fight them when they do
what they have to do to survive.  I estimate the former is cheaper in
the long run.

It seems like some of the wealthy think they can get away without (or
with much less) wealth sharing, disregarding (or assuming it won't
affect them significantly) what people will do when the inevitable
scramble subsequently occurs.

I think that sharing wealth reduces conflict, reduces violence,
increases prosperity and health overall, thus reduces population
pressure and thus reduces the scarcity of resources which itself
reduces conflict.

Seems like a big win for the system as a whole.


-- 
Russell Senior         ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr at aracnet.com