It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

clark · 2002-10-07 15:44:03

I found this at http://everything2.com/?node_id=1370178 , and I thought that this was a wonderful way to look at the human condition.

FROM WEBSITE
When I was twelve years old I had the unique privelege of taking a specialized college science course, which was geared for children of my age but covered many of the scientific topics
that twenty-something college students learn.

One day, about three weeks into the course, I walked into the lab and saw that the professor had set out several vats of different-colored liquids, gases and pyrex boxes containing
elemental solids. Nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, mercury... a few other elements that the human body is composed of, all in proportion to how much of each element could be found in
the average adult human body. Each container had a sticker on it, the price tag, as dictated by the supplier from whence these elements were bought. At the far end of the table upon which
all of this stuff sat was a folded card, like a tiny tent of paper, and on that piece of folded paper, standing up like a marquee, was the sum total of each price. It read:

"The cost of human life, in raw materials: $83.72"

We sat down, mentally chewing that rather difficult modicum of fact, and most eyes stayed fixed in rapt awe on that little card, which seemed to unravel the mystery we had all considered
at one time or another. The professor, I don't recall his name now, came into the lab and silently surveyed the room and our curious gazes at this perplexing display. Finally, he picked up the
card, showed it to us and said:

"This is what the human body is worth, if you were to go out to the store and purchase the materials necessary to build one. But there's more to it than that, isn't there? You can't just take
these things, mix them up in a bowl, slap them in the oven and, nine months later, wind up with a human being. It takes much more than that. These items must be arranged in a certain way,
at the molecular and cellular level, and manipulated to a degree that it would boggle the mind. Genetics, cellular mitosis, osmisis, molecular replication... these are some of the processes by
which a human body develops." He waved to the elements behind him. "All these things are inert, by themselves, but something is added to make them dynamic and singular. Kids, I'm going
to tell you this once and once only: the human body is cheap, dirt cheap in the grand scheme of things, but the quality that gives a human body life is something neither science nor money
can ever measure. You're here to learn how science works and how it can be applied to learning how things work, but it can only work up to a certain point. At that point, we must stop
and wait for science to catch up. The saying that life is precious is true only in that the human experience which validates that life is invaluable. We cannot put a price on experience. You
can pay for some experiences, but that is only a fiction of economics. Life is more than just your body and mind. And science cannot even begin to comprehend where life begins and
where it ends. That task is best left for the philosophers and dreamers. If you came here looking for answers to life, then you're paying a significantly steep price for answers that will get
you nowhere. Or, at least, your parents are."

I was twelve and I was copying what he'd said like a mad man, word for word. I kept it and stuffed it in a box, only to discover it years later, when I was in my mid-twenties and living in
Winston-Salem.

Life is not worthless, nor is human life. The human body, though, is cheaper than a TV set.

clark · 2002-10-08 09:23:31

The Redundancy of Morality

One of the principle reasons our rational systems have failed to live up to their original intention of creating a just world is because a mere abstract system of rationality is incapable of embodying morality. Morality is not rational; a rational system is therefor inherently amoral. Thus, reason did not lead to the utopia envisaged by the Enlightenment thinkers:

"Inadvertently, they rendered morality nonessential to their new society. Or rather, they rendered it optional." (p. 72) -John Saul

The failure of enlightenment resulted from the means it employed to justify it's ideals. A philosphy predicated on rational thought to produce legitimate guideliness for morality, which is nothing more than an arbitray system of values agreed upon as acceptable resulting from the cultural conditions of the time, is unsound. This is evidenced by rational thinkers, such as Machivelli, who provided an amoral guidebook for despots and kings alike.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-08 14:28:17

Heheh, that first story is good. Sort of hits you when you first realize these things. When it first came to my attention that mass is indestructible (normally), and energy can never be created, I had a total epiphany; I've never been the same since.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-08 14:32:10

Oh, I was talking to my friend awhile ago, and said, ?One of these days, we're going to cure mortality.? My friend replied, ?Ahh, but will we ever cure morality??

clark · 2002-10-08 15:10:43

I might postualte that from our current perspective, in regards to morality, the cure to mortality would do more to undermine ethical standards than anything since.

As our ability to fix, repair, and prevent damage to the human body increases, it neccessarily reduces the value of the body by making it infinitly replacable. A personal assult that robs someone of sight is considered a henious crime, the attitude towards permanent blindness as a result of weapons has resulted in intitives that look to ban the use of those weapons- would such feelings exsist towards the wepons if the sight was restorable?

Chemical weapons that sear the lungs and skin are outlawed by civilized socities, yet would such feelings exsist in earnest if the damage could be undone?

While I for one look forward to a day when mortality can be cured like any other malady, I do believe that it may have consquences upon us that we may not fully appreciate.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-10 03:22:41

Well, the only consequence I personally fear of curing mortality, is that we would have further control over people. And those with ?devient? behavior would be ?fixed.?

Since the conditions in such a society would probably be amazing, the only crimes would be committed ?by the mentally ill.? (Most crimes now are commited due to social and environmental problems, poverty, poor education, violence, etc... not exactly chemical imbalances.)

So it's possible that we could have a utopia, with those in power framing people they don't like, having their minds wiped, or getting them put into prisons of some sort. I guess that prospect isn't really utopian.

clark · 2002-10-10 07:03:19

So here is a question to ponder, related to some of your other views about interdependancy and what not.

Consider that mortality is cured, or at least, a product exsists which can delay or stop decay. I would assume that this product would be sold, would it not? I would also imagine that it's worth would far exceed the price of anything- it is human life. It is the continuation of self- a definition of human neccessity (of course it could be considered a luxary, but would you consider medicine that makes you better a luxary?).

Wouldn't the creation of a product, which may be difficult to produce, that extends life, and would have appeal to all people, force dependancy?

Think of *life* as a terminal illness- we die slowly everyday. Now there is a cure... if the cure was something you had to continually take for the rest of your life, wouldn't that be dependancy in perpetutity?

Capitalism works, and specialization works, in my mind, becuase the deal is I don't have to learn everything, or do everything for myself in order to survive- but I have to do SOMETHING in order to get the things I need to survive. This works out becuase not everyone can do the same things equally well, and not everyone want to do everything anyways. I agree, self suffiency is better in terms of personal survival- but it is also remarkablyt ineffecient.

What works faster, a computer working on one problem, or a computer working on thirty problems at once? (please, no quantum computers )

Don't know where I am going with this, just thinking out loud.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-10 07:58:05

These ?Free Chat? threads are good for thinking out loud.

I suspect a treatment would be sold, initally. But I think chaos would ensue once knowledge of it was fully known. When I said that such a society would ?probably be amazing,? I meant after the treatment became widely distributed.

I think you agree that there may be hell on Earth, in all of civilization for that matter, if such a treatment were found. I can totally see selling it, especially initally when the technology is rare. Even keeping it from third world countries, and so on. Nations could even use it to black-mail one another. The possiblities are endless for such an amazing and valuable discovery.

People are going to be very annoyed if the technology isn't available to everyone, everywhere, for a very small price. I suspect we'd have some viva la revolutions.

I think KSR had it right, myself. He suggested that it would become law that everyone on Earth have the longevity treatment available. As long as they use some birth control, of course. And it's very logical, and fair; birth control in exchange for a longevity treatment.

Now, I don't deny that people would be dependent on this treatment. But I've never said that people wouldn't be dependent on technology in space, either. I just stress that such dependency ought to be (and arguably has to be) decentralized to a point where we'd have small collectives of interdependent people, at the most. At least that's how I feel about it; the big happy family model. One must remember, that we're dependent on one another whether we like it or not. I too realize this. I just think our forms of association can and ought to be much freer.

This is how I see how society ought to be (free association): People ought to live in collectives, and share things which they aren't using at any given time. Like a longevity machine. If I'm not using it, I don't need it, so someone else can use it. If I don't have the energy to spare, they will have to use their own.

This is how others here (not necessarily you, mind you), see it: People should live any way they like. And do anything they want with their property. Like a longevity machine. If they're not using it, they'll make people pay to use it, because it's the logical and God-sent way to do things, and no other form of society can work. They certainly have the energy to spare, they just make you pay more than the energy is worth, so that they can ?profit,? and buy more longevity machines.

All that silly stuff said, I don't think we should necessarily do away with specialization completely. I don't even think we can. But we can certainly saturate society with lots of resources so that true specialization is only required for unique tasks. Most tasks would be as easy as brushing your teeth, you're not going to be doing boolean math in your head. Someone will, someone who likes that sort of stuff (me maybe), but not everyone. Most people will be relaxing or having sex or something. Taking longevity treatments perhaps. Heh.

clark · 2002-10-10 09:14:22

Yeah, i see longevity treatments as a double edge sword- once the issue of over population can be resolved, I think it will actually do us humans some good.

Think what our perspective might be like if we were here to live with our decisions 200 years from now. The loss of a single life is the loss of hundreds of years of opportunity and experience. Of course there is alwyas the possibility of stagnation among the intellectual and politcal eltite since kings could now rule forever (no need for a dynasty, you're it) and I can just imagine the intellectual intimidation of having to face up against Einsteins theories if he was still alive today.

It seems you are suggesting localized communism- please bear with my description - where small groups of people- with enough skill sets to support themselves, take care of each other. After all, that is what a Family is or a Nation- a group of people with enough skills to take care of each other. I see the possibility for reducing the minimum size for a functional group in space, yet there will always be a limit to what they can actually achieve (barring us each becoming gods ). Eventualy the neccessity of bindign together in larger groups- with multiple communes- will occur- maybe for terraformation, or some other grand project- maybe war or disease. The system we have here will occur there- the history of humanity is one of ever increasing hiearchy structures and division of labor. the reason- becuse we are competing with each other for the finitie resources that exsist.

Now, maybe technology will get rid of the "finite" resources- it tends to at least make them go farther. But the fundamental problem I see is that there will always be *some* finite resource that will be neccessary (which is why I asked about the longevity)- which wil lead to either wars over control for the resources, or some manner of distributing to all the resources- our current resource distribution system is based on bartering- the other forms I am aware of include we share the resources equally for all (yet how we do that justly is almost impossible), or we let the strongest take it.

No system is fair- bartering favors those with more. Sharing could be fair, but in application is never is. And the strong man contest- well, anarchy.

Say you have a longetivity machine, I borrow it and it breaks. I haven't the means to provide you a new one, what then? If the machine only works three times, should you be required to let others use it when you have already used it once?

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-12 07:07:16

Hmm, while I agree somewhat with your assertion that ever increasing hierarchal structures have something to do with resources, I think this resource limitation is largely illusionary, and exists to make sure class is in place. It's all about power. For all of society to be equal, some people are going to have to pass up their power. Even though those in power are a minority, it's still impossible to get rid of them, since those not in power, seek it so.

But speaking of resources... I read something very intriguing recently about Henry Ford. Apparently, Mr. Ford wanted to have cars made of plastic, which ran off of alcohol, but the steel and oil industry didn't want anything to do with that, and managed to make this dream unrealizable. When I read this, I was utterly flabergasted (in the ?wow, what if things happened differently?? sort of way, not the ?I didn't see that coming? way).

Mr. Ford had concived of a way to turn soy into plastic, and corn into fuel! Renewable fuckin' energy, and high tech, lightweight vehicles!

:0

I think you've outlined it pretty well. But I think you overestimate how big the smallest collectives have to be. One person could theoretically survive alone in space, with the proper technology. I can see people living this way, but I suspect people would opt for a cultural lifestyle, rather than one void of human contact. What we'd have is independent or semi-interdependent collectives of people sharing resources, if not physical, social and psychological.

Calling it communism isn't totally incorrect, but I'd rather call it socialism, since people would be technologically able to disconnect from other parts of a colony if they wanted (due to cultural disagreement). They would have to resort to bartering to get things they needed (god forbid their technology breaks and they do need something- the only real solution would be to reintegrate back into the colony- unless you had a surplus of resources to barter). Their existance in the colony was valuable, and their detachment costed the colony in many ways; food surpluses were factored lower than usual, since you were a good gardener, electrical usage was hit, since your fuel cells helped keep the colony at a steady state, and it will take weeks to recover from it by making new ones, morale fell, since your daughters were the only women around for a thousand kilometers ( ).

You should be able to exist independently, but it's a lot riskier, since you lose the security related to belonging to a collective.

No one says bartering need not exist in this system. It's probable that each independent collective of a colony would grow generic protein packs for food, but would reserve space for special food they would eat. One group would grow fruits and vegetables, and another would grow herbs and spices. This is a prime bartering situation.

And I don't think you're correct about sharing being an unfair system. Surely, in your family, when you share, it's done fairly? How is this any different? This truely is the Big Happy Family Model. All we have is independent collectives living together sharing basic needs. Everything else would fall into a barter system.

And if you break that longetivity machine, you have to pay me back the energy required to fix it. Maybe run on a treadmill for fifteen minutes or something. Heh. No, seriously, you just have to reconcile that this sort of stuff is going to be happening in a highly technological environment. All that would matter is energy.

Indeed, all that matters now is energy. Just imagine where we'd be if our man Henry did realize his dream of lightweight plastic vehicles running on a renewable fuel like alcohol. Individual towns around the nation would be growing genetically engineered beets for fuel, and cars would be many times more efficient than they are now.

Adrian · 2002-10-12 07:35:44

Josh: Just a quick comment - the Henry Ford thing sounds like one of those urban myths, not unlike the whole 'car that runs on water' one. Maybe Ford did want to make cars out of plastic that ran on alcohol, I don't know, but even if he did it is safe to say that he wouldn't have figured out a way to do it affordably. The science and technology simply wasn't up to it back then, and even now we'd require significant advances to turn soy into plastic and corn into fuel affordably.

Bill White · 2002-10-12 10:22:33

It's all about power. For all of society to be equal, some people are going to have to pass up their power. Even though those in power are a minority, it's still impossible to get rid of them, since those not in power, seek it so.

Power, fame, status - these things will always be scarce regardless of how much material wealth humans accumulate. Your quote hits the nail on the head, yet I am doubtful we can get people to universally, freely and voluntarily renounce power. ??? If the renunciation of power is coerced (an oxymoron) then I believe Orwell's Animal Farm hits the nail on the head.

So, to play devil's advocate, please explain why should I forego accumulating fame, power, prestige or status just so you can have your beloved equal society? Remember, you CANNOT coerce me, you can only persuade me.

In The Republic Plato describes three varieties of souls and argues that evey city has citizens of each category and that each of us has elements of these categories within our own soul:

(1) Lovers of copper or brass

Category one are people motivated mostly by creature comforts - food, drink, drugs, sex, luxurious clothing and other material goods

(2) Lovers of silver

Category two are people motivated by honor, status and the like. As devils' advocate - consider the following question, would you rather live poorly but free or accept indentured servitude or slavery in exchange for 3 square meals, fine clothing, recreational drugs (maybe only alcohol such as expensive wines, which are recreational drugs) and the like?

Harold Bloom writes that how someone responds to Shakespeare's character Falstaff a drunkard and glutton who renounces all pursuit of honor, reveals much about the reader's character. Bloom is openly on Falstaff's side, btw.

Hence, Shakespeare read us more than we read Shakespeare.

(3) Lovers of gold

Plato descibes these people as being motivated by the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.

Several years ago, I was reading Victor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning - in it there is a paragraph describing the three schools of psychiatry arising in Vienna -

The Freudian - which asserts that people are largely motivated by Freud's pleasure principle

The Adlerian - Alfred Adler's view that social relations are what most motivate people (which is status, IMHO); and

Frankl's own school - logotherapy, which is based on the belief that people are motivated by a search for meaning.

Sounds like a variation on Plato all over again. . .

Anyway - I personally see this as a heirarchy of needs issue.

People generally need to feel secure about having sufficient material things before they can renounce the pursuit of material pleasures.

Likewise, the renunciation of the pursuit of status requires that people grow sufficiently to no longer desire status or power, or to value the "higher things" more.

Each level of renunciation can only be voluntary, one person at a time. The coerced re-distribution of wealth or power reprises Animal Farm, where some pigs are more equal than others, and all that revolution accomplishes is a change in the color of the uniform of the oppressors.

Anarchy - IMHO - will only work when all members of a group are sufficiently advanced psychologically to renounce excess material pleasure and excess desire for status or power. And, since it would be arrogant for me to say that I am at that point, even if I see such advancement as a worthy goal. Therefore, how can I assert that humanity at large is ready to adopt anarchy?

Since groups tend to fight with other groups, a smaller society of anarchists will need to hide themselves ("freedom is the ability to escape the notice of the powerful") until ALL of humanity is as advanced as they are. Isolated Martian colonies practicing self-sufficient anarchy will ANNOY other cities and thus some nasty despot will likely wage war if only to satisfy a psychological need to he respected or feared by all of humanity and to kill those who refuse.

Hence, unless or until ALL men and women become angels - and I decline to hold my breath on that point - I believe the system of government outlined by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln is the best hope for humanity's future progress and this will require a fair amount of interdependency and cultural integration.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-12 19:04:24

Adrian, well, I totally agree with you. Oil and steel were already existing (or at least quickly blossoming) industries, so any introduction of alternative resources would have been more expensive. But, if you think about it. If oil never existed, soy / potatoes / etc would definitely be used in place of it. The reason it's more expensive now (and even then), is because there is no one out there trying to make it enmasse to take the place of oil. Such a venture would be highly risky for any business.

You can do a quick search on Google, and get a few hits. This one here is pretty good for the soy plastics bit. But I'm sure there are others which are less ?biased? (hey, you can't blame a soy site for praising Ford for his work with soy), this is just a neat overview.

And here is a good overview of his work with ethyl, also biased (hey, it's a hemp site, hehe).

I like the quote they have at the top... I wonder where he got his numbers:

?There's enough alcohol in one year's yeild of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for one hundred years.? - Henry Ford

I believe it. Do you?

Bill White. Simple answer. How about I disassociate from you? The real question, is why would you allow me to dissassociate, if it means you would become powerless?

If I and a large group of people stopped working for the gasoline industry, and instead focused on growing soy, potatoe, or beet based fuel for ourselves and anyone with the land and sunlight... you would lose your power, at least over those of us who opt not to use your gasoline. What are you going to do? Force me to work for you?

The problem is, way more people have the potential to be empowered than those who would lose power. Those who lose power, will, dare I say, have no other choice, unfortunately for them. Now, this isn't Stalinist Russia. I'm just saying that if you leave us alone and let us do what we want, (something I'm sure Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln would agree with), you'll become powerless all by yourself.

I agree that we could have some power monger on Mars, who is annoyed by a peaceful anarchy-like society. But then I begin to wonder if those who are powerless under this dictator, would work for him, or defect to an empowering society. This isn't a question of asking those in power to lose it, this is a question of telling those who are powerless to gain it.

clark · 2002-10-14 09:17:34

Beta Monkey A finda a banana. Beta Monkey B sees that Beta Monkey A has a banana and decieds he wants that banana, even though there are many more freely available. Beta Monkey A struggles with Beta Monkey B over the banana, even though there are many more, freely available. Alpha Monkey A sees the two sparring monkies and swoops down, knocking both monkies down, and taking the banana for himself, even though there are many more freely available.

What can be learned here?

Several years ago, I was reading Victor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning - in it there is a paragraph describing the three schools of psychiatry arising in Vienna -
The Freudian - which asserts that people are largely motivated by Freud's pleasure principle
The Adlerian - Alfred Adler's view that social relations are what most motivate people (which is status, IMHO); and
Frankl's own school - logotherapy, which is based on the belief that people are motivated by a search for meaning.

I might postulize that the Fruedian and Frankl's school of thought are just manifestations of social relations. They all operate from the point of view that the individual is the center- social networks in relation to self, meaning of self, or pleasure of self. A rather cynical view, but apt.

Perhaps we can simply say that the motivating force behind all action is that which soothes the soul, whatever 'that' may be (brass, silver or gold)

Likewise, the renunciation of the pursuit of status requires that people grow sufficiently to no longer desire status or power, or to value the "higher things" more.

Wouldn't the renunciation be tantamount to a rejection of human beahvior? We would in effect have to be other than what we are...no?

Hence, unless or until ALL men and women become angels - and I decline to hold my breath on that point - I believe the system of government outlined by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln is the best hope for humanity's future progress and this will require a fair amount of interdependency and cultural integration.

Organized monkies with delinated expectations in exchange for compliance with the social hierarcy established and maintained by force toprovide protection from threat, either external or internal.

Our exsistence is guareented by the inclusion within a social hierarchy whereby we subsume our will to that of the hierarcy structure of the group. To be excluded from the group is to lose the guareente of exsistence, and all that it entails, and be open to the threats of others without any expectation of the respect of our personal will.

Perhaps John, you may be better served to read history related to life of the City-State in ancient Greece, to gain a better perspective on your viewpoint.

Bill White. Simple answer. How about I disassociate from you? The real question, is why would you allow me to dissassociate, if it means you would become powerless?

A dissassociation is a renunication of agreement- it is in effect, a declaration of war. If there is a dissassociation, then what rules govern our interactions? If there is no agreement, then there can be no expectations of how disputes are resolved- I can take all that is yours since there is no agreement between us that recognizes that you are able to possess all that you do.

Think of it like this: How can the State murder a Citizen, which it has an agreement with, by which it must protect that Citizen's life? By dissassociation. The agreement between the Citizen and the State (or Bill and the rest of us) is disolved by an act which terminates the protection that guareented your life. The life of the Citizen becomes forfiet, the rights no longer recognized, have been disolved. At least that is the point of view that can establish the legitamcy of State sanctioned murder of Citizens- which is why things get kinda dicey when you have State A killing a Citizen who might be reconized as a Citzen by State B- while State A disolves the contract (dissasscoation) of the Citzen, State B still recognizes and maintains it's association- which requires it to protect the life of it's Citzen (association)- to not do so is to undermine the legitmacy of the assocaition of the rest of its Citizens.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-14 11:47:54

Beta Monkey A finda a banana. Beta Monkey B sees that Beta Monkey A has a banana and decieds he wants that banana, even though there are many more freely available. Beta Monkey A struggles with Beta Monkey B over the banana, even though there are many more, freely available. Alpha Monkey A sees the two sparring monkies and swoops down, knocking both monkies down, and taking the banana for himself, even though there are many more freely available.

I don't think this is the same, clark, but perhaps this analogy is directed towards Bill White. In my situation it would be: Beta Monkey A finds a banana orchid. Beta Monkey B is completely oblivious to the existance of that orchid. Beta Monkey B observes Beta Monkey A, and follows him to the orchid. Beta Monkey B is now empowered with the knowledge of the orchid. Alpha Monkey A knows about the orchid, and alpha Monkey A hires Super Monkey Thugs to keep anyone from accessing it, forcing them to pay half a banana for every two bananas they gather.

A dissassociation is a renunication of agreement- it is in effect, a declaration of war. If there is a dissassociation, then what rules govern our interactions? If there is no agreement, then there can be no expectations of how disputes are resolved- I can take all that is yours since there is no agreement between us that recognizes that you are able to possess all that you do.

Well, I can agree with the metaphor. There are examples in the digital industry where people have disassociated from certain recent laws. Like reverse engineering, and so on. Now, some argue that thes laws are unconstitutional, since one would think that simple knowledge of how a copy protection scheme works is hardly harmful. Think about it this way. Anything observable is copyable. Any video, any audio, anything. If anything observable is copyable, what's the harm in knowing how a trival scheme to ?prevent? that copying?

Heh, there was a recent example, where someone used the print screen key on the keyboard to derive text from a Microsoft eBook... this really blew away those in the eBook industry. So now, basically, the print screen key is ?illegal.?

And I don't think dissociation really means void of rules. I'm just dissociating from an unjust ruler, and forming a more rational form of organization. I'm just dissociating from someone who thinks that he can freaking keep bananas away from me in a banana orchid that was around long before him. (And I'm not taking, or stealing his bananas, I'm buying his seeds.)

Sure, I'm breaking his rules in the long run, since he no longer has a monopoly over me, but he's just going to have to deal with it, since I'm not doing anything inherently illegal from societies point of view. I don't think the Monkey Civilization would see anything wrong with buying seeds and starting my own orchid

And as far as I know, growing your own alcohol is legal- they (the oil industry) would need to lobby and pass a law to make that not so- and in that perspective, it would be an act of war with the oil industry.

One must consider why the oil industry became so powerful... if you think about it, those in the business realized they had a centrally controlled resource, one where if the technology got out to use that resource, it would be powerless, since it still relies on certain fields of oil. However, if the technology got out to grow your own fuel, towns around the nation, and indeed, individuals, would be growing their own fuel locally, from the sunlight they recieve from the sun. They knew then, just like we know now, that nothing is profitable unless you can create an inherent dependency upon those who need it.

clark · 2002-10-14 13:14:59

In my situation it would be: Beta Monkey A finds a banana orchid. Beta Monkey B is completely oblivious to the existance of that orchid. Beta Monkey B observes Beta Monkey A, and follows him to the orchid. Beta Monkey B is now empowered with the knowledge of the orchid.

And what pray tell happens to the banana orchid once Monkey C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J...et al. discover it?

The bananas are soon gone.

Unless of course Alpha Monkey A enlists the help of Beta Monkey A & B (Whom he can personaly overpower) to chase off the other monkies. In retun for their help, they acknoledge Alpha monkies authority (read SOCIAL HIEARCHY) and submit to his will in order to receive something- in this case, the opportunty to enjoy the orchid.

And I don't think dissociation really means void of rules.

What are rules John? If we are playing a game of chess and I move my king four spaces instead of one, you would declare that I was breaking the rules- the rules are an agreement between one or more people. If a person chooses to disassociate, they are choosing to remove themselves from the game- the rules no longer apply to them, nor do the protections either. You stating that "the rules are not voided" implies that there are a set of rules that are absolute- however, no such evidence exsists which establsihes this idea. All rules are agreements between one or more people- look to the "rules of war" which delinate what is and isn't "fair"- all arbitrary and meaningless becuase at any time someone can decide not to abide by the "rules"- and look to the community of nations respose to those who would willfuly neglect the restriction of those "rules".

I'm just dissociating from an unjust ruler, and forming a more rational form of organization.

I understand, but by doing what you propose, the unjust ruler is under no obligation to respect or even consider you as a full entity or any of your claims. You become less than a "citizen" which has an agreement with the unjust ruler. Anarchy has no form- it has no agreement that establishes the rules, so there is no guarenteor of your will.

I'm just dissociating from someone who thinks that he can freaking keep bananas away from me in a banana orchid that was around long before him.

Yet you can claim no more ownership than he who claims it to begin with. So then we are left with everyone having no claim to anything, which means that all possesions are merely stolen or borrowed possesions, which leads to the moral ambiguity of allowing everyone to take from anyone since nothing belongs to anyone! The single banana you take, or even the seed, does not belong to you or anyone else- therfore, you can have no expectation that you may claim it or use it, nor should you be surprised if others wish to use it or take it from you, since it was never your to begin with.

Sure, I'm breaking his rules in the long run, since he no longer has a monopoly over me, but he's just going to have to deal with it, since I'm not doing anything inherently illegal from societies point of view.

Sure you are, you are dissacoiating from the Society- you are choosing to disolve the agreement by which your actions are regulated and others are regulated in the same manner. The disaccoiation allows you to do whatever you want, irregardless of the "rules", which means you are a threat, since there can be no expectation of respect of the will of society.

What is war among nations but the violation of respect of another nations will.

They knew then, just like we know now, that nothing is profitable unless you can create an inherent dependency upon those who need it.

I might suggest that nothing is profitable unless the exchange of goods (delivery system) can be controlled.

Diamonds and drugs come to mind as examples. Oil fits the bill nicely as well.

Bill White · 2002-10-14 16:03:34

I readily agree - indeed I will openly assert - that the powerful in society have wrongfully appropriated far too many bananas for themselves. The question is how do we remedy the situation? I also firmly believe that as a practical matter, and for ordinary people, freedom is:

"the ability to escape the notice or attention of the powerful"

Becoming inconspicious is a way of temporary dis-association, no? This is rather like the reason schools of fish move the way they do. Each fish seeks to be at the center of the school so that the shark selects another fish at the edges to eat. When thousands of fish compete to be at the center of the school, the entire school moves in strange and fascinating ways.

Auto thieves can readily defeat most defensive systems - yet the goal of buying such systems is to encourage the car thief to go pick on someone else. Good strategy, yet the result is that some other car get stolen, or another fish is eaten - just not you.

Dis-association is a clever strategy to maintain one's own existence and that of one's children yet it hardly creates a just society and I deny that it is possible for *everyone* to dis-associate. Not all fish can be at the center of the school. Some will be at the edges and eaten by the shark.

Humans formed packs and developed weapons and thereafter began hunting tigers, bears and the like to avoid offering the hindmost to the predators.

Dis-associate from the pack? You get eaten. How does the pack divide the kills? Damn good question. Don't know the answer.

Humans cannot exist outside the pack, however, I suspect I am rather more inclined than clark to assert that since the pack was formed to benefit each individual, individual interests cannot be *entirely* subordinated to the group interest.

Sometimes (albeit rarely) the needs of the many must be subordinated to the needs of the few or the one. If you don't believe me, ask Captain James T. Kirk. (Its in the dialouge between Kirk and Spock's father Sarak concerning why Kirk risked his life, his ship, his crew and sacrificed his son David's life in order to save Spock.)

One for all -AND- all for one must always be a two way street.

Societies are obviously formed from individual members. Less obvious, but equally true is the observation that society helps form individual selves. The illusion that someone can separate themselves from the society of their birth - or from their parents - is precisely that, an illusion.

Are we doomed to be slaves or puppets following our parents path or the dictates of our society? Of course not. Are we free to utterly re-invent ourselves, to re-birth ourselves free from all traces of parental or societal influence? Of course not. Only God(s) are uncreated makers.

For better or worse, as I tell my wife, we are all stuck with each other and we had better make the best of it.

clark · 2002-10-14 16:50:14

I readily agree - indeed I will openly assert - that the powerful in society have wrongfully appropriated far too many bananas for themselves.

Whoah! Hey now, I was talking about monkies!

I also firmly believe that as a practical matter, and for ordinary people, freedom is:
"the ability to escape the notice or attention of the powerful"

Freedom through obscurity? Then would not the common man be "freer" in a throng of a billion people versus one of just a few hundred? How does this idea mesh with places like China?

Becoming inconspicious is a way of temporary dis-association, no?

Is this kind of like, "if the cops don't see it, it ain't a crime"?

Humans cannot exist outside the pack, however, I suspect I am rather more inclined than clark to assert that since the pack was formed to benefit each individual, individual interests cannot be *entirely* subordinated to the group interest.

I am fully inclined to agree with your assertion. If we exsist in a relationship whereby our expectations are not met within the agreement, then we have no incentive to stay within the agreement since the alternative- disassociation, and all that it implies, is equal to the current agreement- this is why we have a right to overthrow a government that does not fufill the social contract- we agree to the terms of Alpha Monkies social hierarchy in EXCHANGE for certain expectations- our subsuming our will to the other ensures that are expectations will be met- if not, there can be no legitiamte rationale for maintaining a relationship whereby we give all, yet receive nothing in compensation.

For better or worse, as I tell my wife, we are all stuck with each other and we had better make the best of it.

Here is an idea I have been mulling about, just kinda out there (from Me?! nooooo):

We are brought into this world without our express consent, isn't the act of creation, without the consent of the created (I ackoledge the impossibility and absurdity) a form of slavery? Our very first experience is one of violation of self (and of course, creation of self, but I digress) and the forced servitude of life. Perhaps a question that is easily avoided if we agree that the soul is jst an idea, yet if we hold, or contend that the soul, or that a seperate entitiy from our biological self can exsist, wouldn't the act of life, or giving life, without the consent, be an act of aggression?

Just keeping things a little interesting

Bill White · 2002-10-14 23:27:02

Freedom through obscurity? Then would not the common man be "freer" in a throng of a billion people versus one of just a few hundred? How does this idea mesh with places like China?
* * *
Is this kind of like, "if the cops don't see it, it ain't a crime"?

I think the Aussies call it the "tall poppy" syndrome - don't be the tall poppy, mate, or you will get your head chopped off.

Lay low, live you life, raise your kids and stay far away from men with heavy weaponry.

Life isn't going to be fair, so don't go looking for conflict.

We are brought into this world without our express consent, isn't the act of creation, without the consent of the created (I ackoledge the impossibility and absurdity) a form of slavery? Our very first experience is one of violation of self (and of course, creation of self, but I digress) and the forced servitude of life. Perhaps a question that is easily avoided if we agree that the soul is jst an idea, yet if we hold, or contend that the soul, or that a seperate entitiy from our biological self can exsist, wouldn't the act of life, or giving life, without the consent, be an act of aggression?

I am unsure whether I agree with the nuances of all of this, however, I do believe parents owe their children a very real duty for reasons related to the above, even though I also believe children owe parents an initial debt of gratitude. A debt, by the way, that can be extinguished by parental bad behavior.

I have been working - on and off - on an essay about Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and what duties Dr. Frankenstein may have neglected with respect to the monster he created.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-15 03:37:30

Hmm, clark, you're talking absolutes more than me, it seems. You make it seem as though central authorities, or rather, social hierarchies are necessary for a managed society. Funny that. Laissez-faire capitalism leads to the same sort of resource depletion... look at the Tragedy of the Commons.

You're going to have that sort of problem in any society that can't manage itself. Look at Soviet Russia. They had factories literally spinning up small cables to make large composite cables, and factories taking those large cables and spinning them down to smaller cables! (I've been trying to find a source for this, but I cannot. It could be false.) They had huge (unnecessary) agriculture projects spanning many miles along rivers, destroying the ecological system of the immediate area, and affecting places miles away (see the Aral Sea).

Personally, I don't see why those monkeys would work for the Alpha Monkey. They have to fight off a whole lot of other monkeys; and they would find that it would be easier to just make a coalition and share the resources fairly among those who are there.

And your disassociation examples are really grasping... one can disassociate from certain aspects of society, without disassociating from that society completely. If I'm a luddite and I don't want to use electricity, I don't have to. If I'd rather use horse and carriages, instead of cars, I can. If I don't like a neighborhood because it's full of snobby rich people, I can move. If I don't like a neighborhood of run down buildings and high crime, I can move (well, maybe not, since I'd arguably be poor- but I could try to get the hell out of there). Disassociating isn't against the rule of society, just the imaginary rules of those who wish to have power over those within society. Society, ideally, doesn't tell you how to manage yourself beyond safety!

Now, I agree that an oil company (an unjust ruler) has no obligation to ?respect or even consider me a full entity,? but one must realize they exist for profit, and it's obviously in their best interest to get rid of me.

And I don't think you understand how ownership works in a more open society. This isn't about having a society of individuals incapable of having possessions, or direct property. This is just a society who shares essentials in order to survive, and to make things more comfortable. Certainly I couldn't let everyone on the planet have access to my biomass-to-fuel-and-plastics factory, we're back to the finite resource thing; but I could definitely share some of the hydrocarbons created by that factory and other assorted technologies, so that they could build their own!

In this system, possessions are yours. Everyone respects everyone elses possessions. Indeed, you couldn't go into the important parts of a potato fuel factory without some consent from the possessor(s). On Mars, I would live in my own hab, everything in that hab is mine. Indeed, even the gardens I work with, are mine. The only thing that isn't mine, in a strict sense, are necessities. We may not even necessarily share them outside of small collectives. It would be nice to, since we'd have a higher saturation of resources, and a larger variety of foods, and so on, but it's not necessary.

Your comment about profitibility is probably more accurate than my musings about dependency... but what is control without dependency?

clark · 2002-10-15 10:08:38

Interesting point of view Bill, makes sense.

Josh, do you really think social hierarchies are unneccessary for a managed society? Heck, even for ANY society, let alone managed? Without a social hierarchy, how exactly do we avoid the Tragedy of the Commons? Isn't the whole issue surrounding the Tragedy based on individuals acting in their own best interests, but at a detriment to themselves and all others? How other than a managed society can this be avoided? Just share untill it is all gone?

Personally, I don't see why those monkeys would work for the Alpha Monkey. They have to fight off a whole lot of other monkeys; and they would find that it would be easier to just make a coalition and share the resources fairly among those who are there.

If there is only one banana orchid, wouldn't it be in the individual monkies best interest to ensure that they have access to the orchid? Wouldn't it also lead to greater future security if they prevented every other monkey from getting to the orchid? Sure, they might start a progressive colation to share the bounty, but then each monkey will receive less (the monkies that help the Alpha monkey receive far less than they would if they threw their lot in with him). Am i mistaken?

And your disassociation examples are really grasping... one can disassociate from certain aspects of society, without disassociating from that society completely.

Fair enough. I supposed I was looking at the dissassociation from society aspect, as opposed to your more limited refrence.

Disassociating isn't against the rule of society, just the imaginary rules of those who wish to have power over those within society.

Well, all rules are imaginary. Sometimes I stop and consider the act of walking across the street . The blind and unassuming faith I place in a colored light to prevent my death. :0

However, the imaginary rules are tangible when their is agreement between two parties regarding the rules- by dissassociating yourself, in the sense I am talking about, you nullify the rules. Of course thouse in power, or who enjoy the greatest benefits of society (rich) do not want others to dissassoiate, it undermines the system which establishes and ensures their position within the social hierarchy.

This isn't about having a society of individuals incapable of having possessions, or direct property. This is just a society who shares essentials in order to survive, and to make things more comfortable.

So then, for your society to function, it must have either everyone agree that this is the way to use property and possesions (ie share and share alike), or it must make it a requirement (law and punishment/incentive). How do you reconcile the latter with your previosu statment that

Society, ideally, doesn't tell you how to manage yourself beyond safety!

?
If it is an unspoken rule within the society, it seems a rather precarious position by which to plan, no?

This is just a society who shares essentials in order to survive, and to make things more comfortable.

That is all societies everywhere. The people in power have a vested interest in maintaing social order- while guns work to a certain extent, they are never the entire solution (the use of force is merely a means to reduce the number of people that the people in power must share the essentials or luxaries with).

Certainly I couldn't let everyone on the planet have access to my biomass-to-fuel-and-plastics factory, we're back to the finite resource thing; but I could definitely share some of the hydrocarbons created by that factory and other assorted technologies, so that they could build their own!

Charity? Where do you find the optimism to place so much faith in the expectation that man will act in such a manner as to want to improve the condition of his fellow man, undertaking the risk and possible loss of his own position? Isn't the whole premise of a just society predicated on an unspoken rule of behavior without any actual demand of requirement for that behavior? Here is a Skinner problem, how do you get a desired behavior without any stimuli to reinforce or inhibit the behavior?

On Mars, I would live in my own hab, everything in that hab is mine. Indeed,
even the gardens I work with, are mine.

So the seeds you developed from your super banana (created by you through several generations) is yours, and yours alone?

The only thing that isn't mine, in a strict sense, are necessities.

So the banana isn't mine (food), but the seeds are (non-neccessity)?

You do bring up many good points Josh!

clark · 2002-10-15 13:06:28

Here is another personal story that I found apt for some of the discussions that have been going on so far- it kind of puts the issue of "dissassociation" into a different light, as well as expectations of human social relationships. Religion probably isn't the complete answer, any more than anything else can be, however, like everything else, understanding and truth are available if you bother to look...

The following was taken from this website:

http://everything2.com/index.p....1281301

The TEXT

In this new era of Jihad and universal victimization, I would expect the term "Army Chaplain" to drive the good men and women of the west to create a more PC term for priest soldiers. It
would have to be something that steered the consciousness away from irony and dissonance. Because each of us, no matter where she lives wants to know beyond doubt that the creator
of the universe stands beside her, and not the guys pointing guns at her. And so we have religious people to remind us God is always on our side. The Army Chaplain must exist for those
who need to know Excalibur is still in a rock on our soil, but in light of developments which pit against us people praying to OUR god, it seems a new name is in order.

Something like:

Theologian at Arms or
Battleman of Peace
Soulman of Siege

When I was young the term "Army Chaplain" seemed oxymoronic. For how could anyone serve God and country at once? We the people who are the country require that when all other
avenues have failed, the wrath of our violence must descend upon our enemies with all the force our atoms and technology can muster. This is necessary to keep our sidewalks safe from
bullets and thermonuclear weapons.

All the while God demands unconditional love.

Was I the only kid dragged into Sunday services who paid enough attention to be confused?

So I sat in Catholic church seething with teenage angst. My hormones were in charge of my sex life. I had to fill out a card so the country could snag me out of my school if it needed me to
hurl bullets. And here was a priest telling me week after week that the rules he'd said were inviolable because they were the utterances of an omnipotent being were suspended when we
got slugged on the playground.

It wasn't that I didn't want us to defend ourselves. As far as I was concerned anyone who would come here to do violence should learn the why we stand behind our YAG lasers when
we're burning holes through brick walls. But I figured religion should be left out of it. To be consistent I thought we should admit war is the devil's work and some times the goddamned devil's work needed to be done and the priests should admit it. Turn away. Go home and pray while we hack some enemy flesh to mostly-cooked hamburger.

But damn. Don't tell me God wants me to kill people after you spend a couple of years telling me to turn the other cheek and love my neighbor as myself. God had nothing to do with that crap,I thought.

"They're jerking us around with circular logic," I'd say to my father.

"Just shut the hell up until you know what's going on," was my father's stock answer to teleological questions that have puzzled mankind since Neanderthal wondered if it was okay to eat the children if the mammoths went scarce.

One Sunday I was dragged off to church and our usual priest, Father Ennui, wasn't there. Instead there was someone younger. He'd come up from Fort Monmouth to fill in for our apathetic pastor who had been taken away in an ambulance for reasons that concerned no one.

This priest was an Army Chaplain, and when it came time for the holy-thou-art-amens and we sat down for his sermon, I was ready to hear what one of God's own riflemen had to say.

He told this story:

After he had been redeployed from Vietnam he was attached to a unit doing humanitarian work in Central America. While he was there a hurricane blew through and wrecked a huge
portion of Costa Rica. Many homes were destroyed and people killed. He was assigned to a corps of engineers and physicians who assisted in the recovery.

One day while they were plodding through the heat and humidity, helping to vaccinate children against water borne diseases and clearing destroyed buildings he and his team came across
a grisly scene.

The force of a hurricane's winds can turn any inanimate object to a missile. Two-by-fours travelling at 300 kilometers per hour can penetrate solid concrete walls.

In this case a large palm frond had impaled an mother and child to the side of a wooden shed. The 6' leaf had become a flying blade and had passed through the child and the mother's chest.
The tip had embedded in the wooden shed planks, and it was strong enough to hold them up. So the woman was still standing with her arms wrapped around her baby, her eyes glaring
listless at the horizon. Her clothes fell in tatters around her waist and shoulders. Her blood and viscera had mixed with those of her baby and hung like rags among them like weathered
cloth.

It had been several days since the hurricane had ended, and in the blistering heat and tropical bacteria the bodies had already begun to decompose so that the American team could smell the
corpses and hear the flies before they saw them.

Fatigued by the heat and long days, one of the soldiers threw down his shovel and fell sitting to a pile of rubble beside the erect bodies.

"What kind of sick motherfucker for a God does something like this?" the soldier asked, then wiped the sweat from his forehead. "Goddamned innocent mother and baby." (explitives, mine,
not the priest's)

The chaplain stared for a moment. Said a prayer, then got another soldier to help him take the bodies down. They put them in a thick black plastic bag and loaded them onto a truck.

When it was finished, the soldier who had been sitting stood and confronted the chaplain.

"You didn't answer me," he said, nose to nose with the man of God. "What kind of God does something like that? Where's your God of mercy, now? Yeah, I've lived through people killing
each other, but now it's plain even God doesn't want us. Why should I believe one goddamned thing you have to say from now on?"

And the chaplain reached into his sweaty shirt and pulled out a small gold cross that was on a chain around his neck. He asked the soldier if he knew what it was. And even when the
soldier answered, the chaplain told him he didn't have the slightest idea what it was.

It was an icon of our world. It was a symbol to remind us of a truth so terrible the only salvation could come from the glint of life each of us could muster.

He told the soldier what it meant, and he told those of us listening in church that day what it meant, and I had never heard more inspired words. Truely this man was a prophet. For only a
warrior would have been able to deliver that message. Only someone who had been to the depths of the human soul and emerged alive would have the guts to explain to an audience of
middle-class suburbanites the true message God had in store.

It was elegant in its purity, its finality, its unabashed viciousness.

And I adored that message the way I adored rock and roll and my girlfriend. It was the only true thing I'd ever heard in the halls of that building they called a church. It was the only thing
consistent with the entire body of knowledge the Catholic Schools tried to cram into my head and feed me on Sundays.

When Mass was over I broke away from my family. The priest was standing next to one of the opened doors, shaking the hands of patrons on their way out. Not many took his hand, not
even to be polite.

But I rushed him. Shook his hand and thanked him. He could never know he'd smoothed out a lifetime of ripples in my mind. It all made perfect sense now. I could be a part of this world
because I understood as much of it as it did of me.

"All we got is each other, right? That was the sermon. That was great," I said.

"Yes," he said, "Just each other."

I shall never forget the sadness in that man's eyes, nor how he smiled when I told him I understood him. It made sense to me.

But it didn't make sense to anyone else. Mother complained to my father about the abysmal sermon, and how dare that alien priest bring such base terminology to a decent church.

My dad asked me what I had said to the priest, and I told him an abridged version, that basically it was the best sermon I'd ever heard by anyone claiming to be part of the Catholic church.

And my dad, an ex-soldier, agreed with me against my mom's protestations.

They got rid of that priest the following week. He was never invited back. The church HQ received so many complaints they were afraid the collection baskets would go empty for weeks.

Maybe he knew what he had done. Maybe that's why he looked so sad.

Or was it the weight of what he alone seemed to understand, what a church load of parishioners eager to get into their cars to speed home would never want to hear? A truth so horrible it
tore into everything real.

It was a truth so wonderful my world came alive that day. I left the church and never went back.

In my mind's eye I see the chaplain in his sweaty, sleevless, green cotton shirt. His crucifix chain intertwined with his steel dog tags around his wet skin. He's holding the cross out toward
his comrade in arms.

He tells him that cross is an icon of this place. It's an icon of the earth, so that we should never ever forget.

He says that none of us know what this place is, but it sure as hell isn't heaven. God himself couldn't survive here. He was tacked to a tree and suffocated in his own blood. What made any
of us think we could possibly be worthy of better treatment?

And in light of the terrible inevitability of our personal terminus everything was laid bare except our souls and our beating hearts. All of the bills, and the arguments, and the engine trouble,
and asshole bosses were meaningless. We live continuously in the midst of the nuclear explosion of our own deaths.

In that hideous, brilliant light there is only one thing brighter, one thing true.

Expect no mercy.
Love each other.
Take care of each other.

We have been given to each other.

In this place we are all we have.

You are not special. You will die here, too.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-20 11:38:05

Yes.

Hi clark, sorry for taking so long to reply. My computer went on the fritz here. Let's just hope it's fixed now (I seem to have got it to stop rebooting every 10 minutes, but we'll see).

Anyway, one could, quite accurately, argue that The Tragedy of the Commons has nothing to do with the commons, but rather, laissez-faire capitalism. I believe the Tragedy of the Commons is more accurately portrayed as; The Tragedy of the ?free-for-all.? The presumption that ?Commons? means ?true commons,? in this sense, is just as dumb as thinking ?Nazi? means socialism.

The commons existed on the basis of usufruct. I use what I need, and no more. Old commons, before that one bastard decided to fence off his land, and force people to use his property, were based on agreements between those who used them. Say our monkeys have acquired the ablity to come to rational agreements, without hitting rocks over one anothers head; the way they would manage their orchid, is to agree with each other how many bananas they should each have. Here, social hierarchy is not necessary, because each and every one are capable of respecting and understanding this simple system. (Remember, they're rational monkeys.)

To quote the Anarchist FAQ: It is a strange fallacy to suppose that two people who meet on terms of equality and disagree could not be reasonable or just, or that a third party with power backed up by violence will be the incarnation of justice itself.

I'm not sure I ever said anything about there being an unspoken rule, to be honest. I've just slightly conflated a free society with an open society. On Mars, I have argued, and will continue to argue, that we would have an open society (one which resembles a free one at the sub-colony level, actually), as no other could work with any reasonable degree of sanity. We can't be having colonies of incompatable, proprietary technologies controlled by a central authority, used exclusively by social hierarchies.

clark · 2002-10-22 06:18:14

Glad to hear all is well with the computer.

The tragedy if the commons, as I understand it, is demonstrating the need for something other than "hands off" market manipulation, or even hands off social manpiulation. The tragedy assumes that each individual will choose what is best for themselves, and only themselves- it points out the inherent flaw in assuming that each individual acting in their best interest is actually working to their own disservice in the grand scheme of things.

Take the orchid. You have the rational monkies all sitting about in the orcird. Each takes enough bananan's for themselves. Now, this isn't a problem, since there are only 10 monkies, so there are plenty of banana's left over by which new banana trees can grow and new banana's grown. What happens when there are 20, 30, 100, 1000 monkies? As the number increase, each individual monky's indiviudal action of eating a banana reduces the probability that there will be any left over by which to grow more. Each of the individual monkies cannot see the overall picture, or if they can, what are they to do? Convince the other monkies? If they don't listen? Why should they listen? Will they all see it the same way? If you say yes, they are rational monkies- I say look at the issue of global warming- one set of monkies says the sky is falling (running out of banana's), the other says the sky is fine (plenty o' banana).

Having an overarching structure that can dissaccoiate itself from individual need to view SOCIETAl need (think, what is good for the group).

Old commons, before that one bastard decided to fence off his land, and force people to use his property, were based on agreements between those who used them.

But this is the definition of society- an agreement between people, isn't it?

Here, social hierarchy is not necessary, because each and every one are capable of
respecting and understanding this simple system. (Remember, they're rational monkeys.)

So it is predicated on a mutual understanding and respect, which implies that they all understand and see the world in much the same way... Do you honestly believe people are capabable of this? Dosen't the exsistence of one misfit, who dosen't share in that mutual respect and understanding kinda ruin the party for everyone else? Isn't that why we have the State authorized to use force, to keep the malcontents in line?

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-22 10:31:14

Sure, the definition of society is basically agreements between people. The question we're trying to propose here, is what laws that society ought to have which mold those agreements. In a totally free society, there would be no potential for monopolies, because one of the ?laws? in this society would dictate that usufruct is the only means of resource acquisition!

Now, do I believe that we could have a system that could uphold such laws without requiring social hierarchy? I think we can; as Eric Fromm points out, it would require a radical change in how we think psychologically. But it's not totally against something those who have weak arguments call, ?human nature.? The more decentralized a system is, the more it is free from social hierarchy.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-10-07 15:44:03

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#2 2002-10-08 09:23:31

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#3 2002-10-08 14:28:17

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#4 2002-10-08 14:32:10

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#5 2002-10-08 15:10:43

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#6 2002-10-10 03:22:41

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#7 2002-10-10 07:03:19

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#8 2002-10-10 07:58:05

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#9 2002-10-10 09:14:22

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#10 2002-10-12 07:07:16

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#11 2002-10-12 07:35:44

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#12 2002-10-12 10:22:33

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#13 2002-10-12 19:04:24

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#14 2002-10-14 09:17:34

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#15 2002-10-14 11:47:54

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#16 2002-10-14 13:14:59

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#17 2002-10-14 16:03:34

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#18 2002-10-14 16:50:14

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#19 2002-10-14 23:27:02

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#20 2002-10-15 03:37:30

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#21 2002-10-15 10:08:38

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#22 2002-10-15 13:06:28

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#23 2002-10-20 11:38:05

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#24 2002-10-22 06:18:14

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#25 2002-10-22 10:31:14

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

Board footer