Irrational financial choices were once rational (Evolutionary Economics)
Immortalist
gatherers living in small bands of a few dozen to a few hundred
people, we evolved a psychology not always well equipped to reason our
way around the modern world. What may seem like irrational behavior
today may have actually been rational 100,000 years ago. Without an
evolutionary perspective, the assumptions of Homo economicus-that
“Economic Man” is rational, self-maximizing and efficient in making
choices-make no sense. Take economic profit versus psychological
fairness as an example.
Behavioral economists employ an experimental procedure called the
Ultimatum Game. It goes something like this. You are given $100 to
split between yourself and your game partner. Whatever division of the
money you propose, if your partner accepts it, you are both richer by
that amount. How much should you offer? Why not suggest a $90-$10
split? If your game partner is a rational, self-interested money
maximizer, he isn’t going to turn down a free 10 bucks, is he? He is.
Research shows that proposals that deviate much beyond a $70-$30 split
are usually rejected.
Why? Because they aren’t fair. Says who? Says the moral emotion of
“reciprocal altruism,” which evolved over the Paleolithic eons to
demand fairness on the part of our potential exchange partners. “I’ll
scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine” only works if I know you
will respond with something approaching parity. The moral sense of
fairness is hardwired into our brains and is an emotion shared by most
people and primates tested for it. Thousands of experimental trials
with subjects from Western countries have consistently revealed a
sense of injustice at low-ball offers. Further, we now have a sizable
body of data from peoples in non-Western cultures around the world,
including those living close to how our Paleolithic ancestors lived,
and although their responses vary more than those of modern peoples
living in market economies do, they still show a strong aversion to
unfairness.
The deeper evolution of this phenomenon can be seen in the behavior of
our primate cousins. In studies with both chimpanzees and capuchin
monkeys, Emory University primatologists Frans de Waal and Sarah
Brosnan found that when two individuals work together on a task for
which only one is rewarded with a desired food, if the reward
recipient does not share that food with his task partner, the partner
will refuse to participate in future tasks and will express emotions
that are clearly meant to convey displeasure at the injustice. In
another experiment in which two capuchins were trained to exchange a
granite stone for a cucumber slice, they made the trade 95 percent of
the time. But if one monkey received a grape instead (a delicacy
capuchins greatly prefer over cucumbers), the other monkey cooperated
only 60 percent of the time, sometimes even refusing the cucumber
slice altogether. In a third condition in which one monkey received a
grape without even having to swap a granite stone for it, the other
monkey cooperated only 20 percent of the time. And in several
instances, they became so outraged at the inequity of the outcome they
heaved the cucumber slice back at the human experimenters!
Such results suggest that all primates (including us) evolved a sense
of justice, a moral emotion that signals to the individual that an
exchange was fair or unfair. Fairness evolved as a stable strategy for
maintaining social harmony in our ancestors’ small bands, where
cooperation was reinforced and became the rule while freeloading was
punished and became the exception. What would appear to be irrational
economic choices today-such as turning down a free $10 with a sense of
righteous injustice-were, at one time, rational when seen through the
lens of evolution.
Just as it is a myth that evolution is driven solely by “selfish
genes” and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people who are
exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact is, we are
equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and competitive. There
exists in both life and economies mutual struggle and mutual aid. In
the main, however, the balance in our nature is heavily on the side of
good over evil. Markets are moral, and modern economies are founded on
our virtuous nature. The Gordon Gekko “Greed Is Good” model of
business is the exception, and the Google Guys “Don’t Be Evil” model
of business is the rule. If this were not the case, market capitalism
would have imploded long ago.
The Mind of the Market
Evolutionary economics explains why
irrational financial choices were once rational
By Michael Shermer
Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market
The Mind of the Market (Invisible Hand or Invisible Brain)
Anarcissie
<d6607edd-675b-4dc4...@a16g2000pre.googl
egroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The Mind of the Market
> Evolutionary economics explains why
> irrational financial choices were once rational
> By Michael Shermer
> Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market
> Just as it is a myth that evolution is driven solely by łselfish
> genes˛ and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people who are
> exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact is, we are
> equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and competitive. There
> exists in both life and economies mutual struggle and mutual aid. In
> the main, however, the balance in our nature is heavily on the side of
> good over evil. Markets are moral, and modern economies are founded on
> business is the exception, and the Google Guys łDonąt Be Evil˛ model
> of business is the rule. If this were not the case, market capitalism
> would have imploded long ago.
Markets do "implode" from time to time, so Shermer
needs a better theory, doesn't he?
Rod Speed
> Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> The Mind of the Market
>> Evolutionary economics explains why
>> irrational financial choices were once rational
>> By Michael Shermer
>> Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market
>> Just as it is a myth that evolution is driven solely by ³selfish
>> genes² and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
>> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people who
>> are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact is, we are
>> equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and competitive. There
>> exists in both life and economies mutual struggle and mutual aid. In
>> the main, however, the balance in our nature is heavily on the side
>> of good over evil. Markets are moral, and modern economies are
>> founded on our virtuous nature. The Gordon Gekko ³Greed Is Good²
>> model of business is the exception, and the Google Guys ³Don¹t Be
>> Evil² model of business is the rule. If this were not the case,
>> market capitalism would have imploded long ago.
> Markets do "implode" from time to time,
Yes. But fortunately not very often at all anymore with adequate govt regulation.
> so Shermer needs a better theory, doesn't he?
Nope, thats just when the clowns have managed to do what the regulation didnt manage to stop.
Michael Price
> In article
> <d6607edd-675b-4dc4-96a1-2691aefc0...@a16g2000pre.googl
> egroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The Mind of the Market
> > Evolutionary economics explains why
> > irrational financial choices were once rational
> > By Michael Shermer
> > Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market
> > ...
> > genes² and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
> > competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people who are
> > exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact is, we are
> > equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and competitive. There
> > exists in both life and economies mutual struggle and mutual aid. In
> > the main, however, the balance in our nature is heavily on the side of
> > good over evil. Markets are moral, and modern economies are founded on
> > business is the exception, and the Google Guys ³Don¹t Be Evil² model
> > of business is the rule. If this were not the case, market capitalism
> > would have imploded long ago.
>
> Markets do "implode" from time to time, so Shermer
> needs a better theory, doesn't he?
It's hard to think of a market implosion that wasn't caused by
government
artificially protecting bad behavior.
Michael Price
>
> The Mind of the Market (Invisible Hand or Invisible Brain)
The ultimatum game doesn't prove that people aren't greedy, if they
weren't greedy they
wouldn't bother making the 70 to me, 30 to you offer. What it shows
is that we are prepared
to take a temporary loss to make the point that we won't accept
substandard treatment. If we were
told that we were be the "acceptor" in this game 10,000 times with
previous results known to the
"offerer" then it would make sense not to accept less than 50% each
time. In the long run having
the offerers know that you won't accept less than 50% would gain you
more money than the initial
losses. We behave as though we are going to have large numbers of
interactions with the other even
if we are given no reason to believe we will. The market is moral
because most people won't accept
immoral behaviour directed against them. They will pay a premium for
dealing with people known to
not act badly, which is both rational and risk-averse (mild risk
aversion makes economic sense in
most circumstances).
tg
Idiot. If we were told blah blah blah it wouldn't be the same
experiment.
What we can conclude is that there is value in cooperation for social
creatures. Many aspects of the recently popular economic paradigm are
pathological in that context---there's nothing to debate.
-tg
*Anarcissie*
It's hard for me to think of a major market not
affected by the activities and presence of a
government, regardless of whether it imploded or
not, so I can't come up with a historical sample
offhand. Government may have a mixed record in
regard to implosion probability. But in any case,
if Shermer were correct, markets would never
implode at all, government or not.
Old Pif
>
> The moral sense of fairness is hardwired into our brains and is an emotion shared by most
> people and primates tested for it.
>
Right. That is why the Republicans, the bankers and the other CEOs are
supreme and divine creatures. They are so much ahead of all others on
the evolution spiral leaving behind all atavism we inherited from our
ancestors.
Zerkon
> market capitalism would have imploded long ago.
It has many times. Debt Socialism then kicks in, a recovery is proclaimed
and the cycle starts all over again.
He misses the real point. Each Economic man has weight. More
consolidation and weight that man has, the more weight the 'good' or
'bad' of that man is placed on others.
The 'Ultimatum Game' also misses a real point. There is and has been vast
economic expenditures into making irrationality the prime market mover.
What is not in a person's self-interest is promoted as being so and then
believed. There has been too much time, money, high end academic study
and research put into this to just pretend it does not have relevance.
If trades were done in a face to face mercantile system of actual, not
metaphorical, market places, all this would hold true.
Geode
This experiment is too abstract to have any sense. Most people are
not so sharp. Even gamblers are not any sharp, cause they are unable
to realize that they are only enriching the casinos. They risk their
money for the illusory believe of "I am lucky, it is the others that
are the losers."
So, even humans are not equal to a point. They most often are wrong
on different issues.
But most of them had in common one thing. They want to look with a
higher social rank. That is why they embrace consumerism. It is
supposed that you need money to buy unnecessary things and electronic
gadgets, cars, things like this, to simulate they had a higher rank as
it is possible. So, consumerism society is about this. To buy all
those things, you need money. And only those of higher social rank
have enough money. I dont think we need more explainations.
Then the market, is mostly an artifact to fool people with some money
to buy things of this sort. I don't postulate the abolition of
markets. This contributes to have the most people engaged in doing
some work, and to keep the world running on its axis. But all this
nonsense of the market being rational and all that stuff is bullshit.
Humans are rational on banal issues. That is all. Most of the
chattering we indulge on is pure horse manure, but helps us to think
we a are sort of intelligent creatures in the Galaxy. So far we do
not know more intelligent living beings than us. And we are also the
most stupids of all known intelligent beings of the Galaxy.
Geode
Geode
of course the chase after profits of financiers and businessmen is a
blind course.
That is why often we are mired in this mess. They do not show much
acumen, nor much foresight. Their case is similar to that of
bookmakers, people with the mania of betting in the casinos or at
poker. It is not a rational behavior, except that often they win. But
they are unable to understand the very nature of the play they are
doing. Or perhaps they are aware, but are on the work of scumming
others to play the options of the losers.
I think that this is a play of wits and a few know well what they are
doing. Ruining others.
Geode
.
Geode
Just think for a moment, about the mania of the tulips that affected
Holland in the 17 Century. Tulips were the possessions of a lucky
few, like the king and the aristocrats.
With each year that passed, everybody wanted to have this sign of
higher status. Then, with each passing year, tulips more expensive to
buy. From a year to the next, the price would had rise 30 or 50%.
Then it was like a snowball. Each year more people wanted to buy
tulips. That enhanced the rise in prices. There was a moment in the
spring, that transactions were held in a particular street that was
called Tulip Street. There was a great crowd selling and buy bulbs.
You could get rich by doing this. Many modest people like barbers,
shoemakers, bartenders and so, borrowed money to buy tulips. They also
wanted to get rich.
Then, the most expensive tulips war sold by shares. One single tulip
bulb could cost as much as a house. Some were so dear that you only
could buy a share of it, like a thousandth part, or even smaller
shares. It was a real social frenzy. All sort of people wanted to
bet on this play. Then one day, suddenly, the bubble burst out. It
was impossible to sell a damned tulip bulb at any price. The number of
lawsuits was into the hundreds of thousands, and fearing the collapse
of the judicial system, a special law was issued. Judges would not
accept any lawsuit related to tulips transactions.
This is a good example, that teach us, the market is blind. It can
get easily intoxicated. Even if nobody plotted it on purpose. We are
prone to go chasing chimeras. And one of the most common chimeras is
the dream of becoming rich.
Geode
.
Rod Speed
Its also about what you personally use to communicate with.
> To buy all those things, you need money.
No you dont with what you personally communicate with.
> And only those of higher social rank have enough money.
Wrong again. In the modern first and second world EVERYONE has enough
money to buy a decent place to live and whatever toys they choose to have etc.
> I dont think we need more explainations.
Fraid we do.
> Then the market, is mostly an artifact to fool
> people with some money to buy things of this sort.
In my case its what allowed me to do anything I feel like doing.
> I don't postulate the abolition of markets. This contributes
> to have the most people engaged in doing some work, and
> to keep the world running on its axis. But all this nonsense
> of the market being rational and all that stuff is bullshit.
> Humans are rational on banal issues.
Quite a bit of the time they arent. They just do what they feel like doing.
If they were rational on banal issues, we wouldnt see so much obesity.
> That is all. Most of the chattering we indulge on is pure horse manure,
> but helps us to think we a are sort of intelligent creatures in the Galaxy.
Hell of a lot more intelligent than any other species.
> So far we do not know more intelligent living beings than us. And we
> are also the most stupids of all known intelligent beings of the Galaxy.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.
Rod Speed
> On 23 mar, 12:06, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>>> On Mar 23, 2:28 pm, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <d6607edd-675b-4dc4-96a1-2691aefc0...@a16g2000pre.googl
>>>> egroups.com>,
>>
>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The Mind of the Market
>>>>> Evolutionary economics explains why
>>>>> irrational financial choices were once rational By Michael Shermer
>>>>> Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-
>>>>> market ...
>>>>> genes˛ and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
>>>>> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people who
>>>>> are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact is, we
>>>>> are equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and competitive.
>>>>> There exists in both life and economies mutual struggle and
>>>>> mutual aid. In the main, however, the balance in our nature is
>>>>> heavily on the side of good over evil. Markets are moral, and
>>>>> modern economies are founded on our virtuous nature. The Gordon
>>>>> Google Guys łDonąt Be Evil˛ model of business is the rule. If
You're massively confusing businessmen and gamblers.
Geode
What the fuck do you mean with this phrase.
Geode
> Geode wrote:
> > On 23 mar, 12:06, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Price wrote:
> >>> On Mar 23, 2:28 pm, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <d6607edd-675b-4dc4-96a1-2691aefc0...@a16g2000pre.googl
> >>>> egroups.com>,
>
> >>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> The Mind of the Market
> >>>>> Evolutionary economics explains why
> >>>>> irrational financial choices were once rational By Michael Shermer
> >>>>> Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
> >>>>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-
> >>>>> market ...
> >>>>> genes² and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
> >>>>> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people who
> >>>>> are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact is, we
> >>>>> are equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and competitive.
> >>>>> There exists in both life and economies mutual struggle and
> >>>>> mutual aid. In the main, however, the balance in our nature is
> >>>>> heavily on the side of good over evil. Markets are moral, and
> >>>>> modern economies are founded on our virtuous nature. The Gordon
> >>>>> Google Guys ³Don¹t Be Evil² model of business is the rule. If
they are gamblers.
geode
.
Rod Speed
What you use to communicate with, presumably a PC of
some kind, can also be claimed to be an electronic gadget.
Even you should have noticed that some electronic gadgets can be quite useful.
Rod Speed
> On 23 mar, 18:55, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Geode wrote:
>>> On 23 mar, 12:06, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Michael Price wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:28 pm, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <d6607edd-675b-4dc4-96a1-2691aefc0...@a16g2000pre.googl
>>>>>> egroups.com>,
>>
>>>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The Mind of the Market
>>>>>>> Evolutionary economics explains why
>>>>>>> irrational financial choices were once rational By Michael
>>>>>>> Shermer Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
>>>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-
>>>>>>> market ...
>>>>>>> genes˛ and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
>>>>>>> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people
>>>>>>> who are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact
>>>>>>> is, we are equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and
>>>>>>> competitive. There exists in both life and economies mutual
>>>>>>> struggle and mutual aid. In the main, however, the balance in
>>>>>>> our nature is heavily on the side of good over evil. Markets
>>>>>>> are moral, and modern economies are founded on our virtuous
>>>>>>> the exception, and the Google Guys łDonąt Be Evil˛ model of
No more than someone crossing the road is a gambler.
Les Cargill
<snip>
>
> Just as it is a myth that evolution is driven solely by “selfish
> genes” and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people who are
> exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact is, we are
> equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and competitive.
Dawkins' The Selfish Gene" even says this. Rationality is what they call
"a normative assumption" in economics. Indeed "rational" is almost
redefined as being "what people do." it's a term of art, and it's not
bright-lined.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
>
> This experiment is too abstract to have any sense. Most people are
> not so sharp. Even gamblers are not any sharp, cause they are unable
> to realize that they are only enriching the casinos. They risk their
> money for the illusory believe of "I am lucky, it is the others that
> are the losers."
Partially true. Real gamblers, pros, know that there are people who
they call "losers", people who keep playing after they've exhausted
their luck. Indeed, the losers are treated somewhat with
contempt. Chronic, addictive gamblers, the ones who get in
trouble, are said to "choose to lose" by losing sight of the larger
picture.
but the kind of markets I am interested in are ones where
real people outcompete other people by providing a better
good or service. That's not gambling, although it may
*also* have elements of the same mental processes.
The reason Wall Street looked like gamblers is because
those engines were not used for their real purposes -
allocating capital to the most productive.
<snip>
>
> Geode
>
--
Les Cargill
Immortalist
Your response reminds me of the Tit-for-tat version of the iterated
prisoner's dilemma i it has an advantage in allowing individuals to
avoid initial mistrust and begin cooperating quickly and how it is
vulnerable to cheats but can be exploited only once. Tit-for-tat is
also forgiving, responding only to the most recent actions of other
individuals and not holding grudges. Kinda like the real
interpretation of "turn the other cheek" alway begin the play but then
mess it up if your partner messes it up.
Here is the text of that version.
Game theorists have devised a prisoner's dilemma game for the specific
purpose of analyzing cooperation versus selfishness in social
interactions. The game derives its name from a scenario in which two
suspects of a crime are being interrogated in separate rooms by the
police. Neither knows what the other is going to do and has a choice
either of turning in his accomplice or of confessing to the crime
himself. In the language of the prisoner's dilemma game, ratting out
the accomplice is referred to as "cheating." Refusing to implicate the
accomplice is "cooperating."
Imagine a hypothetical scenario in which one suspect cooperates and
the other cheats. The cheat gets off scot-free in return for his
testimony that is used to convict his accomplice. Given the compelling
case that can be made against him using the cheat's testimony, the
cooperator receives a heavy prison sentence, say twenty years. If both
suspects cheat, both will be found guilty, but they will receive a
lighter sentence in return for testifying against the other, say five
years. If both suspects cooperate, the police have very little usable
evidence and can convict them only on a minor offense that gets both a
year in jail.
In this particular example of the prisoner's dilemma, cooperation
produces the best result in terms of the total number of years served
in prison. When both suspects cheat on their accomplice, they go to
jail for five years, but when both cooperate, they only get one year
each. From the point of view of the individual, however, cheating is
the better strategy, regardless of whether the other suspect cheats or
cooperates. If the other cooperates and I cheat, then I am home and
dry, no sentence. If the other cheats, then I should cheat also
because this will get me a five-year sentence rather than twenty years
behind bars. The game thus captures the central problem of altruism,
which is that the most desirable solution for the individual is not
the same as the most desirable outcome for a group (in this case a
group of only two individuals). Hence the dilemma...
Iterated Version Of The Game;
...As a once-off proposition, the prisoner's dilemma game is rather
unpredictable. Your choice would be very much determined by a guess as
to what the other person would do. If you had both been arrested
together on a previous occasion, then the fact of having cooperated in
the past would surely be critical information in swaying your current
decision.
Axelrod and Hamilton decided that a repeated (or iterated) game would
be better able to capture the dynamic flavor of altruistic behavior in
the real world. They launched a computer tournament by asking sixty-
two academics in various fields to submit a computer program that
coded for a behavioral strategy, such as always cooperating, cheating
if the other cooperated, cheating every third move, and so on. These
programs were run against each other in pairs. The programs were then
entered into a "second-generation" tournament. Strategies that did the
best received the most copies in the second generation to simulate
evolution. This process was repeated for many more generations.
One of the most successful strategies was also one of the simplest.
Known as tit-for-tat, this required an individual to cooperate when he
encounters a new partner. From then on, he does whatever the other
individual does. If a new person moves to your neighborhood, you begin
by being friendly and welcoming. If he responds warmly, you strike up
a friendship. If he acts as though he wants to be left alone, you
remain virtual strangers. That is the flavor of tit-for-tat.
Tit-for-tat has an advantage in allowing individuals to avoid initial
mistrust and begin cooperating quickly. It is vulnerable to cheats but
can be exploited only once. Tit-for-tat is also forgiving, responding
only to the most recent actions of other individuals and not holding
grudges.
Biologists believe they have detected tit-for-tat in all kinds of
animal interactions, from grooming in monkeys and impala to the
exchange of costly eggs for inexpensive sperm among fish and worms
that can produce eggs and sperm simultaneously. Chimpanzees and
baboons join forces with individuals who have helped them in social
conflicts in the past. Vampire bats refuse to share blood with roost
mates who refused them previously.
Tit-for-tat-style reciprocity has been observed among humans in a
variety of situations, some of them quite surprising. One of the
oddest was described by Robert Axelrod in his analysis of interactions
between the British and their German enemies during the deadly trench
warfare of World War II. Remember that soldiers in the trenches were
involved in a new and exceptionally dangerous warfare that was a death
sentence for the majority who were unfortunate enough to be placed in
that situation by officers who were out of their depth, to put it
charitably.
Entrenched troops spent their time shelling the enemy, thereby
participating in a horrendous and strategically pointless slaughter.
Against all orders, the troops on each side developed an etiquette of
firing only to the side of enemy positions to minimize the loss of
life. Axelrod reports one astonishing memoir of a British officer
whose position was unexpectedly shelled by the Germans, although
without casualties. Following the attack, a German officer surfaced
from his trench and shouted, "We are very sorry about that; we hope no
one was hurt. It was not our fault, it was the damned Prussian
artillery."4 Both sides had realized that with the deadly weapons
available to them it was just too dangerous to try and kill each other
all the time. It was in their mutual interest to cooperate.
Reciprocity had broken out in one of the most unexpected places. There
was no verbal agreement, which would clearly have been treason, but
the repetitive nature of trench warfare provided an opportunity for
cooperation to occur between the opposing armies.
Kindness In A Cruel World:
The Evolution Of Altruism
by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591022282/
> If we were
> told that we were be the "acceptor" in this game 10,000 times with
> previous results known to the
> "offerer" then it would make sense not to accept less than 50% each
> time.
Well Social Psychology is still miles ahead of evolutionary psychology
but they will both be the same science. I am picking this up somehow
in this part of your response from the bible of soc phsy but maybe I
need to think of a better page for your subject;
...a classic study by Leon Festinger and J. Merrill Carlsmith. These
investigators asked college students to perform a very boring and
repetitive series of tasks—packing spools in a tray, dumping them out,
and then refilling the tray over and over, or turning rows and rows of
screws a quarter turn and then going back and turning them another
quarter turn. The students engaged in these activities for a full
hour. The experimenter then induced them to lie about the task;
specifically, he employed them to tell a young woman (who was waiting
to participate in the experiment) that the task she would be
performing was interesting and enjoyable. Some of the students were
offered $20 for telling the lie; others were offered only $1 for
telling the lie. After the experiment was over, an interviewer asked
the liars how much they enjoyed the tasks they had performed earlier
in the experiment. The results were clear-cut: Those students who had
been paid $20 for lying — that is, for saying the spool packing and
screw turning had been enjoyable — rated the activity as dull. This is
not surprising — it was dull. But what about the students who had been
paid only $1 for lying? They rated the task as enjoyable. In other
words, people who received abundant external justification for lying
told the lie but didn't believe it, whereas those who told the lie in
the absence of a great deal of external justification moved in the
direction of believing that what they said was true.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
Michael Price
understand my answer before
you call me an idiot. I said: " We behave as though we are going to
have large numbers of
interactions with the other even if we are given no reason to believe
we will. "
> Clearly What we can conclude is that there is value in cooperation for social
> creatures.
We cannot conclude that from this experiment, which created an
artificial situation where
there was value in cooperation for us. By definition there is value
in cooperation for social creatures
otherwise they would not be social creatures.
> Many aspects of the recently popular economic paradigm are
> pathological in that context---there's nothing to debate.
>
> -tg
>
What do you think is the "recently popular economic paradigm" and
who is it popular
with? Certainly free market economics has not been popular with any
politically significant group.
Michael Price
If governments had a "mixed record" in regard to implosion
probability it
ought to be possible to find an example of market implosion that was
not
caused by government. In fact there should be many. Unless of course
the
government prevented all implosions that it did not itself cause.
M Purcell
> Your response reminds me of the Tit-for-tat version of the iterated
> prisoner's dilemma i it has an advantage in allowing individuals to
> avoid initial mistrust and begin cooperating quickly and how it is
> vulnerable to cheats but can be exploited only once. Tit-for-tat is
> also forgiving, responding only to the most recent actions of other
> individuals and not holding grudges. Kinda like the real
> interpretation of "turn the other cheek" alway begin the play but then
> mess it up if your partner messes it up.
>
> Here is the text of that version.
>.
>.
> Entrenched troops spent their time shelling the enemy, thereby
> participating in a horrendous and strategically pointless slaughter.
> Against all orders, the troops on each side developed an etiquette of
> firing only to the side of enemy positions to minimize the loss of
> life. Axelrod reports one astonishing memoir of a British officer
> whose position was unexpectedly shelled by the Germans, although
> without casualties. Following the attack, a German officer surfaced
> from his trench and shouted, "We are very sorry about that; we hope no
> one was hurt. It was not our fault, it was the damned Prussian
> artillery."4 Both sides had realized that with the deadly weapons
> available to them it was just too dangerous to try and kill each other
> all the time. It was in their mutual interest to cooperate.
> Reciprocity had broken out in one of the most unexpected places. There
> was no verbal agreement, which would clearly have been treason, but
> the repetitive nature of trench warfare provided an opportunity for
> cooperation to occur between the opposing armies.
>
> Kindness In A Cruel World:
> The Evolution Of Altruism
> by Nigel Barberhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591022282/
Sounds like the Golden Rule.
Intresting, the more a person makes the less likely they are to
believe their own lies.
Rod Speed
> On Mar 23, 11:06 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>>> On Mar 23, 2:28 pm, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <d6607edd-675b-4dc4-96a1-2691aefc0...@a16g2000pre.googl
>>>> egroups.com>,
>>
>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The Mind of the Market
>>>>> Evolutionary economics explains why
>>>>> irrational financial choices were once rational By Michael Shermer
>>>>> Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-
>>>>> market ...
>>>>> genes˛ and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
>>>>> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people who
>>>>> are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact is, we
>>>>> are equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and competitive.
>>>>> There exists in both life and economies mutual struggle and
>>>>> mutual aid. In the main, however, the balance in our nature is
>>>>> heavily on the side of good over evil. Markets are moral, and
>>>>> modern economies are founded on our virtuous nature. The Gordon
>>>>> Google Guys łDonąt Be Evil˛ model of business is the rule. If
>>>>> this were not the case, market capitalism would have imploded
>>>>> long ago.
>>
>>>> Markets do "implode" from time to time, so Shermer needs a better
>>>> theory, doesn't he?
>>
>>> It's hard to think of a market implosion that wasn't caused by
>>> government
>>> artificially protecting bad behavior.
>>
>> It's hard for me to think of a major market not
>> affected by the activities and presence of a
>> government, regardless of whether it imploded or
>> not, so I can't come up with a historical sample
>> offhand. Government may have a mixed record in
>> regard to implosion probability. But in any case,
>> if Shermer were correct, markets would never
>> implode at all, government or not.
>
> If governments had a "mixed record" in regard to implosion
> probability it ought to be possible to find an example of
> market implosion that was not caused by government.
And there are such examples.
> In fact there should be many. Unless of course the
> government prevented all implosions that it did not itself cause.
Yes, so only a few are needed.
Geode
> Geode wrote:
> > On 23 mar, 09:35, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > This experiment is too abstract to have any sense. Most people are
> > not so sharp. Even gamblers are not any sharp, cause they are unable
> > to realize that they are only enriching the casinos. They risk their
> > money for the illusory believe of "I am lucky, it is the others that
> > are the losers."
>
> Partially true. Real gamblers, pros, know that there are people who
> they call "losers", people who keep playing after they've exhausted
> their luck. Indeed, the losers are treated somewhat with
> contempt. Chronic, addictive gamblers, the ones who get in
> trouble, are said to "choose to lose" by losing sight of the larger
> picture.
>
> but the kind of markets I am interested in are ones where
> real people outcompete other people by providing a better
> good or service. That's not gambling, although it may
> *also* have elements of the same mental processes.
This is a nice idea. But it is only a partial truth. You are
commenting as market to the people who is selling something. Then,
what I see is two parts. On a side are the sellers, on the other the
buyers. Then, not all are honest. Specially on the sellers side.
There are many crooks among the sellers.
On the other hand, on the side of the buyers there are many dim
people. They do not understand what is the best option. They only buy,
something they can afford at this moment. This feeling of buying is
made of realization, sometimes. They make them feel they had some
power. In the act of buying something is like acquiring the proof
that they had some money to expend like some others. So, in a way,
they got a certification that they are not so poor after all. I does
have more importance than this. By buying something, they get a boost
at their self-esteem. It does not mind if the item bought is useless
for other purposes. By showing off the item he bought, the person is
showing his gladness. He is like others who also had an item similar.
He feels that he is not much less than others in school, or in the
workplace.
Geode
Geode
a very nice story.
geode
.
M Purcell
It's a repeatable experiment.
Anarcissie
<8d537fc9-7118-47d8...@d30g2000prn.googl
egroups.com>,
Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The problem being that there are very few markets
of any substantial size which are not affected by
government activity; so it will be difficult to find
an example.
Anarcissie
Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
No, Wall Street looked like gamblers because they _are_
gamblers. No one knows ahead of time what a market
(a collection of buyers, sellers, thieves, con men,
cops and bystanders) is going to do. Evaluating the
potential of a company to produce goods and services is
less important than the potential of the company to
produce marketing, as witness for example Microsoft and
Apple. Financial markets are additionally affected by
provision of funny credit money, which has been deemed
necessary to keep investors happy and functioning.
From the point of view of the individual investor, all
of these things are beyond her control and often beyond
her knowledge, and so she must necessarily gamble.
According to the _Wall_Street_Journal_ of a few years
ago, something like 90% of all new products fail.
tg
You might want to check out the various forms of circular reasoning
which you are practicing here.
Capuchin monkeys don't 'behave as though... even if given no reason to
believe they will'. That's simply you assuming your ideologically
based conclusion at the beginning of the argument. The whole point is
that we observe a behavior across species where the calculation of
future reward is *not* likely to be even a possibility.
The behavior described, if it is beneficial, is beneficial to the
species, and since we are talking about social animals, it operates
through the group. There's simply a mechanism with a continuum of
behavior---getting as much as one can without negatively affecting the
functioning of the group.
When the shortchanged monkey expresses displeasure, that creates
negative feelings in the monkey in control. When the shortchanged
monkey refuses to cooperate, it is conditioning the MIC to be
cooperative.
For the system to work to the benefit of the group, the mechanisms
have to be flexible and adaptive, so that behaviors can achieve a
dynamic equilibrium.
-tg
-tg
M Purcell
Sounds like an ideologically based conclusion, monkeys seem to have
better memories.
http://games.lumosity.com/chimp.html
Test yourself.
tg
What does?
Rod Speed
> Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Michael Price wrote
>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> The Mind of the Market
>>>>>> Evolutionary economics explains why
>>>>>> irrational financial choices were once rational By Michael
>>>>>> Shermer Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
>>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market ...
>>>>>> Just as it is a myth that evolution is driven solely by łselfish
>>>>>> genes˛ and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
>>>>>> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people
>>>>>> who are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact
>>>>>> is, we are equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and
>>>>>> competitive. There exists in both life and economies mutual
>>>>>> struggle and mutual aid. In the main, however, the balance in
>>>>>> our nature is heavily on the side of good over evil. Markets are
>>>>>> moral, and modern economies are founded on our virtuous nature.
>>>>>> The Gordon Gekko łGreed Is Good˛ model of business is the
>>>>>> exception, and the Google Guys łDonąt Be Evil˛ model of business
>>>>>> is the rule. If this were not the case, market capitalism would
>>>>>> have imploded long ago.
>>>>> Markets do "implode" from time to time, so Shermer needs a better
>>>>> theory, doesn't he?
>>>> It's hard to think of a market implosion that wasn't caused by
>>>> government artificially protecting bad behavior.
>>> It's hard for me to think of a major market not
>>> affected by the activities and presence of a
>>> government, regardless of whether it imploded or
>>> not, so I can't come up with a historical sample
>>> offhand. Government may have a mixed record in
>>> regard to implosion probability. But in any case,
>>> if Shermer were correct, markets would never
>>> implode at all, government or not.
>> If governments had a "mixed record" in regard to implosion
>> probability it ought to be possible to find an example of
>> market implosion that was not caused by government.
>> In fact there should be many. Unless of course the
>> government prevented all implosions that it did not itself cause.
> The problem being that there are very few markets of any
> substantial size which are not affected by government activity;
> so it will be difficult to find an example.
Thats only true of modern times. Its not true of earlier times with the tulip bubble for example.
Rod Speed
>>> This experiment is too abstract to have any sense. Most
>>> people are not so sharp. Even gamblers are not any sharp,
>>> cause they are unable to realize that they are only enriching
>>> the casinos. They risk their money for the illusory believe
>>> of "I am lucky, it is the others that are the losers."
>> Partially true. Real gamblers, pros, know that there are people who
>> they call "losers", people who keep playing after they've exhausted
>> their luck. Indeed, the losers are treated somewhat with contempt.
>> Chronic, addictive gamblers, the ones who get in trouble, are said
>> to "choose to lose" by losing sight of the larger picture.
>> but the kind of markets I am interested in are ones where
>> real people outcompete other people by providing a better
>> good or service. That's not gambling, although it may
>> *also* have elements of the same mental processes.
> This is a nice idea. But it is only a partial truth.
Yours is only partially true too.
> You are commenting as market to the people who is selling something.
Nope, he is talking about the whole system.
> Then, what I see is two parts. On a side are the sellers, on
> the other the buyers. Then, not all are honest. Specially on
> the sellers side. There are many crooks among the sellers.
Yes, but any viable market allows for that.
And there are plenty of crooks amoungs the buyers too,
most obviously in the US system where most sellers allow
free returns for a full refund and some arseholes use that
as a way to get short term use of the goods for free etc.
> On the other hand, on the side of the buyers there are many
> dim people. They do not understand what is the best option.
> They only buy, something they can afford at this moment.
> This feeling of buying is made of realization, sometimes.
> They make them feel they had some power. In the act
> of buying something is like acquiring the proof that they
> had some money to expend like some others. So, in a way,
> they got a certification that they are not so poor after all. I does
> have more importance than this. By buying something, they get a boost
> at their self-esteem. It does not mind if the item bought is useless
> for other purposes. By showing off the item he bought, the person is
> showing his gladness. He is like others who also had an item similar.
> He feels that he is not much less than others in school, or in the workplace.
Sure, but only a minority operate like that.
Rod Speed
>>> This experiment is too abstract to have any sense. Most people are
>>> not so sharp. Even gamblers are not any sharp, cause they are unable
>>> to realize that they are only enriching the casinos. They risk their
>>> money for the illusory believe of "I am lucky, it is the others that
>>> are the losers."
>> Partially true. Real gamblers, pros, know that there are people who
>> they call "losers", people who keep playing after they've exhausted
>> their luck. Indeed, the losers are treated somewhat with contempt.
>> Chronic, addictive gamblers, the ones who get in trouble, are said
>> to "choose to lose" by losing sight of the larger picture.
>> but the kind of markets I am interested in are ones where
>> real people outcompete other people by providing a better
>> good or service. That's not gambling, although it may
>> *also* have elements of the same mental processes.
>> The reason Wall Street looked like gamblers is because
>> those engines were not used for their real purposes -
>> allocating capital to the most productive.
> No, Wall Street looked like gamblers because they _are_ gamblers.
Nope.
> No one knows ahead of time what a market
> (a collection of buyers, sellers, thieves, con
> men, cops and bystanders) is going to do.
Anyone with even half a clue has noticed that over the long
haul you do come out ahead if you have your money invested
there and that there are a hell of a lot more than just thieves
and con men involved in that particular market.
And your mindless line applys just as much to small business too.
Doesnt mean that all those involved in small business are gamblers.
> Evaluating the potential of a company to produce goods and
> services is less important than the potential of the company to
> produce marketing, as witness for example Microsoft and Apple.
Sure, but thats just part of the production of goods and services.
> Financial markets are additionally affected by provision
> of funny credit money, which has been deemed
> necessary to keep investors happy and functioning.
Small business in spades.
> From the point of view of the individual investor, all
> of these things are beyond her control and often beyond
> her knowledge, and so she must necessarily gamble.
Small business in spades.
> According to the _Wall_Street_Journal_ of a few years
> ago, something like 90% of all new products fail.
Small business in spades.
All you are really saying is that life is a gamble. Hardly a shocking revelation.
Rod Speed
> Because 99 percent of our evolutionary history was spent as
> hunter-gatherers living in small bands of a few dozen to a few
> hundred people, we evolved a psychology not always well
> equipped to reason our way around the modern world.
Thats very arguable indeed. You can also make a very solid case
that we in fact evolved a psychology that is remarkably adaptable
and which allows us to operate well in everything from the most
primitive hunter gatherer situations right thru to immense high
density citys when operate completely differently to hunter
gatherer societys and everything in between as well.
> What may seem like irrational behavior today may
> have actually been rational 100,000 years ago.
And it may not too. Not all behaviour always ends
up being selected for, most obviously with behaviour
that cuts in well past breeding age etc.
Its very hard for example to substantiate the claim that one
of the most striking things that humans have evolved past
apes with, a taste for religion etc, has anything whatever
to do with what worked in hunter gatherer times.
It may well be that its just a significant downside of the
sort of intelligence that had significant advantages in
hunter gatherer society like much more effective
communication than any other species has ever evolved.
It may well be that its that that allows the pervasiveness
of ideas that someone thinks up and which has produced
some of the more bizarre stuff like sacrificing your kids to
some damned god or other to ensure that the sun keeps
coming up every day or to get that obscenity of a god to
stop the current drought that it is claimed to have imposed.
> Without an evolutionary perspective, the assumptions
> of Homo economicus-that “Economic Man” is rational,
> self-maximizing and efficient in making choices-make no sense.
Wrong. That may just be the result of being much smarter than any other species, stupid.
> Take economic profit versus psychological fairness as an example.
> Behavioral economists employ an experimental procedure called
> the Ultimatum Game. It goes something like this. You are given
> $100 to split between yourself and your game partner. Whatever
> division of the money you propose, if your partner accepts it, you
> are both richer by that amount. How much should you offer? Why
> not suggest a $90-$10 split? If your game partner is a rational,
> self-interested money maximizer, he isn’t going to turn down a
> free 10 bucks, is he? He is. Research shows that proposals
> that deviate much beyond a $70-$30 split are usually rejected.
> Why? Because they aren’t fair. Says who? Says the moral emotion
> of “reciprocal altruism,” which evolved over the Paleolithic eons to
> demand fairness on the part of our potential exchange partners.
Easy to claim it evolved like that. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine” only works if
> I know you will respond with something approaching parity.
Wrong again, most obviously with charity when the giver
expects nothing in return and in fact donates anonymously
so there cant be anything in return, even just thanks.
> The moral sense of fairness is hardwired into our brains and
> is an emotion shared by most people and primates tested for it.
Doesnt mean it evolved like that for the hunter
gatherer situation even just in pre human primates.
> Thousands of experimental trials with subjects from Western countries
> have consistently revealed a sense of injustice at low-ball offers.
So what ?
> Further, we now have a sizable body of data from peoples
> in non-Western cultures around the world, including those
> living close to how our Paleolithic ancestors lived,
There are fuck all of those now.
> and although their responses vary more than those of modern peoples
> living in market economies do, they still show a strong aversion to unfairness.
And even surprisingly young kids do too.
> The deeper evolution of this phenomenon can be seen in the behavior
> of our primate cousins. In studies with both chimpanzees and capuchin
> monkeys, Emory University primatologists Frans de Waal and Sarah
> Brosnan found that when two individuals work together on a task for
> which only one is rewarded with a desired food, if the reward
> recipient does not share that food with his task partner, the partner
> will refuse to participate in future tasks and will express emotions
> that are clearly meant to convey displeasure at the injustice.
But we dont see that with non primates so much.
> In another experiment in which two capuchins were trained to
> exchange a granite stone for a cucumber slice, they made the
> trade 95 percent of the time. But if one monkey received a
> grape instead (a delicacy capuchins greatly prefer over
> cucumbers), the other monkey cooperated only 60 percent
> of the time, sometimes even refusing the cucumber slice altogether.
Thats not surprising. Presumably they are hoping that refusing
the cucumber slice will produce a grape at least some of the time.
Nothing whatever to do with fairness.
> In a third condition in which one monkey received a grape
> without even having to swap a granite stone for it, the
> other monkey cooperated only 20 percent of the time.
So what ? All that shows is that the monkeys are
smart enough to work out that the chunk of granite
isnt necessarily crucial to getting a grape, stupid.
> And in several instances, they became so outraged
> at the inequity of the outcome they heaved the
> cucumber slice back at the human experimenters!
But are too stupid to hurl the chunk of granite instead.
Bet humans would be hurling the chunk of granite instead.
> Such results suggest that all primates (including us)
> evolved a sense of justice, a moral emotion that signals
> to the individual that an exchange was fair or unfair.
Like hell it does. ALL it suggests is that they
prefer grapes to a slice of cucumber, stupid.
> Fairness evolved as a stable strategy for maintaining
> social harmony in our ancestors’ small bands, where
> cooperation was reinforced and became the rule while
> freeloading was punished and became the exception.
Easy to claim it evolved like that. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
What you'd have to do is find a species that has very large herds and
small groups and see if you get that effect with the subspecies that
prefers small groups but not with the one that prefers very large herds.
> What would appear to be irrational economic choices today-such
> as turning down a free $10 with a sense of righteous injustice-were,
> at one time, rational when seen through the lens of evolution.
Easy to claim it evolved like that. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> Just as it is a myth that evolution is driven solely by “selfish
> genes” and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish
> and competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by
> people who are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive.
Hardly anyone is like that in the exclusively sense.
> The fact is, we are equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and competitive.
Some are, some aint.
> There exists in both life and economies mutual struggle and mutual aid.
Not necessarily, particularly with abundance where there isnt any stuggle at all.
> In the main, however, the balance in our nature is heavily on the side of good over evil.
Thats very arguable indeed with some societys.
> Markets are moral,
Pigs arse they are, particularly when the worst abusers
dont even see the downsides of their immoral behaviour
or just disregard that by using the mental trick of just
dismissing those as the out group that doesnt matter etc.
> and modern economies are founded on our virtuous nature.
Even sillier. They're actually founded on what works.
> The Gordon Gekko “Greed Is Good” model of business is the exception,
It isnt that exceptional.
> and the Google Guys “Don’t Be Evil” model of business is the rule.
Pigs arse it is. Its just as exceptional.
There is a reason that used car salemen and lawyers are so poorly regarded.
> If this were not the case, market capitalism would have imploded long ago.
Even sillier. It used to implode repeatedly until we
worked out how to stop it happening so often.
That true in spades of the worst excesses of market capitalism too.
> The Mind of the Market
> Evolutionary economics explains why
> irrational financial choices were once rational
> By Michael Shermer
> Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market
Just another completely mindless steaming turd.
Les Cargill
One of the really nice things about markets is that you don't
have to know much about the character of the person selling to
you. You just have to know what it is, and what's the
price. If someone put sawdust in the gears of a car ( an old used
car salesman trick, to hide a worn-out manual transmission ) and your
mechanic catches 'em at 'em, you can sue, or inject that tidbit of
information into their reputation-stream.
People aren't perfect. So how important is "perfect"?
> On the other hand, on the side of the buyers there are many dim
> people. They do not understand what is the best option. They only buy,
> something they can afford at this moment. This feeling of buying is
> made of realization, sometimes. They make them feel they had some
> power. In the act of buying something is like acquiring the proof
> that they had some money to expend like some others.
Sure.
> So, in a way,
> they got a certification that they are not so poor after all. I does
> have more importance than this. By buying something, they get a boost
> at their self-esteem. It does not mind if the item bought is useless
> for other purposes. By showing off the item he bought, the person is
> showing his gladness. He is like others who also had an item similar.
> He feels that he is not much less than others in school, or in the
> workplace.
>
But maybe that's more important to him than the object itself. Thing is,
who am I to call him a fool? Or anybody?
> Geode
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>> The reason Wall Street looked like gamblers is because
>> those engines were not used for their real purposes -
>> allocating capital to the most productive.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Geode
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
No, because it's not zero-sum. Er, Wall Street plus Main Street
is not zero sum. Now, if the question becomes "with
Craigslist and Ebay, do we need Wall Street anymore, since
it's acting like it's zero sum?" and I cannot answer
that.
> No one knows ahead of time what a market
> (a collection of buyers, sellers, thieves, con men,
> cops and bystanders) is going to do. Evaluating the
> potential of a company to produce goods and services is
> less important than the potential of the company to
> produce marketing, as witness for example Microsoft and
> Apple.
This is key - since network effects matter A Lot,
selling the thing is important because the more
people who use the thing, the more community
reinforcement there is for it.
So marketing might be more important than the
Perfect Widget.
And don't kid yourself - Linux people do "marketing",
too - they just do it on a different basis.
> Financial markets are additionally affected by
> provision of funny credit money, which has been deemed
> necessary to keep investors happy and functioning.
> From the point of view of the individual investor, all
> of these things are beyond her control and often beyond
> her knowledge, and so she must necessarily gamble.
>
Or just buy a nice index fund.
> According to the _Wall_Street_Journal_ of a few years
> ago, something like 90% of all new products fail.
Yep. This is a feature, not a bug.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie wrote>>>> Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> This experiment is too abstract to have any sense. Most people are
>>>> not so sharp. Even gamblers are not any sharp, cause they are
>>>> unable to realize that they are only enriching the casinos. They
>>>> risk their money for the illusory believe of "I am lucky, it is
>>>> the others that are the losers."
>>> Partially true. Real gamblers, pros, know that there are people who
>>> they call "losers", people who keep playing after they've exhausted
>>> their luck. Indeed, the losers are treated somewhat with contempt. Chronic, addictive gamblers, the ones who get in
>>> trouble, are said to "choose to lose" by losing sight of the larger picture.
>>> but the kind of markets I am interested in are ones where
>>> real people outcompete other people by providing a better
>>> good or service. That's not gambling, although it may
>>> *also* have elements of the same mental processes.
>>> The reason Wall Street looked like gamblers is because
>>> those engines were not used for their real purposes -
>>> allocating capital to the most productive.
>> No, Wall Street looked like gamblers because they _are_ gamblers.
> No, because it's not zero-sum. Er, Wall Street plus Main Street is not zero sum. Now, if the question becomes "with
> Craigslist and Ebay, do we need Wall Street anymore,
Corse we do, because neither replaces what Wall St does.
> since it's acting like it's zero sum?"
Like hell it is.
> and I cannot answer that.
Plenty can, even if you cant.
>> No one knows ahead of time what a market
>> (a collection of buyers, sellers, thieves, con men,
>> cops and bystanders) is going to do. Evaluating the
>> potential of a company to produce goods and services is
>> less important than the potential of the company to produce marketing, as witness for example Microsoft and Apple.
> This is key - since network effects matter A Lot,
> selling the thing is important because the more
> people who use the thing, the more community
> reinforcement there is for it.
> So marketing might be more important than the Perfect Widget.
Its more that marketing a useful product is just as important as the design.
> And don't kid yourself - Linux people do "marketing",
> too - they just do it on a different basis.
And even when they have a product that is quite literally free, it STILL
doesnt achieve anything like the market penetration of the MS products.
There has to be a reason for that.
>> Financial markets are additionally affected by
>> provision of funny credit money, which has been deemed
>> necessary to keep investors happy and functioning.
>> From the point of view of the individual investor, all
>> of these things are beyond her control and often beyond
>> her knowledge, and so she must necessarily gamble.
> Or just buy a nice index fund.
With no gamble at all over anything but the short term.
>> According to the _Wall_Street_Journal_ of a few years
>> ago, something like 90% of all new products fail.
> Yep. This is a feature, not a bug.
Its more that there are a lot more new products than
the market needs with not enough unique about them.
Day Brown
> But maybe that's more important to him than the object itself. Thing is,
> who am I to call him a fool? Or anybody?
the customer feel good for only a while, but bad for the rest of his
life, that's his problem, not the govt's.
The fact that some drugs actually change the thinking process is not a
problem for law enforcement until they actually harm someone else.
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> But maybe that's more important to him than the object itself. Thing is,
>> who am I to call him a fool? Or anybody?
> By that logic, all recreational drugs should be legal. If the drug makes
> the customer feel good for only a while, but bad for the rest of his
> life, that's his problem, not the govt's.
>
Well, yes. I can see the government disseminating information, but
that's about where it ought to end.
> The fact that some drugs actually change the thinking process is not a
> problem for law enforcement until they actually harm someone else.
--
Les Cargill
Day Brown
> Day Brown wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> But maybe that's more important to him than the object itself. Thing is,
>>> who am I to call him a fool? Or anybody?
>> By that logic, all recreational drugs should be legal. If the drug makes
>> the customer feel good for only a while, but bad for the rest of his
>> life, that's his problem, not the govt's.
>>
>
> Well, yes. I can see the government disseminating information, but
> that's about where it ought to end.
to assimilate the info, and the brain damage prevents understanding later.
>> The fact that some drugs actually change the thinking process is not a
>> problem for law enforcement until they actually harm someone else.
I've advocated that all recreational drug vendors be licensed just as
they are for tobacco and alcohol. If they sell to minors, or to anyone
whose family thinks drug use has caused problems, they can be sued for
the cost of drug rehab, tutoring, lost wages, and counsel by the family
clergy. Meth sales to addicts would stop.
Drugs which dont cause problems, like pot, would be freely available to
any adult able to meet his family and social responsibilities.
The only time the cops would be involved is sales without a license,
just as there is for moonshine.
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> Day Brown wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> But maybe that's more important to him than the object itself. Thing
>>>> is,
>>>> who am I to call him a fool? Or anybody?
>>> By that logic, all recreational drugs should be legal. If the drug makes
>>> the customer feel good for only a while, but bad for the rest of his
>>> life, that's his problem, not the govt's.
>>>
>>
>> Well, yes. I can see the government disseminating information, but
>> that's about where it ought to end.
> In theory. but in practice, meth is given to kids, who are not mature enuf
> to assimilate the info, and the brain damage prevents understanding later.
>
That is all well and good, but surely you realize that if it
were legal, there would at least be less profit in producing it.
This is not to say meth isn't horribly dangerous, but rather to think
about it in a holistic way to choose the most effective policy,
instead of reacting and invoking the least effective policy.
>>> The fact that some drugs actually change the thinking process is not a
>>> problem for law enforcement until they actually harm someone else.
> I've advocated that all recreational drug vendors be licensed just as
> they are for tobacco and alcohol. If they sell to minors, or to anyone
> whose family thinks drug use has caused problems, they can be sued for
> the cost of drug rehab, tutoring, lost wages, and counsel by the family
> clergy. Meth sales to addicts would stop.
>
Absolutely. I could not agree more.
> Drugs which dont cause problems, like pot, would be freely available to
> any adult able to meet his family and social responsibilities.
>
> The only time the cops would be involved is sales without a license,
> just as there is for moonshine.
--
Les Cargill
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 11:06 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Price wrote:
> >>> On Mar 23, 2:28 pm, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <d6607edd-675b-4dc4-96a1-2691aefc0...@a16g2000pre.googl
> >>>> egroups.com>,
>
> >>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> The Mind of the Market
> >>>>> Evolutionary economics explains why
> >>>>> irrational financial choices were once rational By Michael Shermer
> >>>>> Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
> >>>>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-
> >>>>> market ...
> >>>>> genes² and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
> >>>>> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people who
> >>>>> are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact is, we
> >>>>> are equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and competitive.
> >>>>> There exists in both life and economies mutual struggle and
> >>>>> mutual aid. In the main, however, the balance in our nature is
> >>>>> heavily on the side of good over evil. Markets are moral, and
> >>>>> modern economies are founded on our virtuous nature. The Gordon
> >>>>> Google Guys ³Don¹t Be Evil² model of business is the rule. If
> >>>>> this were not the case, market capitalism would have imploded
> >>>>> long ago.
>
> >>>> Markets do "implode" from time to time, so Shermer needs a better
> >>>> theory, doesn't he?
>
> >>> It's hard to think of a market implosion that wasn't caused by
> >>> government
> >>> artificially protecting bad behavior.
>
> >> It's hard for me to think of a major market not
> >> affected by the activities and presence of a
> >> government, regardless of whether it imploded or
> >> not, so I can't come up with a historical sample
> >> offhand. Government may have a mixed record in
> >> regard to implosion probability. But in any case,
> >> if Shermer were correct, markets would never
> >> implode at all, government or not.
>
> > If governments had a "mixed record" in regard to implosion
> > probability it ought to be possible to find an example of
> > market implosion that was not caused by government.
>
> And there are such examples.
Name one.
>
> > In fact there should be many. Unless of course the
> > government prevented all implosions that it did not itself cause.
>
> Yes, so only a few are needed.
Give an example where without government there would have been a
market implosion.
Any example you evidenceless lying prick.
Michael Price
> Anarcissie wrote
>
>
>
> > Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> Michael Price wrote
> >>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>> The Mind of the Market
> >>>>>> Evolutionary economics explains why
> >>>>>> irrational financial choices were once rational By Michael
> >>>>>> Shermer Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
> >>>>>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market...
> >>>>>> genes² and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
> >>>>>> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people
> >>>>>> who are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact
> >>>>>> is, we are equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and
> >>>>>> competitive. There exists in both life and economies mutual
> >>>>>> struggle and mutual aid. In the main, however, the balance in
> >>>>>> our nature is heavily on the side of good over evil. Markets are
> >>>>>> moral, and modern economies are founded on our virtuous nature.
> >>>>>> exception, and the Google Guys ³Don¹t Be Evil² model of business
> >>>>>> is the rule. If this were not the case, market capitalism would
> >>>>>> have imploded long ago.
> >>>>> Markets do "implode" from time to time, so Shermer needs a better
> >>>>> theory, doesn't he?
> >>>> It's hard to think of a market implosion that wasn't caused by
> >>>> government artificially protecting bad behavior.
> >>> It's hard for me to think of a major market not
> >>> affected by the activities and presence of a
> >>> government, regardless of whether it imploded or
> >>> not, so I can't come up with a historical sample
> >>> offhand. Government may have a mixed record in
> >>> regard to implosion probability. But in any case,
> >>> if Shermer were correct, markets would never
> >>> implode at all, government or not.
> >> If governments had a "mixed record" in regard to implosion
> >> probability it ought to be possible to find an example of
> >> market implosion that was not caused by government.
> >> In fact there should be many. Unless of course the
> >> government prevented all implosions that it did not itself cause.
> > The problem being that there are very few markets of any
> > substantial size which are not affected by government activity;
> > so it will be difficult to find an example.
>
> Thats only true of modern times. Its not true of earlier times with the tulip bubble for example.
The tulip bubble is the only example I know of where government
monetary policy of the
place in question didn't cause the boom and bust. What happened was
that governments in
other places had bad monetary policy and that pushed more and more
money into The
Netherlands resulting in a boom and bust. Of at least that's the
explanation mises.org has.
Rod Speed
>>>> Michael Price wrote
>>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> The Mind of the Market
>>>>>>> Evolutionary economics explains why
>>>>>>> irrational financial choices were once rational By Michael
>>>>>>> Shermer Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
>>>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market ...
>>>>>>> Just as it is a myth that evolution is driven solely by łselfish
>>>>>>> genes˛ and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
>>>>>>> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people
>>>>>>> who are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact
>>>>>>> is, we are equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and
>>>>>>> competitive. There exists in both life and economies mutual
>>>>>>> struggle and mutual aid. In the main, however, the balance in
>>>>>>> our nature is heavily on the side of good over evil. Markets
>>>>>>> are moral, and modern economies are founded on our virtuous
>>>>>>> nature. The Gordon Gekko łGreed Is Good˛ model of business is
>>>>>>> the exception, and the Google Guys łDonąt Be Evil˛ model of
>>>>>>> business is the rule. If this were not the case, market
>>>>>>> capitalism would have imploded long ago.
>>>>>> Markets do "implode" from time to time, so Shermer needs a better theory, doesn't he?
>>>>> It's hard to think of a market implosion that wasn't caused
>>>>> by government artificially protecting bad behavior.
>>>> It's hard for me to think of a major market not
>>>> affected by the activities and presence of a
>>>> government, regardless of whether it imploded or
>>>> not, so I can't come up with a historical sample
>>>> offhand. Government may have a mixed record in
>>>> regard to implosion probability. But in any case,
>>>> if Shermer were correct, markets would never
>>>> implode at all, government or not.
>>> If governments had a "mixed record" in regard to implosion
>>> probability it ought to be possible to find an example of
>>> market implosion that was not caused by government.
>> And there are such examples.
> Name one.
The original tulip fiasco for starters.
>>> In fact there should be many. Unless of course the government
>>> prevented all implosions that it did not itself cause.
>> Yes, so only a few are needed.
> Give an example where without government there would have been a market implosion.
The original tulip fiasco.
> Any example you evidenceless lying prick.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
Rod Speed
Your pig ignorance is your problem, as always.
> What happened was that governments in other places
> had bad monetary policy and that pushed more and more
> money into The Netherlands resulting in a boom and bust.
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that stupid pig ignorant claim.
> Of at least that's the explanation mises.org has.
Pity they cant actually substantiate that stupid pig ignorant claim.
Anarcissie
<a8a241e6-ae32-413f...@10g2000yqq.google
The Roman Empire and other states of its time had
monetary policy. They issued money, debased the
currency once issued, and tried to exert price controls
from time to time. The usual. The only thing lacking
was the technology of credit, which enabled people
to issue money with absolutely nothing but belief
backing it.
> The tulip bubble is the only example I know of where government
> monetary policy of the
> place in question didn't cause the boom and bust. What happened was
> that governments in
> other places had bad monetary policy and that pushed more and more
> money into The
> Netherlands resulting in a boom and bust. Of at least that's the
> explanation mises.org has.
If you have money, you have monetary policy. When
times are good and people are optimistic, they want
more money to invest, because everything is getting
better and better. If they can't get the money out of
trade or savings, they borrow it or make it or demand
that the government make it. As the money supply
expands, the price of things goes up, making investment
look ever more desirable in ever more dubious ventures.
This positive feedback loop persists until, like all
undamped positive feedback loops, it blows up.
Monetary policy is simply part of the general spirit of
the times, not some kind of thing that falls from Mars.
This sort of thing goes back to the ancient world and
probably predates money itself, since people could
invest labor and other goods irrationally because
of their (temporary) optimism and exuberance.
Poetic Justice
> Day Brown wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> Day Brown wrote:
>>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>> But maybe that's more important to him than the object itself. Thing
>>>>> is,
>>>>> who am I to call him a fool? Or anybody?
>>>> By that logic, all recreational drugs should be legal. If the drug
>>>> makes
>>>> the customer feel good for only a while, but bad for the rest of his
>>>> life, that's his problem, not the govt's.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, yes. I can see the government disseminating information, but
>>> that's about where it ought to end.
>> In theory. but in practice, meth is given to kids, who are not mature
>> enuf
>> to assimilate the info, and the brain damage prevents understanding
>> later.
The same kids would buy rat poison and snort it..... Why not force rat
poison to be banned? They already buy scotch guard and Huff it.... Why
not ban Scotch guard?
I remember kids Huffing transmission oil, they climbed down a chimney
and one got stuck, then came the Fire Rescue to bust the chimney and get
him out.... The kids across the street, a Doctors kid, I kinda looked
at those kids as brain dead people that walked into walls.
Make all drugs legal for adults and take the money out of it, just like
what was done with the repeal of Prohibition..... Progressivism has
the urge to micromanage our lives and they keep proving that it won't
work. Every attempt to live our life for us results in the creation of
well funded gangs that are worse than the original problem they tried to
ban.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Michael Price wrote
> >>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> Michael Price wrote
> >>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> The Mind of the Market
> >>>>>>> Evolutionary economics explains why
> >>>>>>> irrational financial choices were once rational By Michael
> >>>>>>> Shermer Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
> >>>>>>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market...
> >>>>>>> genes² and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and
> >>>>>>> competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people
> >>>>>>> who are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact
> >>>>>>> is, we are equitably selfish and selfless, cooperative and
> >>>>>>> competitive. There exists in both life and economies mutual
> >>>>>>> struggle and mutual aid. In the main, however, the balance in
> >>>>>>> our nature is heavily on the side of good over evil. Markets
> >>>>>>> are moral, and modern economies are founded on our virtuous
> >>>>>>> the exception, and the Google Guys ³Don¹t Be Evil² model of
> >>>>>>> business is the rule. If this were not the case, market
> >>>>>>> capitalism would have imploded long ago.
> >>>>>> Markets do "implode" from time to time, so Shermer needs a better theory, doesn't he?
> >>>>> It's hard to think of a market implosion that wasn't caused
> >>>>> by government artificially protecting bad behavior.
> >>>> It's hard for me to think of a major market not
> >>>> affected by the activities and presence of a
> >>>> government, regardless of whether it imploded or
> >>>> not, so I can't come up with a historical sample
> >>>> offhand. Government may have a mixed record in
> >>>> regard to implosion probability. But in any case,
> >>>> if Shermer were correct, markets would never
> >>>> implode at all, government or not.
> >>> If governments had a "mixed record" in regard to implosion
> >>> probability it ought to be possible to find an example of
> >>> market implosion that was not caused by government.
> >> And there are such examples.
> > Name one.
>
> The original tulip fiasco for starters.
Which you would never have known about if not for my telling you
about it.
Additionally it was probably caused by government, just not the
government
of the place that it happened. But at least you're referencing
evidence, which
is new for you.
"What made this episode unique was that the government policy did not
expand the supply of money through fractional reserve banking which is
the modern tool. Actually, it was quite the opposite. The Dutch
provided a sound money policy that called for money to be backed one
hundred percent by specie, which attracted coin and bullion from
throughout the world. Free coinage laws then generated more money from
this increased supply of coin and bullion than what the market
demanded. This acute increase in the supply of money fostered an
atmosphere that was ripe for speculation and malinvestment,
manifesting itself in the intense trading of tulips."
>
> >>> In fact there should be many. Unless of course the government
> >>> prevented all implosions that it did not itself cause.
> >> Yes, so only a few are needed.
> > Give an example where without government there would have been a market implosion.
>
> The original tulip fiasco.
>
Again, not proven.
> > Any example you evidenceless lying prick.
>
> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
I gave you rational argument and you gave me mindless assertion. I
called you a lying
evidenceless prick because you are a lying evidenceless prick, not to
support my
arguments.
Michael Price
Actually they did you fucking liar.
Michael Price
> groups.com>,
Well no, you only have monetary policy if a) the government issues
the money and b) they do so according to a policy rather than simply
trying to sell as much undebased coin as possible for signorage
profits.
Michael Price
about
what I said.
> Capuchin monkeys don't 'behave as though... even if given no reason to
> believe they will'.
But we're not talking about monkeys are we? Plus I doubt that's
true.
> That's simply you assuming your ideologically
> based conclusion at the beginning of the argument.
No I showed that the conclusion was valid in the second clause of
the first
sentence. " if they weren't greedy they wouldn't bother making the 70
to me, 30 to you offer.:
> The whole point is that we observe a behavior across species where the calculation of
> future reward is *not* likely to be even a possibility.
>
Which is entirely irrelevant to my thesis since I specifically said:
" We behave as though we are going to have large numbers of
interactions with the other even if we are given no reason to believe
we will."
So the fact that we observe this behavior where the calculation of
future reward is
not likely is entirely consistent with both my theory and it's
opposite.
> The behavior described, if it is beneficial, is beneficial to the
> species,
Which is irrelevant to whether it is beneficial to the genes that
promote it,
which would be the only way it could arise.
> and since we are talking about social animals, it operates
> through the group. There's simply a mechanism with a continuum of
> behavior---getting as much as one can without negatively affecting the
> functioning of the group.
>
But the behavior described would negatively affect the group. In
any case
you haven't supported your claim that we aren't programmed to be
greedy.
> When the shortchanged monkey expresses displeasure, that creates
> negative feelings in the monkey in control. When the shortchanged
> monkey refuses to cooperate, it is conditioning the MIC to be
> cooperative.
>
But this behavior only makes sense if the MIC connects being short-
changed with
displeasure, which only happens if being short-changed, but getting
some of what
you want is unpleasant, this in turn only makes sense as a genetically
programmed
way to get the most out of trades.
> For the system to work to the benefit of the group, the mechanisms
> have to be flexible and adaptive, so that behaviors can achieve a
> dynamic equilibrium.
>
> -tg
>
But they're not. People don't adapt their rejection behavior to the
fact that they
won't get another round of the game. Or at least they don't adapt it
as much as
game theory would predict. They act as though they are going to have
multiple
rounds subsequently even if they rationally know they aren't.
>
> > > Clearly What we can conclude is that there is value in cooperation for social
> > > creatures.
>
> > We cannot conclude that from this experiment, which created an
> > artificial situation where there was value in cooperation for us. By
> > definition there is value in cooperation for social creatures
> > otherwise they would not be social creatures.
>
> > > Many aspects of the recently popular economic paradigm are
> > > pathological in that context---there's nothing to debate.
>
> > > -tg
>
> > What do you think is the "recently popular economic paradigm" and
> > who is it popular with? Certainly free market economics has not been
> > popular with any politically significant group.
Note the complete absence of any defense of your flawed reasoning.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Michael Price wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Michael Price wrote
>>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Michael Price wrote
>>>>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> The Mind of the Market
>>>>>>>>> Evolutionary economics explains why
>>>>>>>>> irrational financial choices were once rational By Michael
>>>>>>>>> Shermer Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
>>>>>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market...
>>>>>>>>> Just as it is a myth that evolution is driven solely by
>>>>>>>>> selfish and competitive, it is a myth that the economy is
>>>>>>>>> driven by people who are exclusively greedy, selfish and
>>>>>>>>> competitive. The fact is, we are equitably selfish and
>>>>>>>>> selfless, cooperative and competitive. There exists in both
>>>>>>>>> life and economies mutual struggle and mutual aid. In the
>>>>>>>>> main, however, the balance in our nature is heavily on the
>>>>>>>>> side of good over evil. Markets are moral, and modern
>>>>>>>>> economies are founded on our virtuous nature. The Gordon
>>>>>>>>> the Google Guys łDonąt Be Evil˛ model of business is the
>>>>>>>>> rule. If this were not the case, market capitalism would have
>>>>>>>>> imploded long ago.
>>>>>>>> Markets do "implode" from time to time, so Shermer needs a
>>>>>>>> better theory, doesn't he?
>>>>>>> It's hard to think of a market implosion that wasn't caused
>>>>>>> by government artificially protecting bad behavior.
>>>>>> It's hard for me to think of a major market not
>>>>>> affected by the activities and presence of a
>>>>>> government, regardless of whether it imploded or
>>>>>> not, so I can't come up with a historical sample
>>>>>> offhand. Government may have a mixed record in
>>>>>> regard to implosion probability. But in any case,
>>>>>> if Shermer were correct, markets would never
>>>>>> implode at all, government or not.
>>>>> If governments had a "mixed record" in regard to implosion
>>>>> probability it ought to be possible to find an example of
>>>>> market implosion that was not caused by government.
>>>> And there are such examples.
>>> Name one.
>> The original tulip fiasco for starters.
> Which you would never have known about if not for my telling you about it.
More of your pathological lying.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to use
groups.google and see that I was rubbing people's
noses in that LONG before you ever showed up, fuckwit.
> Additionally it was probably caused by government,
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet fucking paper bag.
> just not the government of the place that it happened.
It wasnt caused by any govt, fuckwit.
> But at least you're referencing evidence, which is new for you.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
And we can all see not a shred of evidence coming from you, fuckwit.
> "What made this episode unique was that the government policy did
> not expand the supply of money through fractional reserve banking
> which is the modern tool. Actually, it was quite the opposite. The
> Dutch provided a sound money policy that called for money to be
> backed one hundred percent by specie, which attracted coin and
> bullion from throughout the world. Free coinage laws then generated
> more money from this increased supply of coin and bullion than what
> the market demanded. This acute increase in the supply of money
> fostered an atmosphere that was ripe for speculation and
> malinvestment, manifesting itself in the intense trading of tulips."
Easy to claim. Pity that fool cant actually substantiate that claim.
>>>>> In fact there should be many. Unless of course the government
>>>>> prevented all implosions that it did not itself cause.
>>>> Yes, so only a few are needed.
>>> Give an example where without government there would have been a market implosion.
>> The original tulip fiasco.
> Again, not proven.
YOU made the original claim.
YOU get to do the proving.
THATS how it works, fuckwit.
>>> Any example you evidenceless lying prick.
>> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
> I gave you rational argument
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
<reams of your juvenile lies any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Rod Speed
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
Anarcissie
<b8e2b32f-2a27-4833...@g11g2000yqe.googl
egroups.com>,
Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If you have money, you have monetary policy.
>
> Well no, you only have monetary policy if a) the government issues
> the money and b) they do so according to a policy rather than simply
> trying to sell as much undebased coin as possible for signorage
> profits.
Even a private issuer of money has to allocate scarce
resources.
Rod Speed
> Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> If you have money, you have monetary policy.
Nope, just money.
>> Well no, you only have monetary policy if a) the government issues
>> the money and b) they do so according to a policy rather than simply
>> trying to sell as much undebased coin as possible for signorage profits.
> Even a private issuer of money has to allocate scarce resources.
Nope, most obviously with readily available shell money etc.
Michael Price
> egroups.com>,
> Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you have money, you have monetary policy.
>
> > Well no, you only have monetary policy if a) the government issues
> > the money and b) they do so according to a policy rather than simply
> > trying to sell as much undebased coin as possible for signorage
> > profits.
>
> Even a private issuer of money has to allocate scarce
> resources.
But it's not really a "monetary policy" if it's "make as many honest
coins
as I can at a profit". That's a commercial decision by one of many
competitors.
When coins were real (i.e. commodity) money even when only
governments
made them there were other governments competing.
Michael Price
Name one lie. One thing that you can show isn't true that I said.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Michael Price wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> Michael Price wrote
> >>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>> Michael Price wrote
> >>>>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>>> The Mind of the Market
> >>>>>>>>> Evolutionary economics explains why
> >>>>>>>>> irrational financial choices were once rational By Michael
> >>>>>>>>> Shermer Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market...
> >>>>>>>>> Just as it is a myth that evolution is driven solely by
> >>>>>>>>> selfish and competitive, it is a myth that the economy is
> >>>>>>>>> driven by people who are exclusively greedy, selfish and
> >>>>>>>>> competitive. The fact is, we are equitably selfish and
> >>>>>>>>> selfless, cooperative and competitive. There exists in both
> >>>>>>>>> life and economies mutual struggle and mutual aid. In the
> >>>>>>>>> main, however, the balance in our nature is heavily on the
> >>>>>>>>> side of good over evil. Markets are moral, and modern
> >>>>>>>>> economies are founded on our virtuous nature. The Gordon
> >>>>>>>>> the Google Guys ³Don¹t Be Evil² model of business is the
Bullshit liar.
> > Additionally it was probably caused by government,
>
> Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet fucking paper bag.
>
No you never could. The facts are there on mises.org. Of course
you
never refer to that.
> > just not the government of the place that it happened.
>
> It wasnt caused by any govt, fuckwit.
>
As usual you never support any of your lies.
> > But at least you're referencing evidence, which is new for you.
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
>
Did you reference evidence before? Maybe it was years ago and I
forgot.
> And we can all see not a shred of evidence coming from you, fuckwit.
>
Showed you where the evidence was. of course you're the one making
the
claim so you should be providing the evidence.
> > "What made this episode unique was that the government policy did
> > not expand the supply of money through fractional reserve banking
> > which is the modern tool. Actually, it was quite the opposite. The
> > Dutch provided a sound money policy that called for money to be
> > backed one hundred percent by specie, which attracted coin and
> > bullion from throughout the world. Free coinage laws then generated
> > more money from this increased supply of coin and bullion than what
> > the market demanded. This acute increase in the supply of money
> > fostered an atmosphere that was ripe for speculation and
> > malinvestment, manifesting itself in the intense trading of tulips."
>
> Easy to claim. Pity that fool cant actually substantiate that claim.
>
It was substantiated liar.
> >>>>> In fact there should be many. Unless of course the government
> >>>>> prevented all implosions that it did not itself cause.
> >>>> Yes, so only a few are needed.
> >>> Give an example where without government there would have been a market implosion.
> >> The original tulip fiasco.
> > Again, not proven.
>
> YOU made the original claim.
>
I stated that
"It's hard to think of a market implosion that wasn't caused by
government
artificially protecting bad behavior."
And that's true. You made the claim that the tulip bubble wasn't
caused by government
doing bad things, but strangely have done nothing to show that this is
true.
You were the one that claimed it existed.
So far you've been your usual lying self and tried to get people to
forget you haven't
produced a single piece of evidence and tried to get everyone else to
prove a negative.
> YOU get to do the proving.
>
> THATS how it works, fuckwit.
>
As usual you're lying about who made claims and who has to prove
things. Because that's
all you do.
> >>> Any example you evidenceless lying prick.
> >> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
> > I gave you rational argument
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
>
> <reams of stuff rod can't refute snipped.>
Michael Price
Wow, you're so fucking stupid you surprise even me. Would anyone
like to explain to Rod how fucked in the head his statement is and
why?
tg
.....
>
> > You might want to check out the various forms of circular reasoning
> > which you are practicing here.
>
> You might want to look up circular reasoning and/or stop lying
> about
> what I said.
>
> > Capuchin monkeys don't 'behave as though... even if given no reason to
> > believe they will'.
>
> But we're not talking about monkeys are we? Plus I doubt that's
> true.
>
> > That's simply you assuming your ideologically
> > based conclusion at the beginning of the argument.
>
> No I showed that the conclusion was valid in the second clause of
> the first
> sentence. " if they weren't greedy they wouldn't bother making the 70
> to me, 30 to you offer.:
>
*****
> > The whole point is that we observe a behavior across species where the calculation of
> > future reward is *not* likely to be even a possibility.
>
> Which is entirely irrelevant to my thesis since I specifically said:
> " We behave as though we are going to have large numbers of
> interactions with the other even if we are given no reason to believe
> we will."
> So the fact that we observe this behavior where the calculation of
> future reward is
> not likely is entirely consistent with both my theory and it's
> opposite.
>
Thanks for your application, but we already have too many wannabe Zen
Masters here.
> > The behavior described, if it is beneficial, is beneficial to the
> > species,
>
> Which is irrelevant to whether it is beneficial to the genes that
> promote it,
>which would be the only way it could arise.
> > and since we are talking about social animals, it operates
> > through the group. There's simply a mechanism with a continuum of
> > behavior---getting as much as one can without negatively affecting the
> > functioning of the group.
>
> But the behavior described would negatively affect the group.
????! See below.
> In
> any case
> you haven't supported your claim that we aren't programmed to be
> greedy.
Since you have some definition of "greedy" that is only in your head,
that is difficult to ascertain. I said that there is a continuum of
behavior that creates a dynamic equilibrium (that is one which can
vary enough to adapt to environmental changes). This model of behavior
has been widely observed and is not really controversial. The
equilibria are obviously different for different species.
If individuals were exclusively 'greedy', or exclusively cooperative,
or exclusively aggressive, or exclusively passive, it would almost
certainly be detrimental to the species (the population as it exists
at a given point in time.) Consider even non-social individual
territorial animals. They do not 'fight to the death' over territory;
there exists a fluid 'space' in which there are settled animals whose
aggression to intruders is proportional to the depth of incursion, and
territory-seekers who make attempts at conquest but back off if the
defense is too strong.
So it is meaningless (or propagandistic) to use language like
'programmed to be greedy'. If there were a fight to the death every
time, whether over territory or food or mating privileges, the victor
would end up too tired or damaged to enjoy the benefits, and the
population would shrink along with its genetic diversity. If there
were no limit to the consumption of one individual, then the others
would starve, with the same resulting decline in the population.
If you can give an actual counterexample, please do---but it would
certainly be a very rare phenomenon.
-tg
Michael Price
> On Apr 4, 12:28 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You might want to check out the various forms of circular reasoning
> > > which you are practicing here.
>
> > You might want to look up circular reasoning and/or stop lying
> > about what I said.
>
> > > Capuchin monkeys don't 'behave as though... even if given no reason to
> > > believe they will'.
>
> > But we're not talking about monkeys are we? Plus I doubt that's
> > true.
>
> > > That's simply you assuming your ideologically
> > > based conclusion at the beginning of the argument.
>
> > No I showed that the conclusion was valid in the second clause of
> > the first sentence. " if they weren't greedy they wouldn't bother making the 70
> > to me, 30 to you offer.:
>
> *****
>
after it.
Interesting.
> > > The whole point is that we observe a behavior across species where the calculation of
> > > future reward is *not* likely to be even a possibility.
>
> > Which is entirely irrelevant to my thesis since I specifically said:
> > " We behave as though we are going to have large numbers of
> > interactions with the other even if we are given no reason to believe
> > we will."
> > So the fact that we observe this behavior where the calculation of
> > future reward is not likely is entirely consistent with both my theory and it's
> > opposite.
>
> Thanks for your application, but we already have too many wannabe Zen
> Masters here.
>
There's nothing Zen about it, I simply pointed out that what you
said is consistent with
my theory being true and my theory not being true, like the sun rising
every day is consistent
with both a geocentric and a non-geocentric universe.
> > > The behavior described, if it is beneficial, is beneficial to the
> > > species,
>
> > Which is irrelevant to whether it is beneficial to the genes that
> > promote it, which would be the only way it could arise.
> > > and since we are talking about social animals, it operates
> > > through the group. There's simply a mechanism with a continuum of
> > > behavior---getting as much as one can without negatively affecting the
> > > functioning of the group.
>
> > But the behavior described would negatively affect the group.
>
> ????! See below.
>
There is cheating yes? And the effort to avoid cheating costs,
yes? So clearly
the group is being disadvantaged.
> > In any case you haven't supported your claim that we aren't programmed to
> > be greedy.
>
> Since you have some definition of "greedy" that is only in your head,
> that is difficult to ascertain.
I believe I've got the same definition as everybody else, greedy is
attempting to
maximise your own welfare, I'm sorry that you seem determined to
misunderstand
everything I said but it's not my fault you're either thick or lying.
Sorry to get personal
but I do that when I'm misrepresented.
> I said that there is a continuum of behavior that creates a dynamic equilibrium
> (that is one which can vary enough to adapt to environmental changes).
But there's no evidence that it does adapt to environmental changes,
that's the point.
> This model of behavior has been widely observed and is not really controversial. The
> equilibria are obviously different for different species.
>
> If individuals were exclusively 'greedy', or exclusively cooperative,
> or exclusively aggressive, or exclusively passive, it would almost
> certainly be detrimental to the species (the population as it exists
> at a given point in time.)
How would being "excessively cooperative" be determental to the
species
as a whole? Unless the species was cooperating with members of other
species even when that didn't benefit them this would never happen.
Being
more cooperative with members of your own species can only be good for
that species, problem is that what's good for the species isn't what
evolution
selects for.
> Consider even non-social individual territorial animals. They do not 'fight
> to the death' over territory; there exists a fluid 'space' in which there are
> settled animals whose aggression to intruders is proportional to the depth
> of incursion, and territory-seekers who make attempts at conquest but
> back off if the defense is too strong.
>
This has nothing to do with cooperation though does it?
> So it is meaningless (or propagandistic) to use language like
> 'programmed to be greedy'.
Non sequitur, in any case we are programmed to survive and
propagate,
which involves a lot of being greedy. That's why we eat rabbit even
though
it involves more cruelty per bit than eating whale.
> If there were a fight to the death every time, whether over territory or food
> or mating privileges, the victor would end up too tired or damaged to enjoy
> the benefits, and the population would shrink along with its genetic diversity.
And this has nothing to do with being programmed to be greedy. It
has to
do with what is a sensible strategy for competing when cooperation
isn't
available but less than lethal competition is.
> If there were no limit to the consumption of one individual, then the others
> would starve, with the same resulting decline in the population.
>
> If you can give an actual counterexample, please do---but it would
> certainly be a very rare phenomenon.
>
> -tg
>
I know of no species where a single individual eating a lot would
doom a whole
population. Or do you mean "If there were no limit to the consumption
of individuals.."?
Again you bring up something irrevelant to the point, excessive
consumption due to
overpopulation does result in large scale death in many species on a
more or less
regular basis. The best strategy for the individual in such a species
is to produce
as many small offspring as possible so that when starvation hits there
is more of a
chance at least a few will survive.
tg
> On Apr 7, 6:00 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
>
tg:
> > This model of behavior has been widely observed and is not really controversial. The
> > equilibria are obviously different for different species.
>
> > If individuals were exclusively 'greedy', or exclusively cooperative,
> > or exclusively aggressive, or exclusively passive, it would almost
> > certainly be detrimental to the species (the population as it exists
> > at a given point in time.)
>
Price:
> How would being "excessively cooperative" be determental to the
> species
> as a whole? Unless the species was cooperating with members of other
> species even when that didn't benefit them this would never happen.
> Being
> more cooperative with members of your own species can only be good for
> that species, problem is that what's good for the species isn't what
> evolution
> selects for.
Exactly wrong. Maybe you should do a little reading about the actual
scientific Theory of Evolution, rather than spouting various
ideologically driven misconceptions?
First, 'evolution' doesn't 'select'--- evolution refers to the outcome
of various processes, and *natural selection* is one of the
mechanisms.
Second, *of course* natural selection operates to benefit the
species---that is essentially tautological. The species (or a
population within the species) at any point in time is that which has
been selected for by natural selection, along with any other mechanism
(like genetic drift).
If you don't understand the basics, you have no business talking about
the subtleties.
-tg
Michael Price
> On Apr 6, 11:36 pm, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 6:00 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> tg:
>
> > > This model of behavior has been widely observed and is not really controversial. The
> > > equilibria are obviously different for different species.
>
> > > If individuals were exclusively 'greedy', or exclusively cooperative,
> > > or exclusively aggressive, or exclusively passive, it would almost
> > > certainly be detrimental to the species (the population as it exists
> > > at a given point in time.)
>
> Price:
>
> > How would being "excessively cooperative" be determental to the
> > species as a whole? Unless the species was cooperating with members of other
> > species even when that didn't benefit them this would never happen.
> > Being more cooperative with members of your own species can only be good for
> > that species, problem is that what's good for the species isn't what
> > evolution selects for.
>
> Exactly wrong. Maybe you should do a little reading about the actual
> scientific Theory of Evolution, rather than spouting various
> ideologically driven misconceptions?
>
> First, 'evolution' doesn't 'select'--- evolution refers to the outcome
> of various processes, and *natural selection* is one of the
> mechanisms.
>
Evolution is the process of selection and what is selected for is
exactly what I said, not
what you said.
> Second, *of course* natural selection operates to benefit the
> species---that is essentially tautological.
So then it benefits baboons as a species to have a violent
hierarchical system that
often results in infanticide? There are so many examples of why this
is utter bullshit
that it's impossible to list them all. Natural selection selects the
individuals who are best
at replicating NOT those that are best for the species. Learn
something about something
before you next sprout off.
> The species (or a population within the species) at any point in time is that which
> has been selected for by natural selection, along with any other mechanism
> (like genetic drift).
>
Which does not mean that they were selected for on the basis of
being good for
the species.
> If you don't understand the basics, you have no business talking about
> the subtleties.
>
> -tg
Would you like me to explain the basics to you? Again? Or would
you prefer to read a basic
book on evolution, which clearly you've never done.
tg
From Wiki-p:
Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of
organisms through successive generations.[1] After a population splits
into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may
eventually diversify into new species. A nested hierarchy of
anatomical and genetic similarities, geographical distribution of
similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are
descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these
divergent events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown
over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.[2]
Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that
constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make
particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a
particular characteristic, such as eye color, height, or a behavior,
that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its
environment, translating its genotypic predispositions into phenotypic
phenomena. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable
differences (variation) in their traits.
The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of
a gene. Altered genes, or alleles, are then inherited by offspring.
There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species. Two
main processes cause variants to become more common or rare in a
population. One is natural selection, which causes traits that aid
survival and reproduction to become more common, and traits that
hinder survival and reproduction to become more rare.[1][3] Natural
selection occurs because only a few individuals in each generation
will survive, since resources are limited and organisms produce many
more offspring than their environment can support. Over many
generations mutations produce successive, small, random changes in
traits, which are then filtered by natural selection and the
beneficial changes retained. This adjusts traits so they become suited
to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.
[4] Not every trait, however, is an adaptation. Another cause of
evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces
entirely random changes in how common traits are in a population.
Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait
will be passed on to the next generation.
end quote
> > Second, *of course* natural selection operates to benefit the
> > species---that is essentially tautological.
>
> So then it benefits baboons as a species to have a violent
> hierarchical system that
> often results in infanticide?
Of course. Although many (most?) traits are probably neutral at any
given time, such a major characteristic is very likely significant.
You appear to have some strange anthropomorphic conception of what is
beneficial for a species; what matters is that the species (or
population within the species) prospers within its particular
environment.
Why do you think that aggression is not a beneficial trait for
baboons? Do you think that bonobos would do well in the same
ecosystem as baboons?
-tg
Geode
I think, that most cooperative predators show a rank of greedy, on the
part of the alpha males and alpha females. This greedy is often
challenged, but as life of this predators is not very long, in a few
years, the alpha leader is deposed of his rank, and probably chased
out the pack.
Here, in a capitalist context, we have not an alpha leader, but a pack
of leaders, more or less in accord on the main points. The argument is
more or less over the basic tenets of capitalism; how much weight can
have government spending. It is a sort of holy balance between profits
and taxes. It is very difficult to have a perfect equilibrium. But
if it is obvious that inflation is a bad thing, most of the times, too
many profits on the loose are also a bad thing. You can see the
profits as seeds sowed in a field. Too many seeds for square foot and
you do not get more crops, but the new plants compete among them for
water, nutrients and sunlight.
A society is similar to an agricultural field. There is a number of
people and a mass of salary people can spend.
If you invest profits on this system, you are not getting any profits,
except when you are substituting a train of production for another.
People buy less tickets for going to movies, because they can
entertain themselves by traveling, or by going on vacations far away.
So, the people who goes far away to spend money, have less money to
spend in local bars, restaurants, and movies theaters. So, the salary
mass remains the same, it is the addition of all the spending. So, if
you keep investing in a place like Las Vegas, all the money that is
going to be spent there, is the money missed somewhere else. If you
invest too much in new big shopping centers, you are kicking out small
shops in neighborhoods and small villages. This would not be for
crying much, except for the most poor people who have not a car to go
so far off to buy food in a new shopping center. But there is more
problems involved. As many shopping centers keep popping out, they
are competing among then, and they are selling less and less money per
square foot of surface. So, they become ruinous. The more they are
investing profits in developing real state of a class or another, they
are not only waisting energy, concrete needs a lot of energy by the
ton, we are also wasting those profits on ruinous business.
The people who earned these profits are not the ones loosing this
money, but the banks are lending this money to third parts involved,
that are such loaded with stupid ruinous debts. So, in a way, those
that earned those enormous profits had theoretically their money in
the banks. I say theoretically because most of this money was lent to
third parties, as I had said.
So, someone would have to be on charge controlling there was not so
much inflation on stupid investments, like too many shopping centers,
or too many real state development. But so far political and
financial leaders were only worried by the salary inflation.
Now, they are worried by government spending. The trouble with
government spending is only that they are deflating the worth of money
they got in bank accounts. But this is not real money. This is a
sort of Monopoly money. It only exists on the account sheets. The
real money is what people is spending each month to buy things more or
less absurd or necessary.
This is the real money. As the old nursery rhyme sings, "up and down
the city road, in and out the eagle, that's the way the money goes.
Up, goes the weasel!"
Financiers are in love with this fancy numbers that written in the
bank computers. They have a lot money there, and do not want to
imagine that this is a worthless figment of their fantasies. They want
to see this as real money. But in the same way, that your money can
not give water if you are alone in a desert, money cannot give any
rewards to them, unless giving it out to other people to serve them in
something. With this money you can bed any pretty female, or contract
henchmen to protect you, or you can spend it in political campaigns
paying to printers, young people, television studios and marketing
specialists to make propaganda.
They are at this moment deflecting all the blame of the present crisis
over the backs of the victims. The stupid people that were duped into
borrowing money to buy new homes, or buying bonds and stocks at
inflated prices. This had been acting like black hole suctioning money
from the common market square to be buried into financial bottomless
well. This money spent, and this money borrowed to invest into this
scamming devices, is the money that is missing now, during this
crisis.
The imaginary money in the banks only becomes real as you spend it in
something. At his moment, the banks are receiving more money from the
borrowers that is getting out to lend new money. In a way, this is
like a black hole sucking money, while ordinary shopping is a moribund
business.
geode
.
Geode
I think, that humans had functioned as pack of predators. Just
consider the case of wolves. They have a territory to live. There is
some controls of breeding withing the pack. Any female that would
enter in heat, would be chase out of the pack by the alpha female.
Some males would go after that female and would try to establish a new
territory of their own. This would not be any easy, for most of the
good territories are already occupied by other packs. The most
probable occurrence is that they would die of hunger trying to find a
new territory.
The story of humans show us that humans had been invading other lands
and other people. The had caused a lot of wars, murdering and
hunger. The case is that natural resources are limited. So, the idea
state is the zero growth. You had probably heard of the lions, that
most of the males are chased out of the pride, when they are one year
old. 90 % would die of hunger in less than a year. The rest would die
in two years or a little more. Only a 5% of those males would achieve
the feat of becoming adults, as to challenge the males of a pride and
kick them out.
Humans had been challenging this rule thanks to technological
developments. But the rule of "do not grow too fast" has always being
there, watching the excesses of population.
Long ago, sedentary societies were able to retard the growth of
population by stopping the breeding of young people to some years
later. In most societies, only the older son had been allowed to
breed. And most of slaves and servants, even the relatives that lived
at home as servants, had not the right to breed. It is due to this
constraints that homosexuality started. Too many males sleeping
together in a room. Females were sleeping in a room well separated
from the males. Any single women that got pregnant was sold to a
brothel. If she loved to copulate, she would have a lot of work doing
that precisely.
So, if you check the rate of population growth average between, the
times of Roman Empire, year First AD, a population in the planet of
230 millions, to the year 1,800 with 1 billion people, you see the
population has multiplied by 4.35 This gives us an average rate of
growth of 0.08% a year.
Here is the trick done mathematically.
Log 4,35/1800= 3.5459 (10^-4) then
the antilog of this number is 10^(3.5459(10^-4)=1.0008168
So the rate of grow is 0.08% a year
As we watch any South American country or African country growing at
rate much higher, like 2 or 3 % a year for decades, we can see they
are not doing any social control of population growth. So, my theory
postulates, that past societies was more stable because they had
controls over breeding rights. It is the same thing that any
shepherded does with his flock. He has the same surface for his herd
to graze. So he has to maintain the flock, selling excess of lambs,
as well as the old animals. He needs to achieve a zero growth with
his flock. The same is with humans. I do not understand why most
people do accept this notion. So, far, we had been growing in the last
two centuries by a growing consumption of fossil fuels. They would
not last forever. Even our quest to achieve even higher levels of
consumption is driving against the idea of a continuous population
growth.
So, it looks as we were on a fast course to crash against the enormous
mass of our stupidity.
Geode
.
Geode
I have read something about the genomics project. They had been
tasting the DNA of a sample of humans across the world. There are so
many people that said they are descendants from Genghis Khan that it
looked impossible. Well, there are a lot of millions of descendants
from the Genghis Khan. Something quite remarkable. Other case are
the Mac Donald descendants. There are a lot of them spread out by US,
Canada, Australia, and UK. Some 50 or 60 million of them, with
slightly different names. There are some variations in the name from
the tree Mac Donald descendants.
So, in some way, some lines of great warriors had an outstanding
number of descendants.
While other well known western warriors had let none, like Alexander
the Great, or Julius Caesar. Other great warrior, Peter the Great of
Russia, has not let out as many descendants. I think that he had let
zero descendants. Ivan the Terrible, did not produce any numerous
descendants either.
So, life is too spendthrift to care about how many people dies. We
are given easily to excesses of population. So, the rule is to cut
off those excesses from time to time.
Geode
Geode
Most of the breeding is done by the dominant males. Not only on
baboon, but also in most grazing mammals. About as many as 85% of all
males, among gazing herbivores, never arrived to mate with any female
in its life. I am not talking of breeding, but of just to mount a
female. The dominant males get all the females for them. And when
this alpha animal is too old to fight, it is substituted by another
alpha male that takes in charge the breeding rights. So, you see
there a great amount spendthrift on the part of nature, that produce
more males that are needed. Of all the males in a flock, only I in
seven achieve breeding rights in his whole life. It is so not so
weird to watch a single male mounting another male, even with
ejaculation. After the member is retired from the anal cavity of the
insertee, it can be seen a milky thread hanging down from the tip of
his penis. This happens mostly in the season of mating, when males are
most horny, but cannot even to approach the females, for fear of being
bumped by the alpha male.
Geode
.
Rod Speed
Nope, we dont bother wth that rule anymore.
There is a reason china has so many chinese.
Geode
China, together with India, were very much overpopulated more than two
thousands years ago.
The had provided many devices to limit the growth of population. This
was general in most ancient cultures. We have a more clear picture
with the Polynesians of the biggest islands. They were in periodical
warfare, and had delayed the age of breeding of the young people for
about 15 years. During this time, the young people was training for
the next war. Even with this contrivances population grow too fast,
and that is why the frequent wars were much needed.
This idea of yours, that we do not need to worry any more with the
excess of population is an expression of your stubborn optimism.
Geode
.
Rod Speed
Nope, particularly those who werent into eating animals.
> Just consider the case of wolves. They have a territory to live.
> There is some controls of breeding withing the pack. Any female
> that would enter in heat, would be chase out of the pack by the
> alpha female.
That doesnt happen.
> Some males would go after that female and would try to establish
> a new territory of their own. This would not be any easy, for most
> of the good territories are already occupied by other packs.
> The most probable occurrence is that they would die of hunger trying to find a new territory.
Oh bullshit, that hardly ever happens.
> The story of humans show us that humans had been invading other lands
> and other people. The had caused a lot of wars, murdering and hunger.
More bullshit.
> The case is that natural resources are limited.
Thats wrong too.
> So, the idea state is the zero growth.
Utterly mangled all over again. What humans have
actually been able to do is exploit almost all situations,
even ones as superficially desperate as the artic etc.
> You had probably heard of the lions, that most of the
> males are chased out of the pride, when they are one
> year old. 90 % would die of hunger in less than a year.
That doesnt happen either. And has nothing to do with how
humans operate even if it did happen like that with lions.
> The rest would die in two years or a little more.
Even sillier.
> Only a 5% of those males would achieve the feat of becoming
> adults, as to challenge the males of a pride and kick them out.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> Humans had been challenging this rule
> thanks to technological developments.
They dont even operate like that even without technological developments.
> But the rule of "do not grow too fast" has always
> being there, watching the excesses of population.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> Long ago, sedentary societies were able to retard the growth of population
> by stopping the breeding of young people to some years later.
In practice hardly any societys did it like that.
> In most societies, only the older son had been allowed to breed.
Complete and utter drivel.
> And most of slaves and servants, even the relatives that
> lived at home as servants, had not the right to breed.
More drivel. Plenty of slaves were encouraged to breed
because their kids could be sold when they were old enough.
No real difference to breeding animals.
> It is due to this constraints that homosexuality started.
Even sillier.
> Too many males sleeping together in a room.
Even sillier.
> Females were sleeping in a room well separated from the males.
Hardly ever.
> Any single women that got pregnant was sold to a brothel.
Like hell they were.
> If she loved to copulate, she would have a lot of work doing that precisely.
Even sillier.
> So, if you check the rate of population growth average between,
> the times of Roman Empire, year First AD, a population in the
> planet of 230 millions, to the year 1,800 with 1 billion people,
> you see the population has multiplied by 4.35 This gives us
> an average rate of growth of 0.08% a year.
And there was a lot of variation in that time.
> Here is the trick done mathematically.
> Log 4,35/1800= 3.5459 (10^-4) then
> the antilog of this number is 10^(3.5459(10^-4)=1.0008168
> So the rate of grow is 0.08% a year
> As we watch any South American country or African country growing
> at rate much higher, like 2 or 3 % a year for decades, we can see
> they are not doing any social control of population growth.
Its actually due to quite different effects, much lower infant mortality.
> So, my theory postulates, that past societies was more
> stable because they had controls over breeding rights.
And you dont have a shred of evidence to substantiate that claim.
> It is the same thing that any shepherded does with his flock.
Nope, nothing like it.
> He has the same surface for his herd to graze.
Utterly mangled all over again, most obviously with nomadic herders.
> So he has to maintain the flock, selling excess of lambs, as well as the old animals.
Most of them dont even sell them with more primitive societys.
> He needs to achieve a zero growth with his flock. The same is with humans.
Nope, nothing like it.
> I do not understand why most people do accept this notion.
Because its false. And NOT ONE modern first world country is
even self replacing now if you take out immigration and that has
happened without any attempt to stop young people breeding.
> So, far, we had been growing in the last two centuries by a growing consumption of fossil fuels.
Utterly mangled all over again.
And even you should have noticed that china got to
be the most populous country in the entire world
LONG before there was any use of fossil fuels at all.
> They would not last forever.
They dont need to. We just move on to nukes when it makes sense to do that.
> Even our quest to achieve even higher levels of consumption
> is driving against the idea of a continuous population growth.
Like hell it is. NOT ONE modern first world country
is even self replacing now if you take out immigration.
> So, it looks as we were on a fast course to crash against the enormous mass of our stupidity.
NOT ONE modern first world country is even self replacing now if you take out immigration.
And that is true of quite a bit of the second world too.
Beam Me Up Scotty
The reason being their borders are open and Chinese keep sneaking in?
James A. Donald
> > selected for is exactly what I said, not what you said.
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 03:44:08 -0700 (PDT), tg
<tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> From Wiki-p:
Wikipedia is wrong. They are giving the politically correct
version of evolution, not the Darwinian version
Among the many errors, is that it claims that speciation
proceeds by populations splitting first. This version is
concocted to prove that there are no such things as races.
Darwin's version, confirmed by the vast preponderance of
evidence, is that races are the origin of species -
populations subject to differential selection pressures
gradually diverge, becoming more and more different, until it
eventually becomes difficult for them to interbreed, making
the divergence irreversible - thus there are few or no
entirely well defined species, no sharp distinction between a
subspecies and a species. Gene flow between different kinds
gradually diminishes over time, rather than stopping
abruptly, and does not entirely end until long after they
have become reasonably distinct species. For example there
is significant gene flow between coyotes and wolves.
Consider, for example, limphatic and benthic three spined
sticklebacks, who mostly manage to be distinct species
despite significant crossbreeding in every generation.
Similarly with all observed speciations in the foraminifera
record. There is a very large gene flow between the
Californian spotted owl and the barred owl, so large as to
create reasonable doubt that they are more distinct than
blondes and brunettes - and no matter where one draws the
line, one always finds intermediate cases. If one classifies
barred and spotted owls as one species rather than two, one
next has to wonder whether coyotes and wolves are one species
or two?
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Michael Price
>One is natural selection, which causes traits that aid
> survival and reproduction to become more common, and traits that
> hinder survival and reproduction to become more rare.[1][3] Natural
> selection occurs because only a few individuals in each generation
> will survive, since resources are limited and organisms produce many
> more offspring than their environment can support.
Note: traits that aid/hind survival and reproduction _for the
individual
possessing them_ become more common/rare.
> Over many generations mutations produce successive, small, random changes in
> traits, which are then filtered by natural selection and the
> beneficial changes retained. This adjusts traits so they become suited
> to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.
> [4] Not every trait, however, is an adaptation. Another cause of
> evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces
> entirely random changes in how common traits are in a population.
> Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait
> will be passed on to the next generation.
>
> end quote
>
> > > Second, *of course* natural selection operates to benefit the
> > > species---that is essentially tautological.
>
> > So then it benefits baboons as a species to have a violent
> > hierarchical system that often results in infanticide?
>
> Of course. Although many (most?) traits are probably neutral at any
> given time, such a major characteristic is very likely significant.
Right, so it's beneficial to a species to have enormous amounts of
energy
sacrificed making babies that are then killed solely on the basis of
paternity,
not probable value to the species. Think again. It benefits
particular male
baboons to have genes that encourage infanticide of other males
offspring,
since that allow them greater breeding opportunities. This makes
those genes
benefit TO THE INDIVIDUAL not the species.
> You appear to have some strange anthropomorphic conception of what is
> beneficial for a species;
No I have the standard idea that getting killed is not beneficial.
What your
idea is I have no idea.
> what matters is that the species (or population within the species) prospers
> within its particular environment.
>
> Why do you think that aggression is not a beneficial trait for
> baboons?
It certainly is beneficial for baboons to be violent in some
circumstances, but
the violent hierarchy they have is not beneficial since it diverts
resources from
survival and reproduction as well as causing stress which encourages
disease.
The killing of perfectly healthy infants is certainly not beneficial
to the species.
> Do you think that bonobos would do well in the same
> ecosystem as baboons?
>
> -tg
No and nothing I said implies that.
>
> > There are so many examples of why this is utter bullshit
> > that it's impossible to list them all. Natural selection selects the
> > individuals who are best at replicating NOT those that are best for
> > the species. Learn something about something before you next sprout off.
This is the bit you don't understand and should. Read it again
before even more
people conclude you know nothing.
tg
>
> > Do you think that bonobos would do well in the same
> > ecosystem as baboons?
>
> > -tg
>
> No and nothing I said implies that.
>
So, how did baboons get to be better suited to their environment? Was
the process by which they became better suited beneficial to their
species?
-tg
Michael Price
> On Apr 10, 4:06 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Do you think that bonobos would do well in the same
> > > ecosystem as baboons?
>
> > > -tg
>
> > No and nothing I said implies that.
>
> So, how did baboons get to be better suited to their environment?
That's got nothing to do with what you said, but since you asked by
evolution
of individuals NOT SPECIES. Species only evolve as a result of the
evolution of
individual gene lines, that is to say the greater ability of
individuals in the species
to reproduce.
> Was the process by which they became better suited beneficial to their
> species?
>
> -tg
In some cases yes (as when individuals were selected for greater
diseases resistance to comparatively new diseases). In other cases
no, as
when individuals were selected for infanticide of healthy baboons.
I'm sorry
that you're unaware that "benefitting the species" doesn't magically
make
a gene more common but it doesn't. Only genes that benefit the
individuals
they are present in are naturally selected for and this is the only
type of genes
that cause evolution.
Geode
This can be argue otherwise. Let's figure that any species have great
potential for breeding. This potential serves not other purpose that
profit from opportunities of expansion. In a way, if a group is too
numerous for a place, the natural thing is to spread out to other
places, to avoid the stress of overpopulation. In this way were
populated most of Polynesian Islands. People did not emigrate just
after arriving to a desert island. They emigrate when the stress of
overpopulation made life miserable. If the people in a raft arrived to
an already populated island, the most probably thing would be they
were killed and cannibalized afterwards.
So, the circumstances vary much depending if you have where to
emigrate or not. All those people from Asia that were attacking the
Roman Empire on the east, were in the first time, driven out of his
own places, by other Eastern populations who were also driven out, by
others living farther East. Probably by the Mongols.
So, those killing you are talking is a form of war between members of
the same species, because there were too numerous for a given
habitat. You can see these wars among the chimpanzees, and even among
the lions. Specially among the males, for they are not needed that
many. In a pride of lions, the males are just a fraction; 1/5 or
less. Even the lioness can be too many for a place. But sometimes
they die thanks to diseases and even starvation, sometimes. Many
hunting accidents happen also, for some animals are able to break the
jaw of a lioness with a powerful kick before being killed by the
others.
So, it is very difficult to argument about this sort of morality. Is
it good for any species to grow up unchecked for too long? Or this is
the harbinger of a catastrophe? I remember some comments about the
excess of sheep in Australia and New Zealand. Also about the
excessive number red deer in New Zealand. It was a catastrophe not
only for them, but also for the land where the red deer was grazing.
Hunters did not killed enough animals.
And also Australians do not kill enough sheep to eat. They use them
for clipping his wool.
Geode
Geode
> On Apr 11, 10:01 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 4:06 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Do you think that bonobos would do well in the same
> > > > ecosystem as baboons?
>
> > > > -tg
>
> > > No and nothing I said implies that.
>
> > So, how did baboons get to be better suited to their environment?
>
> That's got nothing to do with what you said, but since you asked by
> evolution
> of individuals NOT SPECIES. Species only evolve as a result of the
> evolution of
> individual gene lines, that is to say the greater ability of
> individuals in the species
> to reproduce.
>
> > Was the process by which they became better suited beneficial to their
> > species?
>
> > -tg
>
> In some cases yes (as when individuals were selected for greater
> diseases resistance to comparatively new diseases). In other cases
> no, as
> when individuals were selected for infanticide of healthy baboons.
This only happens when there is an ousting of the dominant male. For
as long as a dominant male is in charge of the breeding, there is not
any infanticide. Once the previous alpha male is ousted, a new era of
reproduction starts. And for several years, perhaps three or four
years, there would be not any infanticide. Till this alpha male is
again deposed of his throne. It happens something like this among
among the lions, and chimpanzees. All the animals that live in a
community has some strict rules to avoid excessive breeding. Among the
wolves, only the female alpha can breed with the alpha male. This
way, the group even if it is numerous, can have enough food to eat,
but in special cases of scarcity. If any member of the pack is not
content with his communitarian life, can flee the pack. But survival
alone is not any easy. It can be killed en devoured by other wolves
if they found him strayed.
So, the best for the species have be regarded with care. There are
many variables involved in the survival of a species.
Geode
tg
I was hoping you might figure out your error on your own, but I guess
you need more guidance.
Let's say we have two populations, living in identical environments.
Population 1: The stronger and more aggressive baboon kills the
weaker, kills his offspring, and mates with the now receptive female.
Population 2: The stronger and more aggressive baboon kills the
weaker, doesn't kill his offspring, and has to wait for the offspring
to be weaned before the female is receptive.
Which population will be stronger?
-tg
Rod Speed
> Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>> Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> Do you think that bonobos would do well in the same ecosystem as baboons?
>>>> No and nothing I said implies that.
>>> So, how did baboons get to be better suited to their environment?
>> That's got nothing to do with what you said, but since you asked
>> by evolution of individuals NOT SPECIES. Species only evolve as
>> a result of the evolution of individual gene lines, that is to say the
>> greater ability of individuals in the species to reproduce.
>>> Was the process by which they became better suited beneficial to their species?
>> In some cases yes (as when individuals were selected for greater
>> diseases resistance to comparatively new diseases). In other cases
>> no, as when individuals were selected for infanticide of healthy baboons.
> This only happens when there is an ousting of the dominant male.
Wrong.
> For as long as a dominant male is in charge of the breeding,
They arent always totally in charge of the breeding.
There can always be sluts that have it off with someone else.
> there is not any infanticide.
Wrong.
> Once the previous alpha male is ousted, a new era of
> reproduction starts. And for several years, perhaps
> three or fouryears, there would be not any infanticide.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> Till this alpha male is again deposed of his throne.
There can always be sluts that have it off with someone else.
> It happens something like this among among the lions, and chimpanzees.
Nope. And with meerkats in spades.
> All the animals that live in a community has some strict rules to avoid excessive breeding.
Have fun explaining lemmings, mice, rats, etc etc etc.
> Among the wolves, only the female alpha can breed with the alpha male.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> This way, the group even if it is numerous, can have enough food
> to eat, but in special cases of scarcity. If any member of the pack
> is not content with his communitarian life, can flee the pack. But
> survival alone is not any easy. It can be killed en devoured by
> other wolves if they found him strayed.
Utterly mangled all over again. The phrase 'lone wolf' arose for a reason.
> So, the best for the species have be regarded with care.
Have fun explaining lemmings, mice, rats, etc etc etc.
> There are many variables involved in the survival of a species.
And its nothing like that with humans anyway.
Rod Speed
> Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>> Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>>> Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote
Plenty dont.
> This potential serves not other purpose
> that profit from opportunities of expansion.
Its MUCH more complicated than that.
> In a way, if a group is too numerous for a place, the natural thing
> is to spread out to other places, to avoid the stress of overpopulation.
> In this way were populated most of Polynesian Islands.
Wrong. And have fun explaining societys that never did work out how to do very
long range sea going where the chance of finding land is very remote indeed.
> People did not emigrate just after arriving to a desert island.
Plenty do, to find a better island.
> They emigrate when the stress of overpopulation made life miserable.
Nope, when they decide that the island is a desert
and that there are likely better islands around.
> If the people in a raft arrived to an already populated island, the most
> probably thing would be they were killed and cannibalized afterwards.
Have fun explaining why that didnt happen in indonesia,
one of the most populated islands in the world.
> So, the circumstances vary much depending if you have where to emigrate or not.
Duh.
> All those people from Asia that were attacking the Roman Empire on the
> east, were in the first time, driven out of his own places, by other Eastern
> populations who were also driven out, by others living farther East.
Oh bullshit.
> Probably by the Mongols.
Fraid not. It was actually the mongols that drove right
thru to the eastern edge of european civilisation and they
werent driven out of where they came from by anyone.
Same with the vikings too, they werent driven out of where they came from by anyone.
> So, those killing you are talking is a form of war between members of the
> same species, because there were too numerous for a given habitat.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> You can see these wars among the chimpanzees, and even among the lions.
Nope, not by being too numerous for a given habitat.
> Specially among the males, for they are not needed that many.
> In a pride of lions, the males are just a fraction; 1/5 or less.
> Even the lioness can be too many for a place. But sometimes
> they die thanks to diseases and even starvation, sometimes. Many
> hunting accidents happen also, for some animals are able to break the
> jaw of a lioness with a powerful kick before being killed by the others.
Utterly mangled all over again. That almost never happens,
essentially because they cant kick any lion when running away.
> So, it is very difficult to argument about this sort of morality.
> Is it good for any species to grow up unchecked for too long?
> Or this is the harbinger of a catastrophe?
Hardly ever.
> I remember some comments about the
> excess of sheep in Australia and New Zealand.
Pure fantasy.
> Also about the excessive number red deer in New
> Zealand. It was a catastrophe not only for them,
> but also for the land where the red deer was grazing.
There was no catastophe.
> Hunters did not killed enough animals.
> And also Australians do not kill enough sheep to eat.
> They use them for clipping his wool.
In fact the sheep used for wool are completely different from those used
to eat. No one eats mature sheep in australia anymore, they only eat lamb.
Mature sheep are used for pet food.
You have utterly mangled the story yet again.
>>> Do you think that bonobos would do well in the same ecosystem as baboons?
>> No and nothing I said implies that.
Michael Price
But this has nothing to do with avoiding excessive breeding, in fact
it
encourages it because males have only as long as their dominance
period to sire young and have them grown enough to avoid infanticide.
The fact that said infanticide is periodic makes no difference to
it's
wastefulness, a healthy individual that is killed wasted the
resources
of giving birth to it and raising it to that point.
> Among the wolves, only the female alpha can breed with the alpha male.
> This way, the group even if it is numerous, can have enough food to eat,
They would also have enough to eat if all members were allowed to
breed and
have smaller litters (even single births). Maintaining a birthing
monopoly benefits
the alphas but it probably disadvantages the species as a whole.
> but in special cases of scarcity. If any member of the pack is not
> content with his communitarian life, can flee the pack. But survival
> alone is not any easy. It can be killed en devoured by other wolves
> if they found him strayed.
Killed yes, devoured unlikely, predators don't tend to eat their
own
species, health reasons.
>
> So, the best for the species have be regarded with care. There are
> many variables involved in the survival of a species.
>
> Geode
> .
It's extremely unlikely that the best for the species woudl be
regarded with care
by evolution, since that works through what is best for the individual
self-replicator.
Michael Price
Neither would be stronger than a population that avoided killing
entirely and thus preserved non-breeding males for support. Neither
would be as big for a start. But I guess you're talking about which
would be better at surviving, well quite frankly the former would be.
Less infanticide means winning dominance battles is less important
(since it only prevents further breeding rather than destroying
previous
young) this means less time and energy put into dominance battles
and more into things that actually help the group as a whole survive
and reproduce. That's the point, evolution favors individuals that
are
able to pass their genes on, no matter whether their strategies are
good for the species as a whole or not. Learn something about
evolution or just common sense before you post again. Hell, you
read the bits you keep snipping where I prove this point over and
over again you dick.
tg
Well, I guess you are upset because you have had to admit that the
characteristics preserved are the ones that benefit the species---but
at least you learned something.
If you like, I can further discuss the case in question, but I will
again have to demonstrate that you are in error. Can you handle it?
-tg
Geode
Life is always a waste in part. Overpopulation is always a risk till
the food resources become the limit. Among the hunter gatherers,
females do not ovulate till they have something like 30 % of fat as
body weight. I think something happens among other animals. females
do not ovulate while under stress of hunger. I do not mean hunger of
a few days with little food. This happens quite often, I mean a
prolonged period of hunger.
>
> > Among the wolves, only the female alpha can breed with the alpha male.
> > This way, the group even if it is numerous, can have enough food to eat,
>
> They would also have enough to eat if all members were allowed to
> breed and
> have smaller litters (even single births). Maintaining a birthing
> monopoly benefits
> the alphas but it probably disadvantages the species as a whole.
It is not. If there were plenty of food the pack would had divided.
With plenty of food, there is not any need for the pack to be
numerous. But, it seems, that hunger gave a very angry character to
most animals. So, as the hunger gets tense, the fed of the pack are
the alpha male and female. When, food is aplenty some female gets in
estro, and wants to copulate. As soon as the female leader smells
this rival, she kicks her out of the pack, unless the female alpha is
a little older, then is the alpha female who is kicked out of the
pack.
So, the question of the resources is crucial. Human societies
injected a lot of stress into the sexuality of humans, in the past.
Only about a fifth of the population was allowed to breed. This
changed in the 19 Century with the French revolution. Religion lost a
lot of its prestige. Religion was usually in charge of repressing
sexual freedom of the people. There were punishment for those that
fall in the sins of the flesh. I was reading about Massachusetts,
about the first decades of the colony, couples recently married were
kept under control. If the new wife gave birth before the ninth month
of her wedding day, the couple was fined, or even flogged in the
public place. So, the6y were really in charge, you see.
Geode
Geode
I agree with you, tg. If those animals behave this way, it must be
advantageous for the group. So, it must be a genetic trait involved.
let's suppose the genetic blueprints of the males, can go from extreme
violent, to very tamed. Depending on the generic combination, an
individual can be a breeder for a time, because it is brave and
violent.
It only, those violent individuals are in check for a time by the
alpha male, that it is very sure of himself. Then as he grows older,
the second in violence, challenge the leader and becomes an alpha
male, while the former alpha male, probably is chased out of the
pack.
A few of the most violent males in gang of baboons will do all the
breading. The degree of violence by the males with dominant traits
are kept in check by the attacks of the alpha male. In general, this
way, the gang would grow much slowly, unless things change a lot and
humans disappear from their lands. Of course, in the lower lands
there is a lot more or predators. But, mostly they are stopped by the
dominant males who had very big canines.
The most common ordinary males do not participate in the chasing of
predators. So, there is balance between dominance and submission
among the males. Abound more the less aggressive males.
So, a little of waste is always possible in life. If given the
opportunity they breed like rabbits. It is what humans had been doing
this 200 years.
Geode
.
Geode
James A. Donald
> I agree with you, tg. If those animals behave this way, it
> must be advantageous for the group.
You guys are idiots. Infanticide is advantageous only for
the male who kills unrelated offspring. It is disadvantageous
for all the others in his group and for the species as a
whole - this is glaringly obvious.
Apes that kill step children are anti social in the same way
and the same reasons as humans who kill step children are
anti social - which somehow fails to stop step children from
suffering an astonishingly high "accidental" rate.
Evolution shapes each to look after himself. We are moral to
the extent that we are equipped to collaborate with others
without killing each other too often.
We care about kin, and we care about friends to the extent
that we expect that friends will care about us, and we care
about strangers only to the extent that we try to avoid a war
of all against all - we will let them be if they let us be.
The man who says he would hold the face of a child in the
fire to cure world hunger is apt to hold the child in the
fire and forget that he was trying to cure world hunger -
which is, of course, exactly what happened in the Ukraine
famine where all these heroic do gooders *did* hold children
in the fire in order to cure world hunger.
We think that murder is wrong because the guy who kills
without good reason might kill me. If you girlfriend had a
baby by someone else before she became your girlfriend, we
probably would not think that a good enough reason, though
the death rate among step children is curiously high, but if
she had a child by someone else after she became your
girlfriend .... Is that good for the species? Evolution
does not care about what is good for the species, and in
consequence, we do not much care either.
Rod Speed
> Geode wrote
>> I agree with you, tg. If those animals behave
>> this way, it must be advantageous for the group.
> You guys are idiots.
We'll see...
> Infanticide is advantageous only for the male who kills
> unrelated offspring. It is disadvantageous for all the
> others in his group and for the species as a whole
Wrong. It culls the offspring of the less successful
males so their genes dont get passed on.
> - this is glaringly obvious.
Clearly too hard for you tho.
> Apes that kill step children are anti social in the same way
> and the same reasons as humans who kill step children are
> anti social - which somehow fails to stop step children from
> suffering an astonishingly high "accidental" rate.
> Evolution shapes each to look after himself.
Its MUCH more complicated than that with social animals.
> We are moral to the extent that we are equipped to
> collaborate with others without killing each other too often.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> We care about kin, and we care about friends to the extent
> that we expect that friends will care about us, and we care
> about strangers only to the extent that we try to avoid a
> war of all against all - we will let them be if they let us be.
Human society is MUCH more complicated than that.
> The man who says he would hold the face of a child in
> the fire to cure world hunger is apt to hold the child in the
> fire and forget that he was trying to cure world hunger -
Just another silly little fantasy.
> which is, of course, exactly what happened in the Ukraine
> famine where all these heroic do gooders *did* hold
> children in the fire in order to cure world hunger.
Just another silly little fantasy.
> We think that murder is wrong because the guy
> who kills without good reason might kill me.
Nope. Because they might kill me.
> If you girlfriend had a baby by someone else before she became
> your girlfriend, we probably would not think that a good enough
> reason, though the death rate among step children is curiously high,
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland in the modern first world.
> but if she had a child by someone else after she became
> your girlfriend .... Is that good for the species?
Its irrelevant to the species. Human society hasnt seen any evolution for a long time now.
> Evolution does not care about what is good for the species,
Utterly mangled all over again.
> and in consequence, we do not much care either.
Utterly mangled all over again.
Rod Speed
> I agree with you, tg. If those animals behave
> this way, it must be advantageous for the group.
Not necessarily. Some quite animal behaviour is bad for the group.
Thats why some species die out.
> So, it must be a genetic trait involved.
Not necessarily.
> let's suppose the genetic blueprints of the males, can go from extreme
> violent, to very tamed. Depending on the generic combination, an
> individual can be a breeder for a time, because it is brave and violent.
Or just because it enjoys fucking and does quite a bit of that.
> It only, those violent individuals are in check for a
> time by the alpha male, that it is very sure of himself.
Its never feasible to be completely dominant with lots of slutty females
around that are anyone's. Even the alpha male has to sleep sometimes.
> Then as he grows older, the second in violence, challenge the leader and becomes
> an alpha male, while the former alpha male, probably is chased out of the pack.
Doesnt happen like that either. You have a VERY superficial view of how even social animals operate.
> A few of the most violent males in gang of baboons will do all the breading.
Have fun explaining the bonobo.
> The degree of violence by the males with dominant traits
> are kept in check by the attacks of the alpha male. In general,
> this way, the gang would grow much slowly, unless things
> change a lot and humans disappear from their lands.
> Of course, in the lower lands there is a lot more or predators.
There arent many predators for apes.
> But, mostly they are stopped by the dominant males who had very big canines.
Its got fuck all to do with the size of their teeth.
> The most common ordinary males do not participate in the chasing of predators.
There arent many predators for apes.
> So, there is balance between dominance and submission
> among the males. Abound more the less aggressive males.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> So, a little of waste is always possible in life.
> If given the opportunity they breed like rabbits.
There might just be a reason why we never say breed like monkeys.
> It is what humans had been doing this 200 years.
Nope. Humans are nothing like apes breeding wise.
Rod Speed
Mindlessly superficial, again.
> With plenty of food, there is not any need for the pack to be numerous.
Even sillier.
> But, it seems, that hunger gave a very angry character to most animals.
Have fun explaining the bonobo.
> So, as the hunger gets tense, the fed of the pack are the alpha male and female.
Utterly mangled all over again. In spades with vegetarians.
> When, food is aplenty some female gets in estro, and wants to copulate.
Utterly mangled all over again. In spades with vegetarians.
> As soon as the female leader smells
> this rival, she kicks her out of the pack,
Utterly mangled all over again.
> unless the female alpha is a little older, then is
> the alpha female who is kicked out of the pack.
You dont have a fucking clue how they operate.
> So, the question of the resources is crucial.
Nope. Not with apes it isnt.
> Human societies injected a lot of stress into the sexuality of humans, in the past.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> Only about a fifth of the population was allowed to breed.
Even sillier. That hardly ever happened anywhere.
> This changed in the 19 Century with the French revolution.
Like hell it did. That wasnt the case anywhere much before the french revolution.
> Religion lost a lot of its prestige.
Not outside france it didnt.
> Religion was usually in charge of repressing sexual freedom of the people.
Have fun explaining the hordes of kids they had. 10 wasnt at all uncommon.
> There were punishment for those that fall in the sins of the flesh.
Not if you were married. In fact the stupid roman catholic
church always encouraged married people to have lots
of kids and banned any form of birth control.
> I was reading about Massachusetts, about the first decades of
> the colony, couples recently married were kept under control.
They werent in england at that time. In spades in Ireland.
> If the new wife gave birth before the ninth month of her
> wedding day, the couple was fined, or even flogged in the
> public place. So, the6y were really in charge, you see.
Irrelevant to what they were welcome to do once they were married.
Michael Price
No I did not admit that and indeed I still deny it. I don't know
why you
continue to persist in a belief I've comprehensively disproven and
that
conflicts with 150 years of evolutionary theory.
>
> If you like, I can further discuss the case in question, but I will
> again have to demonstrate that you are in error. Can you handle it?
>
> -tg
You mean you'll have to snip the bits where I prove that you're in
error
and then arrogantly claim that you won? Fuck off.
Michael Price
But infanticide for purposes of breeding your own young doesn't stop
waste or
overpopulation, as I said it encourages it. If you have only a few
years to breed
before you lose dominance you have to breed as many as you can.
Similarly
if mothers lose babies to infanticide they have to breed faster to get
young that
will make it to breeding age. This increases consumption of resources
because
they feed young that won't make it.
> Among the hunter gatherers, females do not ovulate till they have something
> like 30 % of fat as body weight. I think something happens among other
> animals. femalesdo not ovulate while under stress of hunger. I do not mean
> hunger of a few days with little food. This happens quite often, I mean a
> prolonged period of hunger.
>
>
> > > Among the wolves, only the female alpha can breed with the alpha male.
> > > This way, the group even if it is numerous, can have enough food to eat,
>
> > They would also have enough to eat if all members were allowed to
> > breed and have smaller litters (even single births). Maintaining a birthing
> > monopoly benefits the alphas but it probably disadvantages the species
> > as a whole.
>
> It is not. If there were plenty of food the pack would had divided.
Doesn't address the point, if there is plenty of food then all that
happens
is the alpha breeds more often. I see no reason why having all the
young
share 50% of their genes is beneficial.
> With plenty of food, there is not any need for the pack to be
> numerous. But, it seems, that hunger gave a very angry character to
> most animals. So, as the hunger gets tense, the fed of the pack are
> the alpha male and female. When, food is aplenty some female gets in
> estro, and wants to copulate. As soon as the female leader smells
> this rival, she kicks her out of the pack, unless the female alpha is
> a little older, then is the alpha female who is kicked out of the
> pack.
> So, the question of the resources is crucial. Human societies
> injected a lot of stress into the sexuality of humans, in the past.
> Only about a fifth of the population was allowed to breed.
Do you have a cite for this? It seems directly against everything
I've
every heard.
> This changed in the 19 Century with the French revolution. Religion lost a
> lot of its prestige. Religion was usually in charge of repressing
> sexual freedom of the people.
Religions strongly encouraged breeding.
> There were punishment for those that
> fall in the sins of the flesh. I was reading about Massachusetts,
> about the first decades of the colony, couples recently married were
> kept under control. If the new wife gave birth before the ninth month
> of her wedding day, the couple was fined, or even flogged in the
> public place. So, the6y were really in charge, you see.
> Geode
> .
This only delays breeding, it hardly prevents it. The effect on
breeding of this
temporary law would be minimal.
Geode
you are using moral philosophy to argue about a genetic behavior. This
animals are not made equal, by several reasons. Not all of them are
genetic. A troupe of baboons where they more or less dominated by the
first in rank. They are often quarreling, and only the most dominant
males fight of being on top. A small minority, like ten or 15 % had
the potential to be breeders. Those that have an infancy near their
father, an alpha male, are in a way privileged, unless they father
would be deposed when he is very young. To my view of this, only a
minority of males are top dogs. An alpha male do not last more than
four of five years in charge. This is the time he has before being
deposed, and probably being chased out of the troupe to die. I am not
very sure of that, but it happens in the case of wolves.
So, in a way, they are more or less descendants from a minority of
breeding males. The rest of the males do not play in the great league
of breeding.
This happens the same with chimps, and with wolves, and lions, etc.
Most of the males in the animal kingdom do not breed, unless they are
birds, or aves, that need to hatch the eggs. They are more
egalitarians. Even among primates, a minority has most of the breeding
rights. In the case of chimps, the alpha male needs some help from
allies to make it last his position. This allies are a tolerated to
mount some females, after him has done it. An alpha who doesn't
tolerate his assistants some copulation, soon looses this power, for
the assistants of the alpha desert him. And someone new chases out the
former alpha male easily. There is a lot of politics involved in the
life of chimps.
And political alliances are changing often. But of all the males,
only a minority is doing all the breeding. Among the herbivores only
a 15% of the males does the breeding. But not at the same time, but
by turns. Every three or four years there is a change of the alpha
male. A younger and stronger males comes to the top. The deposed
alpha male goes to graze with the troupe of single males. Those
single males had to graze on the worst sites.
The best are reserved for the breeding females and the alpha male.
Geode
.
Rod Speed
He's right.
> you are using moral philosophy to argue about a genetic behavior.
Nope, he's rubbing your nose in the fact that humans dont work anything like
you claim animals do. And you dont even get the basics right with animals either.
> This animals are not made equal, by several reasons. Not all of them are genetic.
Not all humans breed either. So what ?
> A troupe of baboons where they more or less dominated by the first in rank.
And the bonobo dont work like that.
> They are often quarreling, and only the most dominant
> males fight of being on top. A small minority, like ten
> or 15 % had the potential to be breeders.
Utterly mangled all over again. And rabbits arent anything like that.
Even feral cats arent either.
> Those that have an infancy near their father, an
> alpha male, are in a way privileged, unless they
> father would be deposed when he is very young.
Utterly mangled all over again, and humans are NOTHING like that.
Even Bill Clinton only managed one brat.
> To my view of this, only a minority of males are top dogs.
Thats only true of a few species.
> An alpha male do not last more than four of five years in charge.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> This is the time he has before being deposed, and
> probably being chased out of the troupe to die.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> I am not very sure of that,
Thats obvious.
> but it happens in the case of wolves.
Like hell it does. And the reason humans have come close to wiping
out wolves is because they dont work anything like wolves anyway.
> So, in a way, they are more or less descendants from a minority of breeding
> males. The rest of the males do not play in the great league of breeding.
Utterly mangled all over again. In spades with rabbits, feral cats, humans, lions, etc etc etc.
> This happens the same with chimps, and with wolves, and lions, etc.
Like hell it does.
> Most of the males in the animal kingdom do not breed,
> unless they are birds, or aves, that need to hatch the eggs.
Utterly mangled all over again. Pity about rabbits, feral cats, humans,
lemmings, mice, rats, dogs, sheep, goats, horses, etc etc etc.
> They are more egalitarians. Even among primates,
> a minority has most of the breeding rights.
Thats as silly as you claim about a tiny minority of humans on some damned
island thats so impoverished that something had to be done about breeding.
But it didnt happen anything like that in ANY of the pacific islands.
> In the case of chimps, the alpha male needs some help from allies
> to make it last his position. This allies are a tolerated to mount
> some females, after him has done it. An alpha who doesn't tolerate
> his assistants some copulation, soon looses this power, for the
> assistants of the alpha desert him. And someone new chases out the
> former alpha male easily. There is a lot of politics involved in the life of chimps.
Uttery mangled all over again even with chimps.
> And political alliances are changing often.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> But of all the males, only a minority is doing all the breeding.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> Among the herbivores only a 15% of the males does the breeding.
Chimps are herbivores. And you have utterly mangled what happens with bovines anyway.
> But not at the same time, but by turns. Every three or four years
> there is a change of the alpha male. A younger and stronger males
> comes to the top. The deposed alpha male goes to graze with the
> troupe of single males. Those single males had to graze on the worst sites.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> The best are reserved for the breeding females and the alpha male.
Utterly mangled all over again.
And COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to how humans operate ANYWAY.
tg
The problem that both you and Price have is that you are thinking in
non-scientific terms. You are making up stories without control of
variables or any evidence, and also you have your time scales way off.
In my experiment, it would take many generations to see an effect.
Group one would have more and more strong, aggressive, good fighters
in the population, including the females. Now, the question is,
whether this is 'beneficial to the population'.
Obviously, with respect to interspecies activities, Group 1 would be
better at defending against predators, and also at hunting. But even
more important is the effect on intra-species competition. If we put
our two populations (after a sufficient time) in an environment the
same size as the original, Group 1 would go to war and wipe out Group
2.
But it might be the case that Group 1 would actually experience no
effect or a negative effect, and this is what you guys don't
understand.
For example, even if Group 1 gets bigger and stronger, their
predators might also get bigger and stronger as a result, and the
animals that Group 1 hunts for food might also evolve to be faster and
more alert. No plus, no minus.
You could also have a negative effect if the group becomes inbred---a
'dynasty' develops, so that all offspring outside the lineage are
killed, thereby reducing genetic diversity, leading to extinction.
I mentioned the neutral option earlier in the thread; but let us make
a more precise statement: The genes preserved are the ones that either
actively benefit or have no negative effect on the species or
population within the species. I leave it to anyone to demonstrate
that genes with a net negative effect on the species can survive---
since there will be no species to carry them.
-tg
James A. Donald
> Obviously, with respect to interspecies activities, Group 1
> would be better at defending against predators, and also at
> hunting. But even more important is the effect on
> intra-species competition. If we put our two populations
> (after a sufficient time) in an environment the same size
> as the original, Group 1 would go to war and wipe out Group
> 2.
Two populations, genetically separate over a long period -
that is two races, well on the way to becoming two species -
you are contemplating selection on the level of races.
But races and species do not have random variation - they
drift apart under selective pressure. So you have to
explain selective pressure on INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of Group 1
for greater virtue. Although the superior race is apt to
wipe out the inferior race, and the superior species the
inferior, evolution does not select what is good for the race
or the species, but what is good for the individual.