Politics and Propaganda In Sci-Fi
darwinist
issues, due to reading a story?
If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings, this
inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
political ideas that you've seen?
Bill Snyder
The ones that I agree with, of course.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Butch Malahide
> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
> issues, due to reading a story?
Of course not. (I shouldn't be responding to this thread but I have
too much spare time since I went into semi-retirement.)
> If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings, this
> inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
> political ideas that you've seen?
If you mean the funniest or most entertaining:
Eric Frank Russell in "And Then There Were None"
Robert Sheckley in "A Ticket to Tranai"
Jonathan Swift in "Gulliver's Travels"
What were you expecting, Plato?
Mike Schilling
Terry Pratchett. Ankh-Morpork is a lesson in practical civics.
Joel Olson
news:ff9113af-b006-46c8...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
The one where the leader got to wear an exploding necklace.
Butch Malahide
> The one where the leader got to wear an exploding necklace.
"All government officials," Melith explained, wear the badge of
office, which contains a traditional amount of tessium, an explosive
you may have heard of. The charge is radio-controlled from the
Citizens Booth. Any citizen has access to the Booth, for the purpose
of expressing his disapproval of the government."
That one? "A Ticket to Tranai" by Robert Sheckley, already mentioned
upthread.
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?45874
Mike Schilling
Cool. I was thinking it was a misremembering of Vance's The Anome
(where everyone but the ruler wears one.)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
> issues, due to reading a story?
>
Atlas Shrugged.
I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be. Socialism wants
to ignore some of the basic human impulses in one direction, Randian
Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that emotional human beings aren't
always going to make rational decisions (and that "rational" will vary
depending on postulates), etc. Still, it was an eye-opening work to read
at the age of 15-16, which was when my mother handed the books to me.
I'm now a... "Practical Objectivist" or "rational Libertarian", I
suppose. I'd like to believe that people can be MORE sensible than they
are currently, and I'd like to keep "The People" as a large,
uncontrolled mass of busybodies masquerading as government out of
everyone's personal business as much as possible, but I also recognize
that the real world is much, much messier and requires a lot of
compromises for ANYTHING to work at all.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
D.F. Manno
<ff9113af-b006-46c8...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
darwinist <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
> issues, due to reading a story?
Yes, but it wasn't SF. It was "An Enemy of the People" by Ibsen.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by
faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
(Dan Barker, former preacher, musician, b. 1949)
Steven L.
Sounds like you and I had similar reactions to that book.
I came to regard "Atlas Shrugged" as a fascinating theoretical
abstraction--like the kinetic theory of gases that regards each molecule
as behaving like a point mass at the usual temperatures and pressures.
I became more of an advocate of market economies--while at the same time
realizing where that theoretical abstraction can break down.
Laissez-faire capitalism not only breaks down because people are irrational.
It also breaks down when resources are limited. That causes
externalities to have more and more nasty effects. When there are seven
billion people on earth, it becomes harder and harder for market
economies to create giant industries without polluting the environment,
causing global warming, etc.
Modern game theory, about which Adam Smith and Ayn Rand knew nothing,
shows that in such situations, when all participants in a market pursue
their own self-interest, the global result can be *sub-optimal*,
refuting Smith's notion of an "invisible hand." See, for example, the
Traveler's Dilemma problem.
So the Smith/Rand laissez-faire capitalist model assumes rationality of
all players; and it assumes that the number of players is so small, and
resources are so vast, that externalities are few and relatively
harmless. That was a much better approximation to world affairs in the
17th and 18th centuries, than in the 20th and 21st.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Szymon Sokół
> darwinist wrote:
>> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
>> issues, due to reading a story?
>>
>
> Atlas Shrugged.
>
> I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
> Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
> human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be. Socialism wants
> to ignore some of the basic human impulses in one direction, Randian
> Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that emotional human beings aren't
> always going to make rational decisions (and that "rational" will vary
> depending on postulates), etc. Still, it was an eye-opening work to read
> at the age of 15-16, which was when my mother handed the books to me.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life:
The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that
often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with
the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
(I am not sure who is the original author, but I've found it at
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html)
> I'm now a... "Practical Objectivist" or "rational Libertarian", I
> suppose. I'd like to believe that people can be MORE sensible than they
> are currently
I'd LIKE to believe that, too. Such a belief must be most comforting.
--
Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
to see if their current self interest might work against them when
carried through; it's also that to apply your long-term enlightened self
interest properly, you need nigh-omniscience so that you can tell how
your (say) building a factory along the river today will affect the
economic impact of a flood in that area 20 years from now.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:40:15 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> darwinist wrote:
>>> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
>>> issues, due to reading a story?
>>>
>> Atlas Shrugged.
>>
>> I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
>> Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
>> human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be. Socialism wants
>> to ignore some of the basic human impulses in one direction, Randian
>> Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that emotional human beings aren't
>> always going to make rational decisions (and that "rational" will vary
>> depending on postulates), etc. Still, it was an eye-opening work to read
>> at the age of 15-16, which was when my mother handed the books to me.
>
> "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life:
> The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that
> often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
> to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with
> the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
> (I am not sure who is the original author, but I've found it at
> http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html)
It's a nice and irrelevant snarky phrase.
>
>> I'm now a... "Practical Objectivist" or "rational Libertarian", I
>> suppose. I'd like to believe that people can be MORE sensible than they
>> are currently
>
> I'd LIKE to believe that, too. Such a belief must be most comforting.
Human beings are intelligent. We are VASTLY more sensible now than we
were a thousand years ago. I expect we will keep developing better ways
of living and working with each other throughout the next centuries.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Human beings are intelligent. We are VASTLY more sensible now than we
>were a thousand years ago.
Define "sensible." I think you sorely misjudge our ancestors.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Szymon Sokół
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:02:20 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Human beings are intelligent. We are VASTLY more sensible now than we
>>were a thousand years ago.
>
> Define "sensible." I think you sorely misjudge our ancestors.
Or, maybe, our contemporaries.
Butch Malahide
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:02:20 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>
> > Human beings are intelligent. We are VASTLY more sensible now than we
> >were a thousand years ago.
>
> Define "sensible." I think you sorely misjudge our ancestors.
Down with temporal chauvinism!
David Johnston
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>darwinist wrote:
>> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
>> issues, due to reading a story?
>>
>
> Atlas Shrugged.
>
> I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
>Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
>human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be. Socialism wants
>to ignore some of the basic human impulses in one direction, Randian
>Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that emotional human beings aren't
>always going to make rational decisions (and that "rational" will vary
>depending on postulates),
I disagree, at least based on Atlas Shrugged which focusses on the
idea that only a small minority of capable people matter and everyone
else is dead weight.
Szymon Sokół
> I disagree, at least based on Atlas Shrugged which focusses on the
> idea that only a small minority of capable people matter and everyone
> else is dead weight.
And this may very well be true, except that those capable people wouldn't
exist without the rest.
Kurt Busiek
<szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> said:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:03:45 GMT, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> I disagree, at least based on Atlas Shrugged which focusses on the
>> idea that only a small minority of capable people matter and everyone
>> else is dead weight.
>
> And this may very well be true, except that those capable people wouldn't
> exist without the rest.
Which would mean "the rest" aren't dead weight, but a necessary part of
the functioning process.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Shawn Wilson
> Laissez-faire capitalism not only breaks down because people are irrational.
>
> It also breaks down when resources are limited. That causes
> externalities to have more and more nasty effects. When there are seven
> billion people on earth, it becomes harder and harder for market
> economies to create giant industries without polluting the environment,
> causing global warming, etc.
Sigh...
Since you obviously don't undertsand economics, what drives you to
comment on it?
Limited resources cause externalities? You don't know what an
externality is, do you? It has nothing whatsoever to to with limited
resources (which economists call 'scarce' and which includes
approximately *everything*).
At least you correctly identified that pollution is an externality.
Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?
> Modern game theory, about which Adam Smith and Ayn Rand knew nothing,
> shows that in such situations, when all participants in a market pursue
> their own self-interest, the global result can be *sub-optimal*,
> refuting Smith's notion of an "invisible hand." See, for example, the
> Traveler's Dilemma problem.
"Can be" is not a synonym for "will be", and there are damn few
(read: none) alternatives that are superior to the free market, even
if it's 'sub-optimal'. Ideal public policy is not available to human
beings. At best we get government policy.
> So the Smith/Rand laissez-faire capitalist model assumes rationality of
> all players;
As far as the economic definiton of rational is concerned, it is
perfectly reasonable. All economists demand for rationality is that
people have preferences that affect their choices. In that we observe
this in the real world universally, there's no problem.
People like you assume that 'rational' means *much* more than it does
to economists.
> and it assumes that the number of players is so small, and
> resources are so vast, that externalities are few and relatively
> harmless.
Nope. And there you go misunderstanding 'externalities' again...
Shawn Wilson
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
> as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
> isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
> to see if their current self interest might work against them when
> carried through;
OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it? Or is it something you
read on a bumper-sticker and internalized?
it's also that to apply your long-term enlightened self
> interest properly, you need nigh-omniscience so that you can tell how
> your (say) building a factory along the river today will affect the
> economic impact of a flood in that area 20 years from now.
No, not really. There is uncertainty in the world. That's why
there's money to be made in insurance.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Which is not the idea.
The idea was that there were a small minority of capable people who
were linchpins. The other people mattered. But remove ONE of the others
and it didn't cause the same disaster that removing one of the linchpins
did. This did not mean, nor imply, that all the others were "dead
weight" Dagny Taggart relied on Eddie Williers to perform numerous
valuable tasks, and was appreciative of those tasks, etc., even though
Eddie was not, and never would be, someone on the level of a Hank Rearden.
The idea BEHIND that idea -- which was the driving force of the novel
-- was that people at ALL levels should be exchanging their best effort
for other people's best effort, and that the villains of the piece were
the ones who wanted the results of the best effort with nothing
themselves to contribute, just a feeling of entitlement because they
were alive, so to speak.
Bill Snyder
<ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?
It's called "sanity." You should try it some time. Once you
have, feel free to post again.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Oct 30, 11:00 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
>> as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
>> isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
>> to see if their current self interest might work against them when
>> carried through;
>
>
>
>
> OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it?
Yep.
Shawn Wilson
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:41:04 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
>
> >Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?
>
> It's called "sanity." You should try it some time. Once you
> have, feel free to post again.
Do you think the current world is inferior to the one of 15000 years
ago? The difference is global warming. Do you think short growing
seasons are better than longer? Slower superior to faster? Tundra
superior to plains? Ice superior to tundra? Winter superior to
summer?
In what way would the world be superior if it were cooler? Be
specific. In what way is warmer worse than cooler? Be specific.
Shawn Wilson
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Shawn Wilson wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 11:00 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
> >> as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
> >> isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
> >> to see if their current self interest might work against them when
> >> carried through;
>
> > OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it?
>
> Yep.
Feel free to do so. Expect a call from Sweden, a large pile of money
and a shiny medal shortly after.
I'm pretty sure you can't. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Bill Snyder
Fuck off, wacko.
Mike Schilling
And it shows them acting stupid, which is actually quite realistic.
Shawn Wilson
> >> >Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?
>
> >> It's called "sanity." You should try it some time. Once you
> >> have, feel free to post again.
>
> >Do you think the current world is inferior to the one of 15000 years
> >ago? The difference is global warming. Do you think short growing
> >seasons are better than longer? Slower superior to faster? Tundra
> >superior to plains? Ice superior to tundra? Winter superior to
> >summer?
>
> >In what way would the world be superior if it were cooler? Be
> >specific. In what way is warmer worse than cooler? Be specific.
>
> Fuck off, wacko.
And here we get to the heart of the matter-
It isn't reason with you, it's your *religion*. I don't share your
religion, and I object to your claiming that your *religious* beliefs
are a function of reason, which they manifestly aren't.
Mike Schilling
> On 2009-10-30 12:17:41 -0700, Szymon Sok�l
> <szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> said:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:03:45 GMT, David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree, at least based on Atlas Shrugged which focusses on the
>>> idea that only a small minority of capable people matter and
>>> everyone else is dead weight.
>>
>> And this may very well be true, except that those capable people
>> wouldn't exist without the rest.
>
> Which would mean "the rest" aren't dead weight, but a necessary part
> of the functioning process.
What makes the book popular, of course, is that every reader gets to think
that he's one of the chosen few.
Mike Schilling
> On Oct 30, 12:48 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:41:04 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
>>
>> <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?
>>
>> It's called "sanity." You should try it some time. Once you
>> have, feel free to post again.
>
>
> Do you think the current world is inferior to the one of 15000 years
> ago?
Of course. They didn't even have baseball then.
Mike Schilling
> On Oct 30, 11:00 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
>> as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem
>> there isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward
>> 20 years to see if their current self interest might work against
>> them when carried through;
>
>
>
>
> OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it? Or is it something you
> read on a bumper-sticker and internalized?
Right, The world is full of CEOs who ignore short-term gains in their stock
option to worry about the long-term health of their companies.
Szymon Sokół
> On 2009-10-30 12:17:41 -0700, Szymon Sokół
> <szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> said:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:03:45 GMT, David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree, at least based on Atlas Shrugged which focusses on the
>>> idea that only a small minority of capable people matter and everyone
>>> else is dead weight.
>>
>> And this may very well be true, except that those capable people wouldn't
>> exist without the rest.
>
> Which would mean "the rest" aren't dead weight, but a necessary part of
> the functioning process.
Exactly. I once heard that anecdote about one of Soviet leaders (Stalin,
IIRC) who visited Mosfilm (Russian Hollywood) and asked "How many movies do
you make here?" They gave him a number, let's say fifty per year. "And how
many of these are masterpieces?" "Uh... maybe two..." "OK, from now on you
will make only two movies per year - only the masterpieces!"
Oh, and there was that politician who promised that everyone should have at
least the average income.
This mode of reasoning is more popular than one could think.
Mike Schilling
>>
>> Fuck off, wacko.
>
>
> And here we get to the heart of the matter-
That you're a wacko.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Oct 30, 12:50 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 11:00 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
>>>> as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
>>>> isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
>>>> to see if their current self interest might work against them when
>>>> carried through;
>>> OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it?
>> Yep.
>
>
> Feel free to do so.
Feel free to pay me to do so. For real work, I get paid. Writing
wiseass responses to guys who believe they know more than everyone about
everything, like you, that I'll do for free.
Cece
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> darwinist wrote:
> > Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
> > issues, due to reading a story?
>
> Atlas Shrugged.
>
> I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
> Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
> human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be. Socialism wants
> to ignore some of the basic human impulses in one direction, Randian
> Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that emotional human beings aren't
> always going to make rational decisions (and that "rational" will vary
> at the age of 15-16, which was when my mother handed the books to me.
>
> suppose. I'd like to believe that people can be MORE sensible than they
> uncontrolled mass of busybodies masquerading as government out of
> everyone's personal business as much as possible, but I also recognize
> that the real world is much, much messier and requires a lot of
> compromises for ANYTHING to work at all.
>
Rational anarchist, maybe?
Mike Van Pelt
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>darwinist wrote:
>> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
>> issues, due to reading a story?
>
> Atlas Shrugged.
>
>I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
>Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you
>can modify human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be.
Heh. Yeah, given Perfect People (for most definitions of
Perfect People) then any government, or no government at all,
would be a utopia.
Alas, we're stuck with what we've got.
Atlas Shrugged was an interesting book, but Rand had some
very odd ... quirks.
The section that really sticks with me though is the segment
about the factory where they really did implement "From each
according to his ability; to each according to his need",
and showed exactly how, given actual humans rather than
perfect angelic beings, that is going to inevitably go
horribly, horribly wrong. That part is a masterpiece.
Much of the rest ... not so much.
--
Mike Van Pelt "If they're going to talk about
mvp.at.calweb.com Camelot, then we get to talk about
KE6BVH The Lady in the Lake." - ?
Cece
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Steven L. wrote:
> > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >> darwinist wrote:
> >>> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
> >>> issues, due to reading a story?
>
> >> Atlas Shrugged.
>
> >> I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
> >> Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can
> >> modify human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be.
> >> direction, Randian Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that emotional
> >> human beings aren't always going to make rational decisions (and that
> >> "rational" will vary depending on postulates), etc. Still, it was an
> >> eye-opening work to read at the age of 15-16, which was when my mother
> >> handed the books to me.
>
> >> I'm now a... "Practical Objectivist" or "rational Libertarian", I
> >> suppose. I'd like to believe that people can be MORE sensible than
> >> they are currently, and I'd like to keep "The People" as a large,
> >> uncontrolled mass of busybodies masquerading as government out of
> >> everyone's personal business as much as possible, but I also recognize
> >> that the real world is much, much messier and requires a lot of
> >> compromises for ANYTHING to work at all.
>
>
> > I came to regard "Atlas Shrugged" as a fascinating theoretical
> > abstraction--like the kinetic theory of gases that regards each molecule
> > as behaving like a point mass at the usual temperatures and pressures.
>
> > I became more of an advocate of market economies--while at the same time
> > realizing where that theoretical abstraction can break down.
>
> > Laissez-faire capitalism not only breaks down because people are
> > irrational.
>
> > It also breaks down when resources are limited. That causes
> > externalities to have more and more nasty effects. When there are seven
> > billion people on earth, it becomes harder and harder for market
> > economies to create giant industries without polluting the environment,
> > causing global warming, etc.
>
> > shows that in such situations, when all participants in a market pursue
> > their own self-interest, the global result can be *sub-optimal*,
> > refuting Smith's notion of an "invisible hand." See, for example, the
> > Traveler's Dilemma problem.
>
> > resources are so vast, that externalities are few and relatively
> > harmless.
>
> as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
> isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
> to see if their current self interest might work against them when
> interest properly, you need nigh-omniscience so that you can tell how
> your (say) building a factory along the river today will affect the
> economic impact of a flood in that area 20 years from now.
>
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
> Live Journal:http://seawasp.livejournal.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A lot of politics depends on the culture of the people. Ringo
explains this very well in The Last Centurion. The conclusion I
drew: democracy works among folks who can be trusted to borrow lawn
mowers and give them back in good condition, but not among those who
consider non-relatives beneath notice..
Bill Snyder
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>Shawn Wilson wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 12:50 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Oct 30, 11:00 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
>>>>> as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
>>>>> isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
>>>>> to see if their current self interest might work against them when
>>>>> carried through;
>>>> OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it?
>>> Yep.
>>
>>
>> Feel free to do so.
>
> Feel free to pay me to do so. For real work, I get paid. Writing
>wiseass responses to guys who believe they know more than everyone about
>everything, like you, that I'll do for free.
If Shawn did not exist, it might be necessary to invent him. Every
village needs an idiot.
Michael Stemper
>On 2009-10-30 12:17:41 -0700, Szymon Sokół <szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> said:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:03:45 GMT, David Johnston wrote:
>>> I disagree, at least based on Atlas Shrugged which focusses on the
>>> idea that only a small minority of capable people matter and everyone
>>> else is dead weight.
>>
>> And this may very well be true, except that those capable people wouldn't
>> exist without the rest.
>
>Which would mean "the rest" aren't dead weight, but a necessary part of
>the functioning process.
Would this be a poor time to mention Bob?
<http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif>
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
COFFEE.SYS not found. Abort, Retry, Fail?
tg
Classic failure of quantitative reasoning. Nobody is worrying about
the planet being 'warmer' or 'cooler'. The problem is that rapid
changes in energy balance lead to local disruptions in human
populations. Your views about economics are similarly distorted by an
inability to think in terms of systems and numbers.
-tg
Spider Jerusalem
news:2dkme5ljpl374bnof...@4ax.com:
No, most every village _has_ an idiot. Different thing.
It doesn't _take_ all sorts to make a world, there just _are_ all
sorts...
Michael Grosberg
> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
> issues, due to reading a story?
>
> inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
> political ideas that you've seen?
Great subject!
Yes, I've actually changed my mind reading SF - twice.
I was brought up in a left-leaning household, but when I started
reading SF, I slowly chaneg my mind. It was implicit in most of the SF
I read that libertarianism was the natural positive direction society
should develop towards. Heinlein was the biggest proponent but I'm
sure it cropped up elsewhere. I don't think I thought too deeply about
it, but slowly my mind was shaped to assume private enterprise was the
answer, that government stifled progress and was slow and stupid, that
they would cause WWIII and it was up to the millionaires and
entrepreneurs to save us all (by creating their own space programs,
usually).
Then I read two books in a short period of time: _Snow Crash_ and _The
Probability Broach_. Now, Snow Crash is as anti-corporation as they
come: the fragmented society of Snow Crash is the Libertarian dream
turned into a nightmare. TPB is the opposite: it's a mega-super-happy
Libertarian utopia. But Snow Crash managed to convince me, while TPB
was so over the top it became a parody, and only managed to make
Libertarianism seem ludicrous. I'm now back in the social-democrat
camp.
Bill Snyder
I must disagree. It need not be -- ideally, perhaps, should not
be -- literally an idiot, but the presence of an outcast(e) or two
promotes social cohesion. It helps if, when you're ticked with a
neighbor, part of your mind is thinking, "Well, maybe he's kind of
a jerk at times, but at least he's nowhere near as bad as <X>."
The obvious objection to this, of course, is that it can be really
rough on X. Wherefore it's rare good luck to have an X who richly
merits all the opprobrium that could possibly be heaped on him,
and more.
Mike Schilling
>
> I must disagree. It need not be -- ideally, perhaps, should not
> be -- literally an idiot, but the presence of an outcast(e) or two
> promotes social cohesion. It helps if, when you're ticked with a
> neighbor, part of your mind is thinking, "Well, maybe he's kind of
> a jerk at times, but at least he's nowhere near as bad as <X>."
>
> The obvious objection to this, of course, is that it can be really
> rough on X. Wherefore it's rare good luck to have an X who richly
> merits all the opprobrium that could possibly be heaped on him,
> and more.
A few more Shawns could end racism in our lifetime.
Sir Frederick
Howard Brazee
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Atlas Shrugged.
>
> I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
>Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
>human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be.
Most SF utopias have this flaw.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
>as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
>isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
>to see if their current self interest might work against them when
>carried through; it's also that to apply your long-term enlightened self
>interest properly, you need nigh-omniscience so that you can tell how
>your (say) building a factory along the river today will affect the
>economic impact of a flood in that area 20 years from now.
In specific, politicians are thinking about the next election (or the
next coup), and CEOs are thinking about their next stock option. These
guys have power and should be thinking of the long term.
Butch Malahide
> I must disagree. It need not be -- ideally, perhaps, should not
> be -- literally an idiot, but the presence of an outcast(e) or two
ObSF: The Two Minutes Hate.
Howard Brazee
<ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?
*Everything's* a bad thing in that it causes some people to suffer.
Major changes cause major suffering.
That includes changes that have also produced the most good. Think
of something like finding great wealth beneath the sands of Saudi
Arabia.
Bill Snyder
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:00:40 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
><sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
>>as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
>>isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
>>to see if their current self interest might work against them when
>>carried through; it's also that to apply your long-term enlightened self
>>interest properly, you need nigh-omniscience so that you can tell how
>>your (say) building a factory along the river today will affect the
>>economic impact of a flood in that area 20 years from now.
>
>In specific, politicians are thinking about the next election (or the
>next coup), and CEOs are thinking about their next stock option. These
>guys have power and should be thinking of the long term.
Hardly unique to them, however. Cf many references to the
buttocks-normed alligator level in swamp drainage.
Mike Schilling
More like:
Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
Rick: If I gave you any thought I probably would.
Mike Van Pelt
darwinist <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
>issues, due to reading a story?
On the "changed" side... I guess I wouldn't exactly say "changed",
but it's certainly made me think about a very serious issue,
which so far as I can see doesn't have an answer that I like...
"Rainbows End". There were a lot of ideas thrown around in this
book, some of them more weighty than others.
The real doozy was the possible answer to the Fermi Paradox,
"Where are all the aliens?"
As technology increases, and the power available to major powers,
minor powers, corporations, groups, and individuals increases,
the amount of havoc a fringe wacko can create increases.
In "Snow Crash", the bad guy had a hydrogen bomb in the side
car of his motorcycle.
If technology advances to the point where any random individual
has the power to destroy the planet, how do you *stop* them?
All of them, each and every one individually, forever?
It seems likely some kind of universal surveilance may be
the price of continued existence.
David Johnston
>
>>In specific, politicians are thinking about the next election (or the
>>next coup), and CEOs are thinking about their next stock option. These
>>guys have power and should be thinking of the long term.
I read a novel where a Japanese pharmaceutical company had hired a
hitman to kill every woman who had a mutation that enabled them to
self-abort at will because they were afraid that centuries in the
future all women would be able to do that, and that would affect the
sales of birth control pills.
Butch Malahide
>
> If technology advances to the point where any random individual
> has the power to destroy the planet, how do you *stop* them?
> All of them, each and every one individually, forever?
What if any random technological civilization a couple centuries more
advanced than ours has the power to destroy the universe? Fortunately,
the level of technology where any random individual can destroy his
planet is reached well before that.
Bill Snyder
Doesn't matter, it was a double plus ungood analogy anyway.
Shawn Wilson
wrote:
> >> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
> >> as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem
> >> there isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward
> >> 20 years to see if their current self interest might work against
> >> them when carried through;
>
> > OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it? Or is it something you
> > read on a bumper-sticker and internalized?
>
> Right, The world is full of CEOs who ignore short-term gains in their stock
> option to worry about the long-term health of their companies.
In what way is that irrational?
Shawn Wilson
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >>>> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
> >>>> as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
> >>>> isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
> >>>> to see if their current self interest might work against them when
> >>>> carried through;
> >>> OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it?
> >> Yep.
>
> > Feel free to do so.
>
> Feel free to pay me to do so. For real work, I get paid. Writing
> wiseass responses to guys who believe they know more than everyone about
> everything, like you, that I'll do for free.
In other words, you were talking out of your ass...
Shawn Wilson
> > Do you think the current world is inferior to the one of 15000 years
> > ago? The difference is global warming. Do you think short growing
> > seasons are better than longer? Slower superior to faster? Tundra
> > superior to plains? Ice superior to tundra? Winter superior to
> > summer?
>
> > In what way would the world be superior if it were cooler? Be
> > specific. In what way is warmer worse than cooler? Be specific.
>
> Classic failure of quantitative reasoning. Nobody is worrying about
> the planet being 'warmer' or 'cooler'.
Uh, the is the very heart of the "AGW is going to kill us all!"
faction...
> The problem is that rapid
> changes in energy balance lead to local disruptions in human
> populations.
Nonsense. Energy balances change on an annual and even a daily basis
20x what global warming predicts.
Your views about economics are similarly distorted by an
> inability to think in terms of systems and numbers.
Actually, the problem is that I can, and people like you can't. Case
in point, the nonsense you claimed above.
Shawn Wilson
> > >>> OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it?
> > >> Yep.
>
> > > Feel free to do so.
>
> > Feel free to pay me to do so. For real work, I get paid. Writing
> > wiseass responses to guys who believe they know more than everyone about
> > everything, like you, that I'll do for free.
>
> In other words, you were talking out of your ass...
I forgot to point out that you deliberately cut the "large pile of
money" the Swedes would give him if he actually could do what he
claims...
Butch Malahide
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:02:34 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
>
> >Butch Malahide wrote:
> >> On Oct 30, 4:16 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>> I must disagree. It need not be -- ideally, perhaps, should not
> >>> be -- literally an idiot, but the presence of an outcast(e) or two
> >>> promotes social cohesion. [. . .]
>
> >> ObSF: The Two Minutes Hate.
>
> >More like:
>
> >Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
> >Rick: If I gave you any thought I probably would.
>
> Doesn't matter, it was a double plus ungood analogy anyway.
It wasn't an analogy at all (analogy for *what*?) It was a stfnal
example of using an outcast to promote social cohesion. You don't
think the Two Minutes Hate was an example of that?
Howard Brazee
wrote:
I don't see even Japanese Big Business caring that much about that far
in the future. Someone else's problem.
Bill Snyder
Well, I said "presence of," not "using." Deliberate manipulation
of the populace is a rather different thing. I'd say the Two
Minutes' Hate was an example of what I was talking about in much
the same sense that an ocean is an example of high humidity.
Joseph Nebus
>Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> On 2009-10-30 12:17:41 -0700, Szymon Sokl
>> <szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:03:45 GMT, David Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>> I disagree, at least based on Atlas Shrugged which focusses on the
>>>> idea that only a small minority of capable people matter and
>>>> everyone else is dead weight.
>>>
>>> And this may very well be true, except that those capable people
>>> wouldn't exist without the rest.
>>
>> Which would mean "the rest" aren't dead weight, but a necessary part
>> of the functioning process.
>What makes the book popular, of course, is that every reader gets to think
>that he's one of the chosen few.
See also: _They'd Rather Be Right_, in its brief bits of being
pretty good.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Busiek
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> On 2009-10-30 12:17:41 -0700, Szymon Sok�l
>> <szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:03:45 GMT, David Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>> I disagree, at least based on Atlas Shrugged which focusses on the
>>>> idea that only a small minority of capable people matter and
>>>> everyone else is dead weight.
>>>
>>> And this may very well be true, except that those capable people
>>> wouldn't exist without the rest.
>>
>> Which would mean "the rest" aren't dead weight, but a necessary part
>> of the functioning process.
>
> What makes the book popular, of course, is that every reader gets to think
> that he's one of the chosen few.
Despite the fact that very, very few of them are doing the sort of
things that the Galtians did.
Or even wanted to, so it wasn't like they were being held back by The Man.
I really enjoyed ATLAS SHRUGGED, because it had great narrative
momentum. It was fun to read -- even that 80-page speech (or whatever
it was) just crackles right along -- but even while reading it I could
recognize that the characters were tissue thin and the philosophy made
no sense, and I'd get a deeper understanding of humanity from reading
well-crafted issues of THE FANTASTIC FOUR.
But it was a fun read even for all that. Like reading the world's
biggest meringue.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Carl Dershem
news:hcf9nc$62g$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Human beings are intelligent. We are VASTLY more sensible now
> than we
> were a thousand years ago. I expect we will keep developing better
> ways of living and working with each other throughout the next
> centuries.
I'm not even sanguine about the rationality of most time travelers.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I don't do that kind of work on spec (I do write novels on spec, but
that's because it's FUN). Tell you what, YOU give me the same huge pile
of money the Swedes will give me, and as soon as the Swedes hand me that
prize I'll give it over to you.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Mark Reichert
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> darwinist wrote:
> > Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
> > issues, due to reading a story?
>
>
> I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
> Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
> to ignore some of the basic human impulses in one direction, Randian
> Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that emotional human beings aren't
> always going to make rational decisions (and that "rational" will vary
> depending on postulates), etc.
There's also the problem that anything that assumes "perfect
information" (classic economic bullshit) is doomed to failure in a
world in which there are people spending many millions on disformation
and misinformation. Hampered additionally by the continued
splintering of all audiences.
It worked better when there were three networks trying to gain and
hold truly mass audiences while protecting themselves by spending
enough acquiring reasonable proof of what they broadcast. They had a
better record and engendered more trust because they had to.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>In "Snow Crash", the bad guy had a hydrogen bomb in the side
>car of his motorcycle.
>
>If technology advances to the point where any random individual
>has the power to destroy the planet, how do you *stop* them?
>All of them, each and every one individually, forever?
So far, so good with that hydrogen bomb.
Alfred Bester's solution in _The Stars My Destination_ was to trust
the population.
Mark Reichert
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Szymon Sokół wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:40:15 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> >> darwinist wrote:
> >>> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
> >>> issues, due to reading a story?
>
> >> Atlas Shrugged.
>
> >> I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
> >> Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
> >> human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be. Socialism wants
> >> to ignore some of the basic human impulses in one direction, Randian
> >> Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that emotional human beings aren't
> >> always going to make rational decisions (and that "rational" will vary
> >> at the age of 15-16, which was when my mother handed the books to me.
>
> > "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life:
> > The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that
> > often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
> > to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with
> > the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
> > (I am not sure who is the original author, but I've found it at
> >http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html)
>
> It's a nice and irrelevant snarky phrase.
>
>
>
> >> I'm now a... "Practical Objectivist" or "rational Libertarian", I
> >> suppose. I'd like to believe that people can be MORE sensible than they
> >> are currently
>
> > I'd LIKE to believe that, too. Such a belief must be most comforting.
>
> Human beings are intelligent. We are VASTLY more sensible now than we
> were a thousand years ago. I expect we will keep developing better ways
> of living and working with each other throughout the next centuries.
Oh geez, you are blinkered if you are saying that under any sense
other than "we stand on the shoulders of giants."
OBSF: The Island in the Sea of Time. Stirling at least was under no
illusion to the intelligence of previous generations of human beings.
OBTV: The Day the Universe Changed, James Burke's look at the times
when humanity's view of the universe changed (or at least the informed
part of it).
Mark Reichert
> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
> issues, due to reading a story?
>
> inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
> political ideas that you've seen?
Well, I particularly like Bujold's "People before principle."
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
We are giants BUILDING on the work of other giants.
> OBSF: The Island in the Sea of Time. Stirling at least was under no
> illusion to the intelligence of previous generations of human beings.
I said NOTHING of intelligence. Don't shift the discussion.
Howard Brazee
<Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>There's also the problem that anything that assumes "perfect
>information" (classic economic bullshit) is doomed to failure in a
>world in which there are people spending many millions on disformation
>and misinformation. Hampered additionally by the continued
>splintering of all audiences.
Studies have confirmed that we don't want too many choices. When we
have two choices in (product), we have pretty high satisfaction that
our choice is the best for us. With a thousand choices, we're not
nearly so confident. We can't even evaluate all of the options and
decide which ones we prefer.
Mike Schilling
It isn't. Nor is it the long-term planning you insist exists.
Mike Schilling
> I really enjoyed ATLAS SHRUGGED, because it had great narrative
> momentum. It was fun to read -- even that 80-page speech (or whatever
> it was) just crackles right along -- but even while reading it I could
> recognize that the characters were tissue thin and the philosophy made
> no sense, and I'd get a deeper understanding of humanity from reading
> well-crafted issues of THE FANTASTIC FOUR.
I'm sure I've read comics where superheroes stop saving humanity because
they feel unappreciated.
Mike Schilling
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:20:43 -0700 (PDT), Mark Reichert
> <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There's also the problem that anything that assumes "perfect
>> information" (classic economic bullshit) is doomed to failure in a
>> world in which there are people spending many millions on
>> disformation and misinformation. Hampered additionally by the
>> continued splintering of all audiences.
>
> Studies have confirmed that we don't want too many choices. When we
> have two choices in (product), we have pretty high satisfaction that
> our choice is the best for us. With a thousand choices, we're not
> nearly so confident. We can't even evaluate all of the options and
> decide which ones we prefer.
So we irrationally [1] eliminate a boatload of them to make the choice
easier. At least, that's what I do when confronted with hundreds of TV
channels, some of which are probably showing something more entertaining
than the Scrubs rerun I eventaully choose.
1. That is, based on little or no information.
Mike Schilling
If Aral had learned that sooner, Miles would look like Ivan (but probably be
far less remarkable.)
mimus
> OK. There's your theory. Can you prove it? Or is it something you
> read on a bumper-sticker and internalized?
No bumper-sticker ever told _me_ that the Oil Bubble of 2006-8 was "supply
and demand" . . . .
--
When was the last time you heard an American politician
use the word "plutocracy"?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2006/PSI.gasandoilspec.062606.pdf
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/04/summers/index.html
Kurt Busiek
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
Generally they change their minds by the end of the story, though.
Kurt Busiek
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> I said NOTHING of intelligence.
This is Usenet. Caregful with those straight lines, sonny.
Mike Schilling
If for no other reason, to follow the convention that things end up
where they began. (Not universal, I know, but I don't recall many
exception from when I used to read comics. The Kents' second youth,
of course.)
Mike Ash
<90a5252d-6bb3-4028...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 3:56�pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 12:48�pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:41:04 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
> >
> > > <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?
> >
> > > It's called "sanity." �You should try it some time. �Once you
> > > have, feel free to post again.
> >
> > Do you think the current world is inferior to the one of 15000 years
> > ago? �The difference is global warming. �Do you think short growing
> > seasons are better than longer? �Slower superior to faster? �Tundra
> > superior to plains? �Ice superior to tundra? �Winter superior to
> > summer?
> >
> > In what way would the world be superior if it were cooler? �Be
> > specific. �In what way is warmer worse than cooler? �Be specific.
>
> Classic failure of quantitative reasoning. Nobody is worrying about
> the planet being 'warmer' or 'cooler'. The problem is that rapid
> changes in energy balance lead to local disruptions in human
> populations. Your views about economics are similarly distorted by an
> inability to think in terms of systems and numbers.
Shawn's reasoning on global warming much like considering a loaded gun
pointed straight at your chest, and evaluating it based on the
consequences of having a bullet placed one foot behind you. While that
may be perfectly harmless, it neatly ignores how the bullet actually
achieves that position.
Come to think of it, Shawn's reasoning on pretty much everything is this
way.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Butch Malahide
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Butch Malahide
>
>
>
>
>
> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 30, 6:31 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:02:34 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
>
> >> <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Butch Malahide wrote:
> >> >> On Oct 30, 4:16 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> >>> I must disagree. It need not be -- ideally, perhaps, should not
> >> >>> be -- literally an idiot, but the presence of an outcast(e) or two
> >> >>> promotes social cohesion. [. . .]
>
> >> >> ObSF: The Two Minutes Hate.
>
> >> >More like:
>
> >> >Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
> >> >Rick: If I gave you any thought I probably would.
>
> >> Doesn't matter, it was a double plus ungood analogy anyway.
>
> >It wasn't an analogy at all (analogy for *what*?) It was a stfnal
> >example of using an outcast to promote social cohesion. You don't
> >think the Two Minutes Hate was an example of that?
>
> Well, I said "presence of," not "using."
Big fucking deal.
> Deliberate manipulation
> of the populace is a rather different thing.
Close enough for an ObSF.
> I'd say the Two
> Minutes' Hate was an example of what I was talking about in much
> the same sense that an ocean is an example of high humidity.
That's a piss-poor analogy.
--
"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;
You are a toad."
And after I had thought of it,
I said, "I will, then, be a toad."
Bill Snyder
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 30, 7:14 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Butch Malahide
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 30, 6:31 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:02:34 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
>>
>> >> <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Butch Malahide wrote:
>> >> >> On Oct 30, 4:16 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >> >>> I must disagree. It need not be -- ideally, perhaps, should not
>> >> >>> be -- literally an idiot, but the presence of an outcast(e) or two
>> >> >>> promotes social cohesion. [. . .]
>>
>> >> >> ObSF: The Two Minutes Hate.
>>
>> >> >More like:
>>
>> >> >Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
>> >> >Rick: If I gave you any thought I probably would.
>>
>> >> Doesn't matter, it was a double plus ungood analogy anyway.
>>
>> >It wasn't an analogy at all (analogy for *what*?) It was a stfnal
>> >example of using an outcast to promote social cohesion. You don't
>> >think the Two Minutes Hate was an example of that?
>>
>> Well, I said "presence of," not "using."
>
>Big fucking deal.
Electricity's been present since long before we came along. So
it's no big deal that we've relatively recently started using it?
>> Deliberate manipulation
>> of the populace is a rather different thing.
>
>Close enough for an ObSF.
>
>> I'd say the Two
>> Minutes' Hate was an example of what I was talking about in much
>> the same sense that an ocean is an example of high humidity.
>
>That's a piss-poor analogy.
Close enough for a wisecrack.
David DeLaney
>Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>>Which would mean "the rest" aren't dead weight, but a necessary part of
>>the functioning process.
See also: Chalker's Well World, where the inhabitants didn't really understand
just how far out the bell curve's ends can get in a population of billions of
trillions, because each hex was usually limited to several thousand of the
species... so they weren't as horrified at "let's end the universe and reboot
it" as an ordinary-world person might have been.
>Would this be a poor time to mention Bob?
><http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif>
I don't think there's EVER a poor time to mention Bob. (Warning: above site
contains Archives.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the same
>> as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem there
>> isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 years
>> to see if their current self interest might work against them when
>> carried through;
>
Wherever did you get the idea that theories can be +proven+?
Dave "methinks he has mistaken this word for 'theorem', except I can't swear
he _knows_ that word" DeLaney
David DeLaney
>Bill Snyder wrote:
>> I must disagree. It need not be -- ideally, perhaps, should not
>> be -- literally an idiot, but the presence of an outcast(e) or two
>> neighbor, part of your mind is thinking, "Well, maybe he's kind of
>> a jerk at times, but at least he's nowhere near as bad as <X>."
>>
>> The obvious objection to this, of course, is that it can be really
>> rough on X. Wherefore it's rare good luck to have an X who richly
>> merits all the opprobrium that could possibly be heaped on him,
>> and more.
>
>A few more Shawns could end racism in our lifetime.
Hopefully this experiment will involve a fractional part.
Dave
tg
> On Oct 30, 1:54 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Do you think the current world is inferior to the one of 15000 years
> > > ago? The difference is global warming. Do you think short growing
> > > seasons are better than longer? Slower superior to faster? Tundra
> > > superior to plains? Ice superior to tundra? Winter superior to
> > > summer?
>
> > > In what way would the world be superior if it were cooler? Be
> > > specific. In what way is warmer worse than cooler? Be specific.
>
> > Classic failure of quantitative reasoning. Nobody is worrying about
> > the planet being 'warmer' or 'cooler'.
>
> faction...
>
> > The problem is that rapid
> > changes in energy balance lead to local disruptions in human
> > populations.
>
> 20x what global warming predicts.
>
Caused no doubt by that fleet of alien mind-control spaceships
interposing itself between Earth and Sol at various times. Thanks for
reminding me; I will include it in any future calculations.
-tg
> Your views about economics are similarly distorted by an
>
> > inability to think in terms of systems and numbers.
>
> Actually, the problem is that I can, and people like you can't. Case
> in point, the nonsense you claimed above.
Jack Tingle
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:40:15 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Atlas Shrugged.
>>
>> I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
>> Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
>> human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be.
>
>
I will give Kim Stanley Robinson, not usually one of my favorite
authors, kudos for this. His utopian novel, "Pacific Edge" did appear to
feature human beings. It was an ambiguous utopia, of course. :)
Regards,
Jack Tingle
tg
> In article
> <90a5252d-6bb3-4028-958f-052ce578c...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Kind of figured. Actually, as a speculative exercise, I think I
*would* prefer living in a glacial period. I certainly don't like the
idea of no snow or glaciers anywhere, and I still enjoy the local
winter (when my snow-thrower isn't being balky.) Of course, we would
have to have a rational number of humans on the planet.
-tg
Mike Ash
<f2074768-fb40-428f...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Kind of figured. Actually, as a speculative exercise, I think I
> *would* prefer living in a glacial period. I certainly don't like the
> idea of no snow or glaciers anywhere, and I still enjoy the local
> winter (when my snow-thrower isn't being balky.) Of course, we would
> have to have a rational number of humans on the planet.
Fractional humans are bad enough, but it's the trancendentals that'll
really get you!
John Stafford
> Kind of figured. Actually, as a speculative exercise, I think I
> *would* prefer living in a glacial period. I certainly don't like the
> idea of no snow or glaciers anywhere, and I still enjoy the local
> winter (when my snow-thrower isn't being balky.) Of course, we would
> have to have a rational number of humans on the planet.
Imagine glaciers over a mile thick. 5,280 feet thick. Awesome!
--
Me -- in the Driftless Zone
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>> I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
>>> Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can modify
>>> human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be.
>>
>> Most SF utopias have this flaw.
>>
>
>I will give Kim Stanley Robinson, not usually one of my favorite
>authors, kudos for this. His utopian novel, "Pacific Edge" did appear to
>feature human beings. It was an ambiguous utopia, of course. :)
Ambiguous utopias are IMHO, much more interesting, especially if they
have people who act like people.
One can write about *real* utopias, but people have to change. This
can be with a Singularity, with Alien intervention, with an Act of
God, with Evolution. But the post-change people aren't the
interesting part in those stories.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>In article
><f2074768-fb40-428f...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Kind of figured. Actually, as a speculative exercise, I think I
>> *would* prefer living in a glacial period. I certainly don't like the
>> idea of no snow or glaciers anywhere, and I still enjoy the local
>> winter (when my snow-thrower isn't being balky.) Of course, we would
>> have to have a rational number of humans on the planet.
>
>Fractional humans are bad enough, but it's the trancendentals that'll
>really get you!
Ordinary irrationals can be pretty bad, though.
David Johnston
<ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 30, 12:48�pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:41:04 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
>>
>> <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?
>>
>> It's called "sanity." �You should try it some time. �Once you
>> have, feel free to post again.
>
>
>Do you think the current world is inferior to the one of 15000 years
>ago? The difference is global warming. Do you think short growing
>seasons are better than longer? Slower superior to faster? Tundra
>superior to plains? Ice superior to tundra? Winter superior to
>summer?
>
>In what way would the world be superior if it were cooler?
Cooler than what?
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> >
> Studies have confirmed that we don't want too many choices. When we
> have two choices in (product), we have pretty high satisfaction that
> our choice is the best for us. With a thousand choices, we're not
> nearly so confident. We can't even evaluate all of the options and
> decide which ones we prefer.
>
Plus it's really annoying when your grandmother gives you an HD-DVD
copy of Star Trek the Motion Picture thinking it's the new film.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
Steven L.
> Steven L. wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> darwinist wrote:
>>>> Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
>>>> issues, due to reading a story?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I later realized that her philosphy had the same flaws as basic
>>> Marxism, socialism, etc. -- it works perfectly as long as you can
>>> modify human beings to be exactly the way you WANT them to be.
>>> direction, Randian Objectivism wants to ignore the fact that
>>> emotional human beings aren't always going to make rational decisions
>>> (and that "rational" will vary depending on postulates), etc. Still,
>>> it was an eye-opening work to read at the age of 15-16, which was
>>> when my mother handed the books to me.
>>>
>>> suppose. I'd like to believe that people can be MORE sensible than
>>> uncontrolled mass of busybodies masquerading as government out of
>>> everyone's personal business as much as possible, but I also
>>> recognize that the real world is much, much messier and requires a
>>> lot of compromises for ANYTHING to work at all.
>>
>> Sounds like you and I had similar reactions to that book.
>>
>> I came to regard "Atlas Shrugged" as a fascinating theoretical
>> abstraction--like the kinetic theory of gases that regards each
>> molecule as behaving like a point mass at the usual temperatures and
>> pressures.
>>
>> I became more of an advocate of market economies--while at the same
>> time realizing where that theoretical abstraction can break down.
>>
>> Laissez-faire capitalism not only breaks down because people are
>> irrational.
>>
>> It also breaks down when resources are limited. That causes
>> externalities to have more and more nasty effects. When there are
>> seven billion people on earth, it becomes harder and harder for market
>> economies to create giant industries without polluting the
>> environment, causing global warming, etc.
>>
>> Modern game theory, about which Adam Smith and Ayn Rand knew nothing,
>> shows that in such situations, when all participants in a market
>> pursue their own self-interest, the global result can be
>> *sub-optimal*, refuting Smith's notion of an "invisible hand." See,
>> for example, the Traveler's Dilemma problem.
>>
>> So the Smith/Rand laissez-faire capitalist model assumes rationality
>> of all players; and it assumes that the number of players is so small,
>> and resources are so vast, that externalities are few and relatively
>> harmless.
> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the
> same as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem
> there isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20
> years to see if their current self interest might work against them when
> interest properly, you need nigh-omniscience so that you can tell how
> your (say) building a factory along the river today will affect the
> economic impact of a flood in that area 20 years from now.
No, that's not as big of a problem for capitalism.
Because any society is always a work in progress.
If something we do today has unintended consequences 50 years from now,
then our descendants will have to handle those consequences. That's
true of any society, communist, capitalist, fascist, theocratic,
democratic or authoritarian. No society is omniscient, and yet
societies have dealt with unintended consequences throughout human history.
A capitalist society, with its vibrant economy, may be more capable of
dealing with those unintended consequences when they occur. Whereas in
an autocracy, the king who is descended from the royal bloodline may
turn out to be a fool who cannot deal with those unintended consequences.
The real problem, is that capitalism assumes atomicity in transactions:
You and I can engage in a transaction without regard for our
neighbors. But in practice, societies aren't composed of citizens
living thousands of miles apart from each other. What you and I do can
affect our neighbors. That's why we modify capitalism with zoning laws,
regulations, etc.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> On Oct 30, 9:49 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Laissez-faire capitalism not only breaks down because people are irrational.
>>
>> It also breaks down when resources are limited. That causes
>> externalities to have more and more nasty effects. When there are seven
>> billion people on earth, it becomes harder and harder for market
>> economies to create giant industries without polluting the environment,
>> causing global warming, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> Since you obviously don't undertsand economics, what drives you to
> comment on it?
>
> Limited resources cause externalities?
No. But limited resources cause externalities to be more severe.
>
> Tell me, what makes you think global warming is a bad thing?
The last time the planet got as warm and wet as it is forecast to become
in the remainder of this century was the Miocene period, 20 million
years ago:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296
North America was a tropical rain forest.
The polar ice caps had mostly melted.
Florida was submerged underwater. So were Central America, Greece and
Turkey. In fact, much of today's coastlines were submerged:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neogene-MioceneGlobal.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>> Modern game theory, about which Adam Smith and Ayn Rand knew nothing,
>> shows that in such situations, when all participants in a market pursue
>> their own self-interest, the global result can be *sub-optimal*,
>> refuting Smith's notion of an "invisible hand." See, for example, the
>> Traveler's Dilemma problem.
>
>
>
> "Can be" is not a synonym for "will be", and there are damn few
> (read: none) alternatives that are superior to the free market, even
> if it's 'sub-optimal'. Ideal public policy is not available to human
> beings. At best we get government policy.
This was not an attempt to offer an alternative to capitalism--merely to
recognize that there are plenty of occasions when Adam Smith's
"invisible hand" breaks down. Game theory really looks at how
participants in a game of transactions make their decisions.
>> So the Smith/Rand laissez-faire capitalist model assumes rationality of
>> all players;
>
>
> As far as the economic definiton of rational is concerned, it is
> perfectly reasonable.
No.
The existence of stock market bubbles and manias shows that it is far
from reasonable.
Speculators will bid up the prices of stocks, commodities, etc., way
past their true valuation. They are betting on the "greater fool
theory"--more fools to come in after them and bid up prices even
higher--but there isn't an infinite supply of fools.
>> and it assumes that the number of players is so small, and
>> resources are so vast, that externalities are few and relatively
>> harmless.
>
>
> Nope. And there you go misunderstanding 'externalities' again...
Externalities are much easier to deal with when resources are so vast,
and the number of players is so small and geographically dispersed, that
an externality's effect on other players is quite limited.
That was true in Adam Smith's time. Vast parts of Earth's land mass were
still unexplored, let alone colonized, by Europeans. The population of
Earth was small. So if settlers despoiled one locale, they could always
move on to another. This unrestricted capitalist development created
modern Western civilization.
It's a lot harder to do on Earth with a population of 7 billion, when
pollution from a factory in one country can cause problems in another
country, and when a hole in the ozone layer or global warming can affect
us all.
Metaphorically, the Earth has gotten a lot smaller. And so, in our
pursuit of self-interest, we bump into each other a whole lot more.
Shawn Wilson
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >>>> Feel free to do so.
> >>> Feel free to pay me to do so. For real work, I get paid. Writing
> >>> wiseass responses to guys who believe they know more than everyone about
> >>> everything, like you, that I'll do for free.
> >> In other words, you were talking out of your ass...
>
> > I forgot to point out that you deliberately cut the "large pile of
> > money" the Swedes would give him if he actually could do what he
> > claims...
>
> I don't do that kind of work on spec (I do write novels on spec, but
> that's because it's FUN). Tell you what, YOU give me the same huge pile
> of money the Swedes will give me, and as soon as the Swedes hand me that
> prize I'll give it over to you.
Like I would give you money on spec to do the impossible.
You were talking out of your ass. You got called on it. Admit you
were full of it already.
Shawn Wilson
> There's also the problem that anything that assumes "perfect
> information" (classic economic bullshit)
Well, no. Functionally, you have perfect information (at least close
enough) about your day to day purchases. It isn't a deep assumption.
Adding in information to the system doesn't change things in any way
worth the effort 99 times out of 100.
> It worked better when there were three networks trying to gain and
> hold truly mass audiences while protecting themselves by spending
> enough acquiring reasonable proof of what they broadcast. They had a
> better record and engendered more trust because they had to.
Really? You sure about that? You ever see the hatchett job they did
on McCarthy? There never was a 'golden age' of journalistic
responsibility. They just weren't getting caught.