On 10/31/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ... But you don't explain why it's "inefficient".  You only allege it.

>fair enough. my assertion relies on the fact that conflict is
>destructive in some manner,

What "conflict"?  In what way "destructive"?  Which "manner"?

>" and cooperation is productive in some manner.

What "cooperation"?  In what way "productive"?  Which "manner"?

>sometimes, you must defeat bad ideas for the good to thrive:

You don't explain how to "defeat bad ideas".  And I am not aware how 

you must "defeat" a bad idea.  Is there a standard for such "defeat"?

>this is the essence of our age: competition for survival of the fittest.
>yet there is a limit to what competition can achieve.

Doesn't sound like you're saying anything useful.

---

consider that competition can never reach a solution at which full
cooperation will arrive.

I disagree.

> thus, if competition defines our current age,which leads to resource exhaustion,

I disagree with your premise.

>cooperation leads to abundance for all, given sufficient technology,

I disagree with your premise.

>and a better age above our cruel origins.

I disagree with your vague conclusion.

---

this is the great divide:
do we carry on with cruelty?

Who is "we"?

>or do we strive for cooperation?

By whose definition?



>> What is "rational anarchy"?  On Google-search, I see a reference to
>> Heinlein's "The Moon is  a harsh mistress".  I read that a decade ago, but I
>> don't connect what you are saying with it.

>it is an ideal: a state of society in educated awareness and cohesion,
>without centralized authority, working toward a collective best end.

Sounds like a contradiction in terms.  "A collective best end" implies that the

interest of individuals is ignored.  People don't work that way; never have.

AP will cause "without centralized authority", but nobody needs to "work

 towards a collective best end."


> But again, you don't explain why
> it's "globally optimal".For that matter, you haven't explained WHAT
> "globally optimal" means.

>it is globally optimal because there is only cooperation. no
>destruction competition.

I disagree that "competition" causes any undesireable "destruction".  

>by definition, the efforts of the losers are "waste".

I disagree.  Simple example:  Communist 'logic' would tell us that we would only

 need 3-5 kinds of cell phones or cordless phones.  It certainly sounds like

having the world manufacture 50-100 kinds is wasteful and inefficient.  But the 

reality is that we get far better products, and selection of products, even in the

 face of this seeming "waste".  Evidently, your assumptions are quite false.


>  You seem to be assuming a lot today.Further,
> while it's hard to understand, "globally optimal" sounds like it might assume
> a compromise, in contrast to equality.    Why should I accept
> something which you call "globally optimal" if someting else is better for
> ME, personally?

bingo. the crux!

>a globally cooperative society would chose this, because it is best
>for all, which is best for you.

Wacky 'logic'.  

> (and not in a "I'm going to kill you, to save humanity" triviality sense.)

Wacky 'logic'.

>we're getting at the meat of the argument, which is a system and
>technology and society which leverages technology in a productive
>manner - rational anarchy - instead of a destructive manner - AP
>selective killing.

Wacky 'logic'.

>i am aiming for something better.

You haven't found it yet.  Keep trying.  You are just spewing vague ideas.

>i don't expect to convince anyone until the argument is formed. i also
>reserve the right to proclaim that better options exist.

You can "proclaim" anything you like.  That won't make it true, however.

>this is my beef with AP: that we may see it a solution, in near term,
>missing a greener pasture at the distance...

Have you ever heard the saying, "The perfect is the enemy of the good"?  One way

to sabotage the search for 'the good' is to claim that there is 'the perfect' still out there

somewhere.  You seem to be doing that.

               Jim Bell