Re: Shiny stuff and designer societies (addenda)

30 Oct 2015

      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/29/2015 01:18 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
...
2015-10-29 16:55 GMT+01:00 Razer mailto:Rayzer@riseup.net>:
You use the word "I" a lot. I aim for a society where "We" is 
primary.
Conflict resolution and nonviolent strategy training emphasize the
value of "I statements" because they personalize what one is
saying rather than appealing to some "authority" such as the
imagined Will of the People, the rules in a game nobody present
has volunteered to play, etc.  I like I statements, if only
because they make it all about me.
...
The idea that you can force people to act in the common 
interest has been tried many times. We prefer to have freedom, 
nowadays. At least, I do.
(To be spoken in the voice of Max Headroom:)  Ah, freedom. Such a
glittering generality! It makes me want to march in a parade!
...
Game theory puts wrenches in any collaborative action that's 
not entirely individual centered. Go let the pigs ravage you, 
I'll just wait to discuss an arrangement with them once
they're through with you. I just hope you didn't give them
absolutely unmatchable unfair advantages. (footnote: did you
ever see a B-52 bomber in real life?)
The longevity of a culture tends to be inversely proportional to
the power of entirely self centered individuals in that culture.
Any collaborative action that's entirely individual centered
evolves into a murder/suicide machine, even if it does not start
out as one.  Lookit the good ole U.S.A. after 35 years of
Reganomics and Greed Is Good business ethics and corporate
culture.

Darwinian evolution does not favor the greedy, self-interested
individual. Darwinian evolution favors clusters of individuals
whose predisposition to take care of others assures that their Nth
generation progeny have the best shot at survival because they are
supported by a stable and resilient community.  When "the smartest
guys in the room" say otherwise, they are not mistaken:  They are
lying.

Collaborative actions based on a sane balance between individual
and community interests are possible, history provides numerous
examples at scales ranging from the family and village to tribe
and nation.  With the exception of defective individuals, human
beings are naturally inclined to form communities, to identify
with those communities, and to work in the common interests of
those communities.  I call the people who lack this natural
inclination "defective" as their actions tend toward negative
impacts on group survival in the long term.

Today we have a really big problem in the form of really big
countries:  Human communities do not scale to that size.  Compare
the "community values" performance of Iceland, population 1/3
million, to the performance of the good ole U.S.A., population
360+ million.

Attempts to scale community values to the size of a large country
always involve creating administrative classes, insular
communities of professionals in commercial and political
governance who facilitate artificial "bonds of community" between
massive numbers of strangers who will never meet.  Viola, rent
seeking absentee landlords who employ armed guards to enforce
their orders.  If communities regulated by these institutions are
small enough, it is possible for the people to regulate their
regulators; but somewhere between 1/3 and 300 million population,
the balance of power shifts disastrously toward the managerial
class, which becomes a ruling class.

Expositions of political theory are supposed to end with a formula
for creating Utopian outcomes, and a call to action.  Sorry, I'm
out of stock on those items and the shop down the street was
busted for selling toxic imitations.  But I do think that those
who occupy themselves with building, maintaining and defending
sane communities, where and as opportunities to do so arise, will
be big winners compared to those who remain attached to
authoritarian top-down rule by any name.

Re: Shiny stuff and designer societies (addenda)

Steve Kinney