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, and cooperation is productive in some manner. sometimes, you must defeat bad ideas for the good to thrive: this is the essence of our age: competition for survival of the fittest. yet there is a limit to what competition can achieve. --- consider that competition can never reach a solution at which full cooperation will arrive. thus, if competition defines our current age, which leads to resource exhaustion, cooperation leads to abundance for all, given sufficient technology, and a better age above our cruel origins. --- this is the great divide: do we carry on with cruelty? or do we strive for cooperation?
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.
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. by definition, the efforts of the losers are "waste".
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. (and not in a "I'm going to kill you, to save humanity" triviality sense.) 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.
Unfortunately, that sounds like a truism. If you agree that AP is better than the Status Quo, then unless you (or somebody else) can establish somethingis better than AP, you don't establish that AP shouldn't be the goal, at least temporarily.
i am aiming for something better. i don't expect to convince anyone until the argument is formed. i also reserve the right to proclaim that better options exist. this is my beef with AP: that we may see it a solution, in near term, missing a greener pasture at the distance... best regards,