It creates problems, but it also solves problems too.



We're very specialized; evolution leads to diversity, and diversity entails specialization. Our ability to adapt to most any environment comes from our specialization in using and making tools.



We can use tools really really well.  But take away our tools and we're just squishy, pink apes shivering in the cold. But because we specialize in making tools so well, we don't need to do anything else.

We are certainly not used to being this specialized, though.  But we are progressing in that direction.  We are part of the natural world, and we most resemble those creatures which have evolved to be very social, like Bees and Ants.  Like those creatures, we also build Hives.

Unlike ants, we have the consciousness to feel unease that we're disconnected from the final product of our labor.  But in the creation of this problem, we have made it easier to produce more for everybody with less work. If we were to eliminate specialization, we would lose this decrease in the amount of labor needed to make things.

Solutions to this have come from both the bottom-up and the top-down; payment methods like commissions and encouraging people to become entrepeneurs would be bottom up and the top down. These certainly make the people they're used on tend to feel more satisfied with their work.

Replacing specialized workers with automated machines has been a top-down decision, but even though this certainly improved our output while decreasing our need for work, it didn't solve the problem of alienation.  In fact, for the workers who manage and maintain the machinery, they are only further alienated.

We need a bottom-up solution, it seems.  I feel that the bottom is society.

Not exactly what I said.



Where do systems come from? Where does our environment we live in now come from?



Where did our understanding come from?  Where did Islam come from? These things didn't just up and up come out of nowhere, handed from the sky like a black obelisk. (well err, Muslims might disagree...but that's a conversation stopper right there anyways)
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:15, Fri 05 Mar 2010.

Everything comes from the accumulated knowledge of the past. All things are emergent, as are all forms of thought.

So, we acknowledge that what we know and believe are products of our environments?

The point is, we need to understand why it is that people do the things they do and behave the way they do. And most of that can be learned from looking at the environment that they come from.

This is important because it will give us an idea of where many of the problems come from in teh world, and yes, they are from humans, but they were learned from our environment.

Only if you limit your definition of capital to land and money. Public opinion, PR and votes are the capital of our government world though. Regardless, you may disagree with the term I used, but I think we agree the message is correct - politicians operate on the laws of supply and demand, of price and cost. They sell what costs them little, in order to obtain what they value highly. If you increase the costs, or reduce the value, you change behavior.

(And my point regarding the executive branch was how much of government changes. When 97% of the people in government are put under different management and SOPs, I'd consider that a pretty wide change.)

Nope, because if you take away those tools, we'll make new ones. Possibly better ones! Adaptation! The only way to stop our adaptation is to retard our thinking.

Sure, you can say that our specialization is our ability to adapt, but that's just another way of saying we are more adaptive then specialized.

Where did the first knowledge come from?  The first ideas of right or wrong?
The behavior is in our Genes, all our predispositions, both fixed and variable.

Even if you convince or persuade people to dislike the current system, what they'll put in place of that system may just be the same system with a new face. You can't work from the top-down when it's the bottom that determines everything.

Our tendency to accumulate knowledge was seen as bad by religious fundamentalists, and so they overthrew the government and burned the libraries down.

It halted our tendencies...but only for a while. Even if you brainwash the entire population into rejecting knowledge and reason, this is not Llamark's world; their children will be born as inquisitive and rational as they're parents, grandparents, and all their ancestors were.

Doing away with things like profit, wealth, or what-have-you have been met with the same problems as doing away with knowledge or reason (or our tendency to hand our will over to authority).

So, a very important thing to consider when talking about certain changes is whether people actually can just change *snap* like that.  A slob will still be a slob if you take away his old home and put him in a new one.  Eventually that new home will be just as messy as the one he used to live in.

Evolution is slow; Evolutionary Psychology is making correct predictions about our behavior based on the fact that we're still used to living in small packs, back when the Sahara Desert used to be a lush grassland. So "environment" is hardly a factor right now.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:39, Fri 05 Mar 2010.

(Perhaps we should move this to another thread, if it's going to be a prolonged discussion?)

Adaptation is not a specialization, nor our major ability.  Adaptation is an advantage derived specifically from our specialization in tool-making.  You just said so yourself.

Without our ability to make tools we wouldn't adapt, or even survive.

Tool-making is a genetic behavior, you know.

In reply to katisara (msg #233):

Yes...err...Evolution goes to Evolution Thread <.< Katisara chat goes to U.S. Politics Thread, I think.

In reply to Sciencemile (msg #232):

EXACTLY! Ohhh, we're getting some where!

First notions of right and wrong: Morality is emergent like every thing else.

You can not expect people to just snap out of it. They need to learn and understand the need for change. They need to see the need for change in their environment. The environment needs to change for the mental change to take place.


I fully agree that the change has to come from the people, but it must be reflected in the culture and society in order to sway behavior.

As to your notions on genetic code, it only sets up propensities, not certainties when dealing with behavior. You are not genetically democratic or republican or communist, those things are learned.

The slob: Indeed, what needs to change is his behavior and his understanding of his environment. The slob needs to be taught the importance of cleanliness, the importance of hygiene. It's the old teach a man to fish proverb.

I think this is waaay off topic now.

Which is why we moved the convos to other threads ;)

The supreme court just ruled that the 2nd ammendment applies to state and local governments, not just the federal.  The decision was 5-4, along the usual conservative/libeal divide.

I'm not particularly passionate one way or the other on gun control.  I tend to think the people framing the debate (on both sides) try to make it seem too much like a black or white issue (eg, guns are just kid-killing accidents waiting to happen, or guns are gods gift to freedom-loving americans), but I do think it's generally a good idea that laws are consistent around the country as much as is possible, so the idea that the 2nd ammendment applies to state and local governments seems fairly reasonable to me.

However, it does seem a bit of a switch in the political argument in this case, as usually its the conservatives that favor a view of letting local and state governments set their own policies without interference from the federal government.  I'd like to think that most people can agree that carrying a gun in rural Texas, say, is very different from carrying a gun in downtown chicago (by which I mean what you're likely to use it for, and how people will react to it are different, not that the law necessarily should be different).  Is this a case of conservatives and liberals changing their normal positions because gun laws are so different from other types of laws?  Is it that both sides actually just fight for a ruling at the highest level they think they can get to go their way (ie, they'd both fight for a federal ruling when they think they can get it (see the current suit against prop 8, which all sides expect to end up in the supreme court), and will fight for local/states rights when they think they're more likely to win at that level)?  Is it oversimplyfying things to talk about "conservatives" and "liberal" positions on this (eg, do the conservatives most interested in gun rights differ significantly from those most concerned about the federal government encroaching on local/state juristiction)?

Regardless of what is legal, what do people think should be the proper level for setting gun laws?  Is it different than the proper level for setting, say, health care laws, or tax laws, education standards, etc?

or the gods of freedom demand child sacrifice?

I think it is specifically because it's about firearms. Firearms, like freedom of speech and a right to a jury trial, are considered 'inalienable rights' (or directly linked to inalienable rights).

Marriage isn't an inalienable right. It isn't enforced at any level as something that must be protected. So it doesn't translate.

The other key difference is this:  When someone says they have the right to own firearms, they are saying they have the right to acquire those things for themselves, if they choose, at their own expense.  They are not saying, "I demand a rifle, and I demand that taxpayers fork over some money and buy it for me!"

On the other hand, when someone asks for a right to health care, this is exactly what they are saying.  They is certainly no law against buying health care with your own money.

OTOH most health care has familly options that recognize a spouse but many don't recognize a domestic partner.

Not sure how that's relevant exactly...

I agree...but I'm not entirely sure why (beyond the fact that unlike other conservative (eg abortion, getting creationism/intelligent design in classrooms, etc) issues, this is one where they can get their way at the federal level).


That seems very odd to me.  I don't consider firearms an inalienable right (even if I think they're a good idea in some cases).  The declaration doesn't say "life, liberty, and the right to bear arms," or anything like that.


Hmm...that's quite interesting.  Are you saying you think conservatives think that gun rights are more fundamental than marriage rights?  Also, when you say marriage isn't enforced as something that must be protected what do you mean?  I hear conservatives talking lots about needing to 'protect' marriage these days.  And I think most of them would be happy to have that settled at the federal level (so long as they thought they would win there), just as they did when the passed the defense of marriage act.

I don't mean to be picking on conservatives specifically here, as I think both sides do this (contest at whatever level they think they have the best chance of winning), I think it's just that the change of the court make up in the relatively recent past has made it possible for a number of conservative issues to be 'winnable' at the federal level when before they were more likely to win (and thus more likely to compete) at the state/local level.

For example, conservatives have been (and probably still are, though perhaps less so) concentrating their anti-abortion levels at the state/local level.  They'll argue that states should be able to make up their own laws on abortion, and not have the federal government tell them what to do.  But surely if you're opposed to abortion, the 'right to life' is more fundamental than the right to bear arms, and thus it would be more appropriate to settle that issue at the federal level than almost anything else.  But I think most people have thought the supreme court was unlikely to overturn Roe vs. Wade, so conservatives didn't want to have a battle over it at that level.

On the other side of the isle, many in the pro-gay marriage camp tried to convince the lawyers bringing the current suit against prop 8 not to press the case, because they didn't want it to go to the supreme court because they don't think they'll be able to win there (both sides seem to agree that's where the case will end up eventually).

So to me it seems like just both sides trying to pick their battles, and using the "keep the federal government out of this local issue!" argument whenever they don't think they can win at the federal level, and then arguing the opposite when they think they can.

But that's perhaps a reason to oppose healthcare reform at all levels, but I don't really see it as a reason to think it should be a state/local issue but not a federal issue.

Recall that republicans thought health insurance mandates and subsidies for the poor to make the mandates feasible were a good idea back in the nineties, and many republicans touted Mit Romney's healthcare program in MA.  The MA program is very similar to the one implemented at the federal level recently, and many (though not all) conservatives seem to think that it's fine for MA to do it if they want it, but it's not okay for the federal government to do it.

Also, we needn't focus only on healthcare.  There are plenty of issues where conservatives have made the argument that the federal government is too intrusive, and that state/local governments should have more power to set their own policies.

Texas republicans want to make sodomy illegal, and Heath has said here that this isn't because they're anti-gay, but rather because they think the federal government shouldn't be telling them what kind of laws Texas can make (the previous anti-gay sex law was rule unconstitutional).  Is there a good reason whey state/local governments should be able to set laws about who can have sex or not without any federal interference, but they shouldn't be able to make laws about guns?

Like I said earlier, it looks to me like it's just both sides picking the battles at the levels they think they have a good chance of winning, rather than having any real strong reasoning for what should be settled at what level beyond that.  I was just wondering if anyone knew of any rationale that's been given or implied on this before.

The declaration isn't a legal document. however, right to bear arms is #2 on the bill of rights.



It's difficult to make generalizatiosn like that, but in general, yes. Marriage doesn't appear anyone in the basic documents upon which our government is founded, and I'm not aware of any Age of Reason philosophers who suggested marriage is a natural right.



Well, you have a split behind religious conservatives and other types of conservatives. But in general, I don't know of anyone who is fighting for 'protection of marriage' from the 'natural right' or philosophical standpoint. It's generally because of 'costs to society' or religious grounds.



Certainly no one is going to intentionally pick a fight they can't win, if that's what you're saying. I know there are several times when people said 'well, the court SHOULD rule this way, but they won't, so it's better we let it go if we're going to be effective in enforcing rulings we believe are correct'.

Absolutely not.  The idea that state/local governments are writing laws against sodomy, necrophilia, bestiality, etc, etc, based solely on local ethical culture makes no sense.

I think overall, though, the Republicans want government smaller.  It's just that people are inconsistent, and so when they say "smaller" they always mean "smaller except where I personally think they ought to be bigger."

Personally, I would happy with a government that is the same size it is now, but works with the same productivity, and for the same wages and benefits, and the same job security, as the private sector that has to pay for them.

Government's big problem is that a moment of catastrophic stupidity that would get a private sector worker fired (or killed) is of no consequence to a public worker.  Carry on, carry on, show up for work, earn that pension at 55.

For example, recently, the City of New York recently proudly trumpeted its creation of bicycle lanes.  Except... the one in the South Bronx, on Lincoln Avenue, south of 138th street, also happens to be the bus lane.  And not just any bus lane, but a major bus lane, where 4 bus lines merge.

Now, someone actually took the time to paint both the bicycle and bus symbols onto the street, in the same place. And someone higher up approved. This is the same sort of stupid that causes an oil rig to blow up.  The bicycle lane is inherrently unsurvivable.  To the credit of Bronx bicyclists, they are much smarter than the chair moisteners in government that created this- they never use it.

But no one is accountable for it.  No one will be fined, fired, imprisoned, laid off, etc. No government entity will go out of business because of mistakes made.

Stupid is pervasive.  I am considered knowledgable in my business, so much so that the NYC government and even the IRS (and several times, the UN) call me to ask my advice on how much certain things that I know about should cost.  The last IRS call, I explained to the poor bureaucrat that his question about how much a certain service cost was much too vague, and he even agreed.  Sort of like asking "how much is dinner" without specifying "how many people" or "what kind of restaurant?"  So then, after we both agreed that the question was much too vague to produce a meaningful answer, he presses...

"Can you give me a figure anyway?"  You can't make this sort of stuff up.

BTW, these episodes where I am pressed for figures make me heavily discount ALL government statistics.  I am sure, even with the BP spill, it went the same way.

"How much oil are you leaking?"

"How the Flarp should I know, do you think we put a meter on the Flarping Leak??!!"

"Can you give me a figure anyway?"

In reply to Eur512 (msg #248):

Trust me, the private sector is not exempt from maddening stupity, either.  I went to my bank about a year ago to ask about getting a new type of account.  They asked me to go home and printout a copy of my bank statement, so I could prove to them how much money I had in my account.  I asked the woman if she was serious, and apparently she didn't see any irony at all in the request.  No one's getting fired over that bit of genius either. ;)

More seriously, though, I hear people saying they wish the government functioned more like a business quite a bit.  I for one very much don't want the government functioning like a business.  Businesses are there to make money, that's all.  They're often good at what they do, if it doesn't pad their bottom line, they're even worse than the government about doing it.  Businesses naturally exploit externalities.  I want a government that works to internalize externalities so they can't be exploited.  The public sector and the private sector are different tools for different jobs.  Wishing one was more like the other is like wishing your screw driver was more like a hammer, because the hammer is so much better at pounding in nails.  The government isn' there to make a profit.  If it were, it might be more efficient, but it would also stop providing services to anyone who wasn't rich ("Captain, there's a fire in the slums!" "well, those bums don't earn us a dime anyway.  Call me if reaches uptown.").  The reason we have the government doing most of the jobs that it is doing is because either the free market isn't doing a good job of providing the service, or because we don't want the free market providing that service.

Well, maybe not for THAT bit of stupid, but they build up, and in the private sector, when a bank commits too much stupid the dead weight builds up and it loses money and goes out of busi...

hmm....

Well, I mean, in the pre-bailout era...  current policy isn't exactly making my point for me.

Or perhaps it is.

Oh yes, there's tons of stupid in the private sector, but in the public sector, it's on our dime, and it's "okay".

I don't want government to run on a "profit" system, they do too many things which are not direct money creators, but rather, I'd like to see the people managed as if they were working for a lean, mean, efficient private sector organization.

And they will STILL screw up, but what's important is, they'll cost much less when they do.

ANY airline might lose your luggage, but wouldn't you prefer it be the cheaper one?   Give government an airline, and they will solve the lost luggage issue by making a huge Department of Luggage Tracking.  They will institute a thousand new procedures, hire luggage monitors and perform environmental impact analysis and require you to fill out a zillion forms and have them approved ten working days before your flight and they will STILL lose luggage.  Except, to show, statistically, that they are improving, they will refer to your luggage as "upgraded destination".