How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
EnergySpin wrote:
Closing note: It is interesting that you used the epicycle example. This is a n example of totally wrong model; it is not like the relation of Newtonian mechanics to Quantum Physics where the former is an approximation to the later.
Of course it is an incorrect model. That is precisely why I chose it. Note that it gives reasonably accurate predictions with some flaws.
This is to illustrate that even if the details of Hanson's model are flawed, as you propose, the model may give useful information.
Since fundamental issues - i.e., which genetic switches cause the differences between chimpanzee and human - are undefined, I contend that we do not yet have a genetic analog of Newtonian mechanics in hand. _________________ Dieoff. Fun to watch. Better with hot buttered popcorn!
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
seldom_seen wrote:
SarahC1975 wrote:
All members of the White or European race raise their hand.
All Native Americans raise their hand.
Why the discrepancy? Because the Whites were the better killers. Not coincidentally, their descendents (that's us) are acting in a simliar fashion this very day.
Sad but true.
Were they better killers or did they just have better killing technology? American Indians are by and large much better hunters than Europeans.
reccomend reading Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.
Is there a difference? The Whites figured out a way to use the resources available to them to create better killing technology. Instead of labeling them "the best killers" we can label them "the best exploiters of resources used to kill."
Alternatively, you could label them "those most willing to kill" or those "most enthusiastic to kill." Hypothetically speaking, even if they weren't as good at it from a purely technical standpoint, their willingness or enthusiasm for it produced the same result.
Last edited by SarahC1975 on Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
Jack wrote:
EnergySpin wrote:
Closing note: It is interesting that you used the epicycle example. This is a n example of totally wrong model; it is not like the relation of Newtonian mechanics to Quantum Physics where the former is an approximation to the later.
Of course it is an incorrect model. That is precisely why I chose it. Note that it gives reasonably accurate predictions with some flaws.
This is to illustrate that even if the details of Hanson's model are flawed, as you propose, the model may give useful information.
Since fundamental issues - i.e., which genetic switches cause the differences between chimpanzee and human - are undefined, I contend that we do not yet have a genetic analog of Newtonian mechanics in hand.
And clock that has stopped ticking will show the correct time twice a day.
What are the prediction it has given so far?
I have not seen them .... he ran for the hills 4 years ago and he started posting out of the blue a few weeks ago.
And why isn't anyone answering the questions I asked about his "model"?
I said at the beginning that genetic science aside, his models leads to self-contradictory conclusions .... IMHO it is like saying we will never run out of oil. An obviously incorrect model, but it has too generated correct predictions. Jack I think you might be a cornocupian ..... _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:55 am Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
SarahC1975 wrote:
Ludi wrote:
I question whether the increasingly violent, lying, cheating, raping group would successfully produce more offspring which live to reproductive age than the cooperative group. This seems unlikely to me.
All members of the White or European race raise their hand.
All Native Americans raise their hand.
Why the discrepancy? Because the Whites were the better killers. Not coincidentally, their descendents (that's us) are acting in a simliar fashion this very day.
Sad but true.
Sarah C.
Culture. Not genetics. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:42 am Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
Nobody has mentioned memetics here yet? The second replicator. Suggested by Dawkins already in -76. Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine" provide a good review of what has been done since then. The theory of memetics manage to explain quite a lot which genetics fail to explain. There are serious reasons to belive that human genes has been in the back seat the last 150 000-200 000 years, while the second replicator -memes- has been in the drivers seat.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:51 am Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
Nobody has mentioned it because we're busy arguing about genetics! But I agree with you McG, memes are as important as genes, in human societies. Certainly modern society promotes "me first!" memes over cooperative memes, even though these "me first!" memes probably won't be successful in the long run. Without a massive infrastructure to support them, "me first!" individuals will have a hard time surviving unless they can learn to cooperate. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:26 am Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
Ludi wrote:
Without a massive infrastructure to support them, "me first!" individuals will have a hard time surviving unless they can learn to cooperate.
You are oversimplfying here. Even the most selfish people often cooperate with others, if they understand that it's in their own self interest. And the most extreme of selflessness would drive somebody to neglect themselves, which isn't very pro-survival either. I find that a good balance between selfishness and selflessness is what gives people the best chances of survival.
And don't forget that it's the actions, not the reasons behind the actions, what build your future. (In other words, the guy that cooperates because it's in his own selfish interest gets the same reward as the guy that cooperates for the love of cooperation.)
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:34 am Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
I do have a problem digesting memetics which certain people might dismiss as nitpicking. The theory of memetics is a theoretical tool devised by Dawkins along the lines of Mendelian genetics . Mendel Hypothesized that genes exist (no one knew about DNA) as hidden variables in statistical models that described his plant breeding experiments .
It took 50-60 years before they were given a physical basis (i.e. the work of Avery in the pneumoniococcus in the 40s).
The problem with memes is that by definition no such straightforward physical basis seems to exist. Hence at best "memes" have an epistemological and not an ontological basis i.e. they allow us to think about the natural world but do not exist in the real world (which is different than genes sicne they do have both these aspects).
This is not to be interpreted as an attack against the persistence or the influence of cultural norms over genes in certain circumstances. In fact I can think of at least one cultural practise that is manifesting it self with 100% certainty in succesive generations i.e. circumcision in Jews and certain other religious groups. There are other genes (genetic hemochromatosis for example) which even if present do not necessarily lead to the disease (the technical term is incomplete penetrance).
If one were to follow a naive genetic determinism (ala JH) he or she would have to conclude that genes harbour a gene that creates the behaviour of male circumcision whereas genetic hemochromatosis would be given a genetic or a non-genetic basis.
As it stands ... solutions to the equation gene+environment = behaviour
will be probably never be obtained in a clear form. We are complex systems, interacting in a complex world. It is foolish to assume that one could reduce everything to a small set of guiding principles. At the very best he or she can only arrive to heuristics . But heuristics and other approximative methods are only valid in a small domain. Walk out of the domain and you are saying non-sense _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
bart wrote:
...
The logical fallacy is claiming that the behavior of bacteria in a laboratory setting is comparable to human behavior. This error is called "reasoning by analogy" and is not much different than magical thinking.
...
bart,
I agree with everything in your message except this bit - what Hnason is doing is reasoning by example, rather than by analogy. To reason by analogy is to reason on the basis of similar relationships to their contexts of the things being compared (rather than apparent similarities of the objects themselves). It's stronger than the example you gave, and is not what Hanson is doing here. It's also not magical thinking, though it appears to approach it at times.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
Doly wrote:
Ludi wrote:
Without a massive infrastructure to support them, "me first!" individuals will have a hard time surviving unless they can learn to cooperate.
You are oversimplfying here. Even the most selfish people often cooperate with others, if they understand that it's in their own self interest. And the most extreme of selflessness would drive somebody to neglect themselves, which isn't very pro-survival either. I find that a good balance between selfishness and selflessness is what gives people the best chances of survival.
And don't forget that it's the actions, not the reasons behind the actions, what build your future. (In other words, the guy that cooperates because it's in his own selfish interest gets the same reward as the guy that cooperates for the love of cooperation.)
Cooperation doesn't require selflessness, and I never said it did. Nope, never did. Cooperation can be entirely selfish. If I get along with others, and help them, they will likely help me in turn. This is different from what I'm referring to as "me first!" behavior which doesn't take into account how others will respond. Killing someone because you're angry with them or just feel like it, the ultimate in "me first" behavior, isn't likely to encourage others to support you. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:34 pm Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
SarahC1975 wrote:
Why the discrepancy? Because the Whites were the better killers. Not coincidentally, their descendents (that's us) are acting in a simliar fashion this very day.
Sad but true.
Sarah C.
Actually it was because the Native Americans had specific genetic limitations in their immune systems that could not handle European diseases (hepatitis, smallpox ...) - at least according to recent research. Their populations had been reduced to fractions of what they had been by the time serious "settling" began. See Charles Mann's "1491".
Joined: Sep 06, 2004 Posts: 5315 Location: Smalltown New Zealand
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
EdF wrote:
SarahC1975 wrote:
Why the discrepancy? Because the Whites were the better killers. Not coincidentally, their descendents (that's us) are acting in a simliar fashion this very day.
Sad but true.
Sarah C.
Actually it was because the Native Americans had specific genetic limitations in their immune systems that could not handle European diseases (hepatitis, smallpox ...) - at least according to recent research. Their populations had been reduced to fractions of what they had been by the time serious "settling" began. See Charles Mann's "1491".
- Ed
The ones shot died of lead poisoning? _________________ "Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:14 am Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
Did anyone check on the credibility of the original post of the supposed "Jay Hanson"? I smell a rat here, just as ES did when wondering what made the fellow run to the hills 2002 (or possibly even before that) and out of the blue to start posting on an obscure site on a relatively ordinary premise (genetic determination).
To me this is complete BS.
Last edited by albente on Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3428 Location: California, USA
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:52 am Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up
A certain amount of misunderstanding here is coming from implicitly different definitions of terms. Try this: there are five core dynamics in social ecosystems, as follows:
Cooperation: Sharing a resource. For example, two auto makers set up a fund for university researach on new powertrains, with joint licensing of the resulting inventions.
Competition: Vying for a resource within an agreed rule-set. For example, two auto makers each introduce their own models using the jointly developed powertrain, and vie for market share. Note, they do not attempt to blow up each others' factories because that violates the agreed rule-set (in this case criminal law).
Symbiosis: Voluntary trade for unlike benefits. I'm a farmer, you're a soldier, I help feed the army, the army protects me and others from foreign attackers.
Commensalism: Voluntary trade for like benefits. I have a bakery and produce cookies, you have a dairy and produce milk, we exchange, we both have cookies & milk.
Predation: Taking something from someone else in such a manner that disables or kills the other. A gang of thieves beats and robs (or robs and kills) an old lady at a bus stop.
Parasitism: Taking something from someone else in such a manner that allows the other to continue producing for one's own benefit. A freeloader comes to visit, overstays his welcome, and eats your food but does not rob and kill you.
Predation is not competition; and parasitism is not symbiosis; however, these are often confused for one another.
---
Interesting to see so much arguement about predetermined will, and so little mention of free will and reasoning.
Evolution (genetic and social) has produced a state of affairs where the tendencies toward cooperation, competition, etc. are all present to varying degrees in each individual and in each population, and in the large majority of cases are balanced in such a manner that behavioral outcomes are not predetermined with certainty.
Behavior that is predictable with certainty is, after all, a choice target for predators and parasites.
The capacity of humans to engage in reason and to exercise choice gives us an advantage over a hypothetical species that can do neither.
The proximate factor that acts most strongly against reasoned choices in our present predicament is not genetics, it's enculturation reinforced by economic interests.
For obvious examples, look at coastal real estate development in Florida and other regions prone to hurricanes; look at real estate development on steep mountainsides in California that are subject to earthquakes and mudslides. Humans who live in such places are idiots waiting to darwinize themselves, and yet they flock to these places like herds of lemmings, not because their genes told them to do it, but because their cultural training did not equip them to use the observational and logical capabilities that are built into their brains.
The same case obtains for PO, avian flu, global climate change, and creeping authoritarianism in our own government.
The question for our century is: How can we get a critical mass of humans to use their observational and logical capabilities, and exercise their free will, in order to adapt to the coming changes?
Genetic determinism leading to defeatism is as much an abdication of responsibility as is willful and overt participation in the causes of collapse.
And as for mild depression and its concomitant attitudes: mild pessimists' forecasts of the future tend to be more accurate in the short term than those of optimists, but optimists tend to live longer.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
