On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I doubt that an economic or structural panacea exists. >>> >> >> Of course not. >> >> However, to throw your hands up and say that no economic or structural >> modifications are worth while is a bit too defeatist for my taste. >> > > Not true. I favor incremental changes. A little tweaking rather than a > radical solution. I am a conservative when it comes to laws and governance. > > Radical change is fine in technology. > I most certainly go along with your rule of thumb, but it must be tempered by rationality. For instance, the pathologies of discontinuity must be compared to the pathologies of the status quo and, in some cases, action urgently taken. It is in such rational decisions that reasonable men frequently differ as, most probably, do you and I in the present instance. If I perceive carnage on a massive scale due to the status quo, whereas you do not, you're perception of me will be that I am pathologically hallucinating and therefore a danger to myself and others whereas I will perceive you as pathologically blind and standing in the way of remediation of catastrophic consequences. Rather than each attempting to have the other subjected to therapy or each attempting impose their preferred human ecology on the other, it is only humane, in the larger scheme of things, to make provision for separation of experimental groups with containment of consequences to those consenting to those consequences. Its a simple matter of ethics.
