On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:08:54 -0400 (EDT), Robert J. Chassell wrote > Nick Arnett wrote > > I cannot agree with the premise that underlies this -- that evil > is "out there" and we "in here," if powerful enough, can > eliminate it. > > Well, how about a premise that includes people `in here'? > > that some of the people who gain governmental power, > whether here or abroad, are evil
I have no trouble agreeing with... or even better, there is evil in all of us, including our government leaders. > (This is the old `Fall of Adam' presumption, not applied to friends > and family, but applied to those who seek power successfully enough > to run governments. I think one should presume that friends and family > are fundamentally good. One should act with a `Fall of Adam' > presumption only with respect to particular friends or family who > prove themselves evil.) I think that "The Fall" or "original sin," or whatever one might call it is mischaracterized as meaning that people are innately selfish, greedy, etc. It seems to me to mean that we have two sides to ourselves, or two hearts, if you will, which fight for supremacy. That's quite Lutheran, I might add -- simultaneously saint and sinner. > The US Constitution was based on this presumption: that powers in > different states (which were conceived as we do countries or > `nation-states') would be sufficiently different from one another > that bad guys would check each other. Interesting way to view it. Is it not at least equally true that by having a bunch of people independently solving the same problems, the likelihood of success increases considerably? > how about the premise that some of the people who gain > governmental power, whether here or abroad, are evil? When I speak of evil people, I mean people who have let the evil that's available to each of us take over to a great extent, perhaps completely, I don't know if that happens. > what do you think is the best mechanism for dealing with this > problem of government, presuming also that some non-governmental > people will not have your faith or goodness? Hey, even if I were in charge, I'd want such a mechanism. I'm as susceptible as the next person. I think the answer in the 21st century will come out of our increasing understanding of networks, in the most general sense. Whoever has the best network wins. I offer that based almost entirely on intuition, but it's a very strong intuition! As a metaphor, consider genetic material as a communications network that contains a great deal of information, not just about how to compete, but how to adapt to a changing environment. What does it then mean to have the best genetic network? Some elements seem clear. Competitiveness arises from intelligence, strength, immunity and similar. Intelligence lends some ability to adapt to a changing environment, but it seems that in a genetic network, like others, shared information (shared among individuals and generations) offers a significant advantage, a kind of collaboration. > (For the US, I think we need an opposition that judge proposals using > the `alliterative Ps of politics', to protect, preserve, prepare, and > provide, Interesting -- I hadn't read this before writing the words above, but it seems to fit quite well. Protecting, preserving, preparing and providing are collaborative efforts. In a network, this is the storage and retrieval of information that may be needed later. along with the more detailed `Rs', reason, rigor, reality, > and responsibility; and the honesty of reports.) And these are largely individual tasks, even though they may be shared. In a network, these are the creation and processing of information. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
