On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:18:25 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Craig Weinberg > <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:05:28 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >>> Hi Craig, >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:24:11 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Roger, >>>>> >>>>> I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth >>>>> without strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral and >>>> ideological. >>>> >>> >>> Amoral, sure. Ideological, I don't get it. >>> >> >> By reducing the possibilities of human behavior of a game, you are >> automatically pushing a reductionist agenda. >> > > I think you're overestimating my influence :) >
I meant "you" in more of the 'royal' sense - that the influence of game theory on anyone is to enlist them into a behaviorist mode. > > >> Short term instrumental thinking and reactionary postures are elevated >> above long term creative collaboration and innovation. The first rule of >> the game is: the rules don't change. That is a conservative ideology. >> > > I have no stakes in the liberals vs. conservatives game. > I was thinking of a more generic use of 'conservative', but ok. > I try to reach my own conclusions, so I imagine I will agree with the > liberals on some issues and the conservatives on others. There are many > levels of games and many levels of rules. If we are talking about a rule > like "marriage is between people of opposite genders", then sure I agree > with you. It's just a social construct that some people like. Money is also > a social construct and we can re-design it. The options here are > ideological, because some options appeal more to you than others, according > to a certain view on how society could be better. > > What I'm saying, though, is that even if 99% of the countries on earth > reach a higher level of civilisation and decide for cooperation instead of > agression, they are still vulnerable to the 1% that could build an atomic > bomb. Even if 100% reach the higher level, someone could go back, so you're > always vulnerable. We can try to estimate the probability of such an event > happening. I figure it's never low enough for world-wide disarmament being > a rational choice because of neuro-diversity. A certain percentage of the > human population is comprised of sociopaths. > A certain percentage of sociopaths are also going to make sure that they are in control of the arms. I don't think that there is any way to tell whether disarmament is a greater risk than non-disarmament, so to be safe we should probably disarm. The fewer atomic bombs there are, the lower the chance that any will be used. Game theory doesn't take into account that it is not unlikely that the people who are making the decisions are themselves paranoid and insane, and that they also see themselves as the only rational actors. > > >> >> >>> >>> I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just >>> don't see a way to survive and be free without an equilibrium based on fire >>> power. I wish that wasn't the case, but what's the way out? >>> >> >> I think the best hope is technology which puts us into other people's >> experience. Communications media have helped us learn about the >> perspectives of other people, so maybe if we confront the unedited >> realities of each other's experience it will take us to the next level. >> Otherwise, I donno, maybe there is no way out? >> > > Ok, I like that idea. > Cool. > > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The problem in the USA, though, is the in(famous) military-industrial >>>>> complex. Powerful corporations profit incredibly from war. That's the >>>>> wrong >>>>> incentive. They should profit from peace. The government should not be >>>>> allowed to pay for bombs, but only for the availability of bombs, through >>>>> agreements that pay the same weather the bombs are used or not. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What is the difference between paying for bombs and paying for an >>>> availability of bombs? Like they can buy only stock options, but not >>>> stock? >>>> Why would the government want to buy the availability of bombs which they >>>> cannot use? >>>> >>> >>> They can use them, but they pay a flat rate for the availability. If it >>> doesn't matter if they use more or less, powerful private interests have >>> less incentive to lobby for war. >>> >> >> I'm not sure that I understand the model. The flat rate would either have >> to be so high that the arms manufacturers would be covered no matter how >> much they use or else or they will adjust the quality of their product to >> match the rate. If its just availability and not possession, then the arms >> dealers would just play shell games and Ponzi schemes to give the illusion >> of inventory. >> > > Which is precisely what both the USA and the USSR did during the cold war. > They used all sorts of tricks to create an exaggerated estimation of their > own fire power by the other side. > Reminds me of the old Star Trek ep where war had progressed to a virtualized stage. Also this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Q-VZYbbS4 Thanks, Craig > Peace, > Telmo. > > >> Thanks, >> Craig >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Telmo. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi John Mikes >>>>>> >>>>>> You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry >>>>>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I >>>>>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> That's part of the "Vietnam Never Happened" historical revisionist >>>> portfolio. A simple idea, but not really very useful since 1945. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >>>>>> *From:* John Mikes >>>>>> *Receiver:* everything-list >>>>>> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36 >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry >>>>>> >>>>>> Roger -� >>>>>> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage >>>>>> of men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without >>>>>> resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful.� >>>>>> John Mikes >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> � >>>>>>> The "unfairness" argument爁or allowing women into the infantry >>>>>>> is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that >>>>>>> regrettably >>>>>>> I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the >>>>>>> infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" >>>>>>> at fighting,� and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to >>>>>>> their advancement. >>>>>>> � >>>>>>> This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was >>>>>>> withdrawn >>>>>>> after 18 months because it didn't work.� >>>>>>> � >>>>>>> The function of the military is to insure our national security, not >>>>>>> to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, >>>>>>> instead, >>>>>>> "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of >>>>>>> the military ?" >>>>>>> � >>>>>>> � >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** >>>>>>> googlegroups.**com. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group** >>>>>>> /everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> For more options, visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/**grou**ps/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> � >>>>>>> � >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** >>>>>> googlegroups.**com. >>>>>> >>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group** >>>>>> /everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>>>>> . >>>>>> For more options, visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/**grou**ps/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ______________________________****______________________________**** >>>>>> ________ >>>>>> *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for >>>>>> your leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org >>>>>> <%--DreamMail_AD_END--> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** >>>>>> googlegroups.**com. >>>>>> >>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group** >>>>>> /everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>>>>> . >>>>>> For more options, visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/**grou**ps/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** >>>> googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
