On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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 invention of atomic bombs is only possible by a sophisticated society. This level of sophistication seems to come with other things, namely forms of government where no single idiot has the level of absolute power necessary to launch a nuclear bomb by himself. That's why the invention of the atomic bomb wasn't the great filter for humanity. > The fewer atomic bombs there are, the lower the chance that any will be > used. > All other things being equal. But you're ignoring balance of power and imperfect information. > 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 think game theorists take that into account, and possible advise politicians in the western world to have a zero tolerance policy towards under-developed nations acquiring WMDs. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 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. > There's also this: http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Earth-Stanislaw-Lem/dp/015602814X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1359566755&sr=8-2&keywords=peace+on+earth War was moved to the moon and is fought by robots. > > 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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/**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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to everything-li...@**googlegroups.com. >>> >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
