Sometimes I wonder if our society may in fact be a collaboration of the criminal minded. The fact that it appears to promote civilization seems a convenient Cover-Up story.
If money is the only incentive how can we distinguish corporation execs from drug lords or war lords. Even the courts seem to be nothing more than an appendage of the system that defines itself as much as politicians define their labours as "Hard work, deserving of ample rewards." Well I am somewhat cheered that a machine is delivering pictures from Pluto. Civilization thrives beyond the planet but apparently not in our neighborhoods. Let 's assume civilization and society have less in common than a Hot dog vendor and a bank robber. Given a choice the people would always vote for the one that appears to represent what common people aspire to be... Glamourous Rascals. vib -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: July-14-15 7:06 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] speculative Q I'd (probably wrongly) interpreted Marcus' comment to mean something about keeping the corporate drones (who can't imagine doing work for anything other than incentive) away from people who have the knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological weapons ... hence, the article about DIYBio myths. It was a little bit of agreement with a little bit of disagreement combined. BTW-FWIW, since we're talking about motivation vs. incentive, I just saw this in my inbox: The Ethics of Whistleblowing with Edward Snowden http://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/ethics-whistleblowing-edward-snowden > John: A lot of people see you as a hero. But others, intelligent ones too, > have called you a narcissistic traitor ... How do you see yourself at this > point? > > Snowden: I don't think about myself. I don't think about how I'm going to be > perceived, because it's not about me. It's about us. This is the type of thing that makes me think Snowden is, at least, disingenuous, if not worse. He's clearly not afflicted with any of the major psych disorders that prevent him from reflective thought. Hence, he _does_ think about himself and how he'll be perceived. If he'd just answer the damned question honestly ... like "Hell yeah, I think about myself and how I'm perceived! I think about how my fellow US citizens view me. I think about how/whether they want to know the information I leaked, whether a jury of my peers would convict me if presented with the evidence ... " Etc. If he'd answer that way, I might start to trust him. Instead he answers with this pseudo-altrustic nonsense, public-relations/politician-speak. Ugh. On 07/14/2015 04:43 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote: > So, I'm not getting the relevance of the DIYBio movement to Marcus' comment. > Are you suggesting that it is an example of community for community's sake? > > On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:15 PM, glen wrote: > >> On 07/14/2015 02:58 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> Sometimes I think circles such as yours and the people Glen is talking >>> about just must be kept apart from one another, if they don’t avoid each >>> other naturally. That’s about as close I get to advocating community for >>> community’s sake. >> >> http://phys.org/news/2013-11-first-ever-survey-do-it-yourself-biology >> -myths.html -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
