Right. Again, I'll vaguely wave my hand in the direction of von Hayek -- don't regulate what you don't understand. It's reasonable to challenge the assumption that we *cannot*, in pricincple, know something. So, the burden of proof lies on the assertion that a massively distributed, undesigned, immune response is appropriate. I.e. perhaps there is no such thing as irreconcilable values? ... that any system we put in place, as long as it's fixed for the rest of eternity will lead to (new) irreconcilable values? If our reconciliation methods were treated as the manipulation-discovery experiments that they are, any given method would be revokable when it failed. E.g. confirmation of Kavanaugh in the Senate by simple majority and/or electoral college gaming by a historically unpopular demagogue.
The point is that we're no longer *experimenting* on/with what may or may not work. We're just locked into whatever accidental thing we fell into. On 11/13/18 11:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > < Someone made an interesting point the other day ... something like > "States are the most basic form of gerrymandering." > > > On one hand it seems plausible to me that complex systems need to develop > membranes or modules to function at all. On the other hand, the kind of > membranes that evolve in practice often don't seem to optimize anything that > is worthwhile. Sometimes a systemic and potent immune response is best. > > https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/the-nation-has-been-this-dividedin-the-civil-war/575587/ -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
