We do agree in our values. But we disagree in our optimism. The ecology you propose burns more energy than mine. Your setup attributes more commitment/energy from the agents ... energy they don't have or are unwilling to spend on that organizing setup. I tend to regard the agents as less intelligent than you consider them, likely because I'm less intelligent than you are ... we all generalize from our selves. I grok 0-intelligence agents because I am a 0-int agent! You, having rolled up a good character at the start of the campaign, are deluded into thinking everyone else also rolled well. 8^D
In Utopia, all the agents spend reasonable amounts of energy, along diverse channels, to drive the ecology. But in this world, government is a necessary efficiency. Throughout history, when we *rely* on the individuals to do all this diverse work, they don't, even if, in an ideal world, they could. So we build infrastructure, eg government, to make the individuals more effective, to channel whatever energy/intelligence they have. Where our worlds meet, though, is that SOME infrastructure is debilitating. And SOME infrastructure is liberating. We agree that liberating government is good. And debilitating government is bad. Our task, then, is to classify which infrastructure increases liberty. And to engineer it into place. But that's very hard when so many of us maintain, despite the evidence, that all infrastructure is always bad. On March 24, 2021 8:24:38 PM PDT, Eric Charles <[email protected]> wrote: >I think we probably pretty much agree. > >"It's a convenient fiction, or perhaps an approximating simplification" >--- >Yes! But we need some of those, and "the individual" is one that >appeals to >me. > > -- glen ⛧ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
