Re: (Fwd) HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY (fwd)
Why do they believe this? First, explicit evolutionary thinking can sometimes eliminate certain kinds of errors in thinking about behavior (Symons, 1987). Evolutionary theory is only intended to explain how living organisms evolve. Applying it to any other field of inquiry puts you on VERY shaky ground. It's presently being used to predict primate (human) behavior. Although it's politically incorrect, it's scientifically true. primate and human behaviour is not the same, so such research is not scientific. Eva Jay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: democracy
We were tallking about intelligence, not some rare genetic decease. It is not even an accepted fact that intelligence is inheritable. So - you are saying, that most of humanity is less intelligent than used to be? I'd like to see your evidence, please. And I don't like the "concern" neither. It's like Stalin or Pinochet looking at infants they need punish at times, purely out of concern for orderliness. I dispare. If you represent today's intelligentia, I start to understand people being deeply suspicious - they show more intelligence than I had so far in this respect. Eva Not informed , yes. But not intelligent?? I wasn't aware of any decline in public intelligence. Any data? Voting and tv vieing habits are not valid - they belong to the "not informed" bit. I am seriously concerned now. How many of this list have this total contempt for most of humanity??? Not contempt, Eva. Concern. The decline isn't limited to mental (brain/nervous system). No species is composed of exact replicas/equals. Adaptive fitness is a reality. Humans are the only species known that attempts to make differences disappear - a physical impossibility. For those dealing in 'souls' or 'spirits', I have nothing to say, and you have nothing to show us. This doesn't make deep democracy impossible; recall Garrett Harden's "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" as the rational way forward. (see Jay's site: dieoff.org) Steve See this report from yesterday's BBC: Humans may be collecting bad genes January 27, BBC Net http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_264000/264191.stm Better health care might be causing humans to become weaker. Humans could be getting weaker and sicker with each new generation because of a build up of bad genes. Most animals weed out harmful genetic mutations by natural selection -- only the fittest survive long enough to reproduce. But in humans the weak have been prevented from dying out by improvements in standards of living and health care. Commenting on the research published in Nature, James Crow, from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said it was likely that in this situation natural selection would "weed out mutations more slowly than they accumulate". He said: "Are some of our headaches, stomach upsets, weak eyesight and other ailments the result of mutation accumulation? Probably, but in our present state of knowledge we can only speculate." Geneticists Adam Eyre-Walker, from the University of Sussex in Brighton, and Peter Keightley, from the University of Edinburgh carried out the new research. They calculated the rate at which human genes have mutated since our ancestors split from chimpanzees six million years ago. Keightley told the BBC: "We estimate that about 4.2 new mutations have occurred on average every generation in the human lineage since we diverged from the chimpanzees, and that 1.6 of those are deleterious." That rate is so high that without other factors intervening the human race should be extinct by now. One possible reason that humans have survived is that in the past natural selection eliminated handfuls of harmful genes because individuals with lots of mutations died early, before reproducing. But it is also likely that genes which were only slightly harmful became "fixed" in successive generations. Over time these would accumulate, especially if improving living standards and health care meant that the harmful genes were less of a handicap for survival. (more links on the URL above) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: real-life example
Direct democracy cannot selectively exclude people. The elitists are a minority by definition. If they vote themselves out from the collective decisionmaking, we may have fun to see how they manage on their own. Eva Mentioning a version of your comments to a central european-born manager, I was a little surprised to receive the following tirade back I paraphrase 'Why would Direct Democracy be a good system? Intelligent people know from experience that most other people are idiots. Therefore most decisions will be made by idiots for idiots with idiots,. Those people are idiots. They will have only themselves, the idiots, to blame' With the visceral, if obviously intellectually inconsequential, anglosaxon desire for fairplay, tolerance and conflict-avoidance (Chamberlain at Munich comes to mind), I agreed pro tem, whilst mentally noting that I woudl like to ask whether you would be happy to include such a person in your direct democracy (or not). If you do, he will destroy it of course, and if you don't then of course it destroys itself. Do you then have to destroy him to preserve your democracy? And what kind of democracy is it that has to preserve itself by destroying its elitists? Colin Stark wrote: At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones. However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure. Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and experience -- not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. Jay Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be more likely to make a "stupid" choice. But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability of the leader". In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every 4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also! Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv) -- Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 _
Re: real-life example
Mentioning a version of your comments to a central european-born manager, I was a little surprised to receive the following tirade back I paraphrase 'Why would Direct Democracy be a good system? Intelligent people know from experience that most other people are idiots. Therefore most decisions will be made by idiots for idiots with idiots,. Those people are idiots. They will have only themselves, the idiots, to blame' With the visceral, if obviously intellectually inconsequential, anglosaxon desire for fairplay, tolerance and conflict-avoidance (Chamberlain at Munich comes to mind), I agreed pro tem, whilst mentally noting that I woudl like to ask whether you would be happy to include such a person in your direct democracy (or not). If you do, he will destroy it of course, and if you don't then of course it destroys itself. Do you then have to destroy him to preserve your democracy? And what kind of democracy is it that has to preserve itself by destroying its elitists? Colin Stark wrote: At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones. However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure. Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and experience -- not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. Jay Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be more likely to make a "stupid" choice. But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability of the leader". In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every 4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also! Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv) -- Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 _
Re: real-life example
At 07:16 AM 1/29/99 +, Mark Measday wrote: Mentioning a version of your comments to a central european-born manager, I was a little surprised to receive the following tirade back I paraphrase 'Why would Direct Democracy be a good system? Intelligent people know from experience that most other people are idiots. Therefore most decisions will be made by idiots for idiots with idiots,. Those people are idiots. They will have only themselves, the idiots, to blame' Are all intelligent people non-idiots? Are most intelligent people non-idiots? Do some people who consider themselves intelligent have limited experience from which to make such harsh, polarized, one-dimensional judgements of their fellow-humans? etc I do not value your friend's opinion What does he know of DD? With the visceral, if obviously intellectually inconsequential, anglosaxon desire for fairplay, tolerance and conflict-avoidance (Chamberlain at Munich comes to mind), I agreed pro tem, whilst mentally noting that I woudl like to ask whether you would be happy to include such a person in your direct democracy (or not). by definition, he would have one vote I would be neither happy nor unhappy You may be exhibit both tolerance and conflict-avoidance -- while I strive for the first, I have few tendencies to the second. But then I am Celtic, not anglo-saxon If you do, he will destroy it of course, and if you don't then of course it destroys itself. I do not attribute to him any more power than one vote, so I cannot accept your view Do you then have to destroy him to preserve your democracy? And what kind of democracy is it that has to preserve itself by destroying its elitists? The whole question is hypothetical. But I do not believe anyone has to destroy him Nor do I believe that all elitists are so narrow-minded I have little experience of Central Europe, and I am not advocating DD for Central Europe. I have met several E/Central. Europeans in Canada, and I am not unfamiliar with the characteristics you describe. In Canada such people are not numerous, and have little influence in the circles I move in. The biggest obstacle in Canada would appear to come from political, academic, and business Elites whose worlds are bound up in money and power -- obstacles enough without paying undue attention to people like your friend. I sincerely believe that DD is viable in Canada, US, and UK, the three countries with which I am most familiar Colin Stark Colin Stark wrote: At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones. However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure. Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and experience -- not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. Jay Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be more likely to make a "stupid" choice. But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability of the leader". In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every 4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also! Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv) -- Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 _
Re: real-life example
(I think I mentioned it before BTW, I am Hungarian, as centre-european as any.) I don't think it is valid to link political ideas with ethniticy. Also, I can only picture DD as a global phenomena, once established, you cannot stop it, just like the internet. Eva At 07:16 AM 1/29/99 +, Mark Measday wrote: Mentioning a version of your comments to a central european-born manager, I was a little surprised to receive the following tirade back I paraphrase 'Why would Direct Democracy be a good system? Intelligent people know from experience that most other people are idiots. Therefore most decisions will be made by idiots for idiots with idiots,. Those people are idiots. They will have only themselves, the idiots, to blame' Are all intelligent people non-idiots? Are most intelligent people non-idiots? Do some people who consider themselves intelligent have limited experience from which to make such harsh, polarized, one-dimensional judgements of their fellow-humans? etc I do not value your friend's opinion What does he know of DD? With the visceral, if obviously intellectually inconsequential, anglosaxon desire for fairplay, tolerance and conflict-avoidance (Chamberlain at Munich comes to mind), I agreed pro tem, whilst mentally noting that I woudl like to ask whether you would be happy to include such a person in your direct democracy (or not). by definition, he would have one vote I would be neither happy nor unhappy You may be exhibit both tolerance and conflict-avoidance -- while I strive for the first, I have few tendencies to the second. But then I am Celtic, not anglo-saxon If you do, he will destroy it of course, and if you don't then of course it destroys itself. I do not attribute to him any more power than one vote, so I cannot accept your view Do you then have to destroy him to preserve your democracy? And what kind of democracy is it that has to preserve itself by destroying its elitists? The whole question is hypothetical. But I do not believe anyone has to destroy him Nor do I believe that all elitists are so narrow-minded I have little experience of Central Europe, and I am not advocating DD for Central Europe. I have met several E/Central. Europeans in Canada, and I am not unfamiliar with the characteristics you describe. In Canada such people are not numerous, and have little influence in the circles I move in. The biggest obstacle in Canada would appear to come from political, academic, and business Elites whose worlds are bound up in money and power -- obstacles enough without paying undue attention to people like your friend. I sincerely believe that DD is viable in Canada, US, and UK, the three countries with which I am most familiar Colin Stark Colin Stark wrote: At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones. However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure. Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and experience -- not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. Jay Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be more likely to make a "stupid" choice. But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability of the leader". In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every 4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also! Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv) -- Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 _
Re: real-life example
Hitler was not elected, he's got in power through a militarry-type take-over with the financial and power support of the capitalist class that was terrified by the previous victories of the german worker's movement. He used his power to terrify and brainwash the people. Don't tell me that there was a free flow of information and no intimidation by the time there were "elections". You might as well say that Brezhnev was "elected". Well, torture is not legal anymore in most countries. There is international popular pressure against countries where it is or where it is used illegaly. The problem is, that it is not in the interest of the capitalist countries to do anything about it, because they make good profits in these countries. It was the people who made the law to outlaw the slave trade. They could only do it, when all the information about it was available and those who made the profits from it were defeated. Human society is not static. What was accepted behaviou a generation go, can be totally abhorent now. Normal people control their aggressive, sexual etc.urges, only when society somehow breaks down are conditions arising that allows such controls to break down. How would your benevolant technocrat scientists overcome all this innate nastiness you talk about? You repeat your stuff without answering any of these points. Eva That's exactly my point. Given the opportunity, it would happen anywhere, at any time. There is nothing inherent in man that keeps him torturing and murdering his fellows. For example, the practice of human torture was "legal" for at least 3,000 years and formed a part of most legal codes in Europe and the Far East. Remember that Hitler was elected by "the people". Moreover, the men who ran the camps during WW2 were, for the most part, average people. Remember the Slave trade? Just some conscious family men trying to make a buck and put their kids through school. Let "the people" make all the laws? Bad idea! Jay
Re: real-life example
Didn't they have something like this in the Constantinople in the 12th-13th century with the blues and greens under the eastern Holy Roman Empire? Apologies if this is just a folk memory. Thomas Lunde wrote: Thomas: I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman, businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having opinions and making decisions. I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term. The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the standing committees. This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position. This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender, ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has not proven to be superior. If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a particular agenda. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM Subject: Re: real-life example At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones. However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure. Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and xperience -- not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. Jay Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be more likely to make a "stupid" choice. But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability of the leader". In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every 4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also! Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv) -- Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 "Is it wrong for me to be guided in my actions by the
Re: Lundemocracy
A LUNDEMOCRACY. I like Thomas's idea. A significant improvement over currently operative models of democracy. But I would make these modifications. (1) that citizen education for parliamentary participation be compulsory, IF participation is to be compulsory, OR: (2) that participation in parliament not be mandatory, but the right to participate be conditional on attainment of certain communicative and other competencies, ie, on a 'driving' licence. (3) that a person's participation be limited to two or three main decision-making domains. Few, if any, people have the capacity to absorb the theory and info. in all areas in order to make reasonable decisions. Better that people choose those areas in which they have a genuine interest. The rule: don't participate in a decision if you don't have have time to properly deliberate on the information and have not well considered the underlying theoretical assumptions. (4) that full right to effect decisions in the chosen domain be bestowed only after a 'learning' period - say a year or two, during which time one serves as an observer/commentator. (5) that one has the right to choose to continue to serve as a parliamentarian in an honorary capacity for an extended period say up to 30 years (subject to confidence maintaining procedures). (6) that such a democracy be glocal (ie, local and global), using the Internet as the 'Virtual Parliament'. Such a democracy would render national politics redundant. THE POSSIBILITY TO DESIGN AND TRIAL SUCH A PARLIAMENT NOW EXISTS. THE EXPERIMENT DOES NOT NEED THE SANCTION OF THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL ORDER. BETTER THAT IT BE TRIALED, DEVELOPED BY AND IMPLEMENTED AMONG THOSE INTERESTED RATHER THAN IT BE UNDEMOCRATICALLY FOISTED ON AN UNWARY PUBLIC. Thomas Lunde wrote: I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman, businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having opinions and making decisions. I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term. The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the standing committees. This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position. This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender, ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has not proven to be superior. If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a particular agenda. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM Subject: Re: real-life example At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones. However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure.
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] No thanks! I saw direct democracy in action the other night on a PBS program about Rwanda: eight-hundred-thousand dead in one hundred days. Don't you think your being just a little unfair? That was butchery, not democracy. Given its background, it could have happened under any form of government. That's exactly my point. Given the opportunity, it would happen anywhere, at any time. There is nothing inherent in man that keeps him torturing and murdering his fellows. For example, the practice of human torture was "legal" for at least 3,000 years and formed a part of most legal codes in Europe and the Far East. Remember that Hitler was elected by "the people". Moreover, the men who ran the camps during WW2 were, for the most part, average people. Remember the Slave trade? Just some conscious family men trying to make a buck and put their kids through school. Let "the people" make all the laws? Bad idea! Jay This puts us at a dead end, which may also be your point. I don't like the idea of scientists running things. I've worked with too many of them. One of the best couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, but he could do wonders inside that bag. They really don't want to govern. Who's left? The Pope? The UN? The IOC? For want of other options, I would put my money on the street kids of India or Brazil. They could teach us a thing or two about survival. Ed
Re: democracy
I only respond to bits that are clear enough for me to comprehend... From the latter message about the only concept I managed was "concern"... From the one next - individual freedoms would be only lessened for a small minority, for the rest I think a change to the future I advocate would mean more individual freedom. I don't know how you define intelligence. I thought we are all capable listen to reason and make decisions for a future we can visualise, but most of us don't have the opportunity to do so. Eva Eva, You persist in not addressing the words of your antagonists, respond based upon your revisionist interpretations, ignoring parts that would be inconsistent with your ideal. See the second para. below. Note that Jay I fully expect humans to either revolt/self-destruct *or* to wake-up to the lessening of individual freedoms required for the 'common good'. The "intelligence" you seek to objectify is nothing more than total adaptive fitness to habitat, including creative scientific aspects. Humans are not divisible in actuality, only by theoreticians. Steve Not contempt, Eva. Concern. The decline isn't limited to mental (brain/nervous system). No species is composed of exact replicas/equals. Adaptive fitness is a reality. Humans are the only species known that attempts to make differences disappear - a physical impossibility. For those dealing in 'souls' or 'spirits', I have nothing to say, and you have nothing to show us. This doesn't make deep democracy impossible; recall Garrett Harden's "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" as the rational way forward. (see Jay's site: dieoff.org)
Re: Lundemocracy
Sounds good to me... However, I think we can only give an approximate framework, with a few stopchecks, the system will stear itself to the most efficient way. Eva A LUNDEMOCRACY. I like Thomas's idea. A significant improvement over currently operative models of democracy. But I would make these modifications. (1) that citizen education for parliamentary participation be compulsory, IF participation is to be compulsory, OR: (2) that participation in parliament not be mandatory, but the right to participate be conditional on attainment of certain communicative and other competencies, ie, on a 'driving' licence. (3) that a person's participation be limited to two or three main decision-making domains. Few, if any, people have the capacity to absorb the theory and info. in all areas in order to make reasonable decisions. Better that people choose those areas in which they have a genuine interest. The rule: don't participate in a decision if you don't have have time to properly deliberate on the information and have not well considered the underlying theoretical assumptions. (4) that full right to effect decisions in the chosen domain be bestowed only after a 'learning' period - say a year or two, during which time one serves as an observer/commentator. (5) that one has the right to choose to continue to serve as a parliamentarian in an honorary capacity for an extended period say up to 30 years (subject to confidence maintaining procedures). (6) that such a democracy be glocal (ie, local and global), using the Internet as the 'Virtual Parliament'. Such a democracy would render national politics redundant. THE POSSIBILITY TO DESIGN AND TRIAL SUCH A PARLIAMENT NOW EXISTS. THE EXPERIMENT DOES NOT NEED THE SANCTION OF THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL ORDER. BETTER THAT IT BE TRIALED, DEVELOPED BY AND IMPLEMENTED AMONG THOSE INTERESTED RATHER THAN IT BE UNDEMOCRATICALLY FOISTED ON AN UNWARY PUBLIC. Thomas Lunde wrote: I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman, businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having opinions and making decisions. I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term. The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the standing committees. This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position. This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender, ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has not proven to be superior. If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a particular agenda. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM Subject: Re: real-life example At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and social complexity grew. While hunting and
Re: democracy
Eva: individual freedoms would be only lessened for a small minority, for the rest I think a change to the future I advocate would mean more individual freedom. This is your great speculative hope. If the worlds scientists are to be believed(back to dieoff.org for multiple exhibits of declarations signed by thousands), then freedoms shrink daily with NET 250,000 human pop. increase daily loss/pollution of vital resources. Are we to believe you or the thousands of concerned scientists? Freedom is constrained/limited by life(growing) demands available (shrinking)options. Again the cornucopian fallacy raises its ugly head. Is my writing unclear to other readers? Steve
Re: re:democracy
I pointed out (often), that there are fundamental conditions for a proper working democracy, and these conditions did not exist in our history so far. Then the reasonable observer would conclude they never will. What about universal literacy? What about the technology to make information universally available and open for everyone? What about the capacity to produce all basic necessities in abundance? What about basic experience in democratic de- cisionmaking? To my knowledge, some of these conditions only existed for less than 100 years and on the others we are still working on. So, who is this reasonable observer? Eva Jay
Re: democracy
Steve Kurtz wrote, Again the cornucopian fallacy raises its ugly head. My grubbing in the late-Victorian archive makes me suspicious of undefined uses of the word "fallacy". The late-Victorian legacy can be roughly translated as "My class prejudice is Truth, yours (the one that _I_ attribute to you) is fallacy." What kind of a *fallacy*, then, is this "cornucopian fallacy"? Is it a straw man? An ad hominem? A reductio ad absurdum? Is it a forceful way of saying, "I won't listen to you because (people like) you are not worth listening to"? Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
The Taliban's War on Women
Please sign and pass on if you feel comfortable doing so: -Forwarded Message- Subject: Please sign and pass on. The Taliban's War on Women: Please sign at the bottom to support, and include your town. Then copy and e-mail to as many people as possible. If you receive this list with more than 50 names on it, please e-mail a copy of it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even if you decide not to sign, please be considerate and do not kill the petition. Thank you. It is best to copy rather than forward the petition. Melissa Buckheit - Brandeis University The government of Afghanistan is waging a war upon women. The situation is getting so bad that one person in an editorial of the times compared the treatment of women there to the treatment of Jews in pre-Holocaust Poland. Since the Taliban took power in 1996, women have had to wear burqua and have been beaten and stoned in public for not having the proper attire, even if this means simply not having the mesh covering in front of their eyes. One woman was beaten to DEATH by an angry mob of fundamentalists for accidentally exposing her arm while she was driving. Another was stoned todeath for trying to leave the country with a man that was not a relative. Women are not allowed to work or even go out in public without a male relative; professional women such as professors, translators, doctors, lawyers,artists and writers have been forced from their jobs and stuffed into their homes, so that depression is becoming so widespread that it has reached emergency levels. There is no way in such an extreme Islamic society to know the suicide rate with certainty, but relief workers are estimating that the suicide rate among women, who cannot find proper medication and treatment for severe depression and would rather take their lives than live in such conditions, has increased significantly. Homes where a woman is present must have their windows painted so that she can never be seen by outsiders. They must wear silent shoes so that they are never heard. Women live in fear of their lives for the slightest misbehavior. Because they cannot work, those without male relatives or husbands are either starving to death or begging on the street, even if they hold Ph.D.'s. There are almost no medical facilities available for women, and relief workers, in protest, have mostly left the country, taking medicine and psychologists and other things necessary to treat the sky-rocketing level of depression among women. At one of the rare hospitals for women, a reporter found still, nearly lifeless bodies lying motionless on top of beds, wrapped in their burqua, unwilling to speak, eat, or do anything, but slowly wasting away. Others have gone mad and were seen crouched in corners, perpetually rocking or crying, most of them in fear. One doctor is considering, when what little medication that is left finally runs out, leaving these women in front of the president's residence as a form of peaceful protest. It is at the point where the term 'human rights violations' has become an understatement. Husbands have the power of life and death over their women relatives, especially their wives, but an angry mob has just as much right to stone or beat a woman, often to death, for exposing an inch of flesh or offending them in the slightest way. David Cornwell has told me that we in the United States should not judge the Afghan people for such treatment because it is a 'cultural thing', but this is not even true. Women enjoyed relative freedom, to work, dress generally as they wanted, and drive and appear in public alone until only 1996 -- the rapidity of this transition is the main reason for the depression and suicide; women who were once educators or doctors or simply used to basic human freedoms are now severely restricted and treated as sub-human in the name of right-wing fundamentalist Islam. It is not their tradition or 'culture', but is alien to them, and it is extreme even for those cultures where fundamentalism is the rule. Besides, if we could excuse everything on cultural grounds, then we should not be appalled that the Carthaginians sacrificed their infant children, that little girls are circumcised in parts of Africa, that blacks in the deep south in the 1930's were lynched, prohibited from voting, and forced to submit to unjust Jim Crow laws. Everyone has a right to a tolerable human existence, even if they are women in a Muslim country in a part of the world that Americans do not understand. If we can threaten military force in Kosovo in the name of human rights for the sake of ethnic Albanians, Americans can certainly express peaceful outrage at the oppression, murder and injustice committed against women by the Taliban. * STATEMENT: In signing this, we agree that the current treatment of women in Afghanistan is completely UNACCEPTABLE and deserves
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] This puts us at a dead end, which may also be your point. I don't like the idea of scientists running things. I've worked with too many of them. One of the best couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, but he could do wonders inside that bag. They really don't want to govern. Who's left? The Pope? The UN? The IOC? Basically, I am suggesting a new governing structure with specific goals -- something like a corporation under a constitution with checks and balances. The entire system would be based on merit -- not popularity contests. Suppose society decided the primary "goal" was for our kids to live long enough to retire. Obviously, this implies a functional society, which is a "technical" question -- somewhat like asking "How can I make the cooking fuel on my boat last the entire trip?" The logical way to proceed would be to the experts specific questions, and then "hire" -- not elect -- qualified "leaders" (CEOs) to lead us to explicit goals. If they fail to meet specific benchmarks, fire them and hire someone else. We do not need the 90 million Americans, who read below the 7th grade level, to make decisions. A constitution with checks-and-balances has done a fairly good job of looking after their welfare so far. We would need to build this kind of "protection" for the disadvantaged into a new system. Indeed, I suggest universal welfare at: http://dieoff.com/page168.htm The bottom line is we are out of time. Our political and economic systems are based on utopian nonsense left over from the enlightenment. It's time to invent new social systems for the new mellienum. Jay
COKE in SCHOOLS
This example of Business/Governance corruption is so incredible I have to forward it Colin Stark ] Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:26:54 -0800 From: Gil Yaron [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Accept-Language: en To: CCCI Mailing List Member Harper's Magazine February 1999 DISTRICT 11'S COKE PROBLEM From a September 23, 1998, letter sent to the principals of School District 11 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, by John Bushey, the district's executive director of "school leadership." In September 1997, the district signed an $8 million exclusive vending contract with Coca-Cola. Dear Principal: Here we are in year two of the great Coke, contract. I hope your first weeks were successful and that pretty much everything is in place (except staffing, technology, planning time, and telephones). First, the good news: This year's installment from Coke is "in the house," and checks will be cut for you to pick up in my office this week. Your share will be the same as last year. Elementary school $3,000 Middle School $15,000 High School $25,000 Now the not-so-good news: we must sell 70,000 cases of product (including juices, sodas, waters, etc.) at least once during the first three years of the contract. If we reach this goal, your school allotments will be guaranteed for the next seven years. The math on how to achieve this is really quite simple. Last year we had 32,439 students, 3,000 employees, and 176 days in the school year. If 35,439 staff and students buy one Coke product every other day for a school year, we will double the required quota. Here is how we can do it: 1. Allow students to purchase and consume vended products throughout the day. If sodas are not allowed in classes, consider allowing juices, teas, and waters. 2. Locate machines where they are accessible to the students all day. Research shows that vender purchases are closely linked to availability. Location, location, location is the key. You may have as many machines as you can handle. Pueblo Central High tripled its volume of sales by placing vending machines on all three levels of the school. The Coke people surveyed the middle and high schools this summer and have suggestions on where to place additional machines. 3. A list of Coke products is enclosed to allow you to select from the entire menu of beverages. Let me know which products you want, and we will get them in. Please let me know if you need electrical outlets. 4. A calendar of promotional events is enclosed to help you advertise Coke products. I know this is "just one more thing from downtown," but the long-term benefits are worth it. Thanks for all your help, John Bushey The Coke Dude ***
STOP!!!-The Taliban's War on Women
PLEASE STOP AND READ *** At 09:49 AM 1/29/99 -0800, you wrote: Please sign and pass on if you feel comfortable doing so: -Forwarded Message- Subject: Please sign and pass on. The Taliban's War on Women: SNIP ** Wed 27 Jan 99 Hi All, Last week I received this same chain letter from another source. Being curious about why there was no authority referenced in the above noted e-mail, no information as to the petition's disposition, nor about the ambiguous instructions provided with it, I sent a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] asking: "Where, when, and to whom will this petition be presented?" The reply follows: Doug ** Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:43:21 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Taliban War on Women X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: sarabande address disabled [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read this message carefully, especially the next two sentences. Do not reply to this email. Do not forward this email to anyone else. Anyone who needs a copy, already has one. Do not make things worse. Do not "help" by forwarding this message to everyone who has corresponded with you on this subject. Due to a flood of hundreds of thousands of messages in response to an unauthorized chain letter, all mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is being deleted unread. It will never be a valid email address again. If you have a personal message for the previous owner of that address, you will need to find some other means to communicate. The text of the chain letter was originally Copyright 1997 Feminist Majority Foundation. [EMAIL PROTECTED] was not an organization, but a person who was totally unprepared for the inevitable consequences of telling thousands of people to tell fifty of their friends to tell fifty of their friends to send her email. It is our sincere hope that the hundreds of thousands of people who continue to attempt to reply will find a more productive outlet for their concerns. There are several excellent organizations and individuals doing real work on the issues raised. Some of them were mentioned in sarabande's letter. None of them authorized her actions. We suggest that you contact them through non-virtual channels to help. They all have web sites with information and contact points. Unlike sarabande, they can channel your energy in useful directions. Do not let this incident discourage you. Please do not forward unverified chain letters, no matter how compelling they might seem. Propagating chain letters is specifically prohibited by the terms of service of most Internet service providers; you could lose your account. Please also read: http://athos.rutgers.edu/~watrous/pbs-funding-chain-letter-petition.html http://www.wish.org/craig.htm http://www.nbi.dk/~dickow/stop-chain-letter.txt http://www.cancer.org/chain.html http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa021198.htm http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-run-adverts-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-run-spew-07.txt http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACChainLetters.html Any replies to this message will be deleted unread. The issue is closed. Please read this message carefully, especially the next two sentences. Do not reply to this email. Do not forward this email to anyone else. Anyone who needs a copy, already has one. Do not make things worse. Do not "help" by forwarding this message to everyone who has corresponded with you on this subject. Please sign at the bottom to support, and include your town. Then copy and e-mail to as many people as possible. If you receive this list with more than 50 names on it, please e-mail a copy of it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip
Correction: FW: Lifelong education]
I wrote this two weeks ago: Tor Forde wrote: I have earler been writing about the work to make it a right for everyone in Norway to be able to go on and get additional education whenever anybody wants to do it. I have in earlier postings mentioned that the largest Confederation of Tradeunions (LO) and the largest industrial organisation (NHO) have agreed upon such an arrangement. But there were still two problems to solve: One was that when the funding was in place, and everybody was able to take a leave for education with pay, firms that were not members of NHO would profit as much as NHO members from a better qualified population, but since they had not signed the agreement they did not have to pay the costs. But now this is solved, because today the Parliament of Norway has decided that everybody in Norway, at any age, has the right to go on to further education and return to their old position if the education does not last longer than three years. And this is going to be with some pay. Well, the funding is not there at this moment. But so many persons have put in so much prestige that it is going to come. Now I have been reading the text that was voted, and what happened was two things: Another piece in the puzzle to make real a lifelong education system was put in place. Today more than 90% of norwegians get at least 12 years of education and can without too much trouble qualify for university education. But that was not the case 30-40 years ago, when lots of people left the educational system after primary school. Many of them have during life learnt a lot without getting documents and exams. They too should be able to go to university if they would like to when the new system is in place without too much trouble, without spending many years getting exams if they have acquired the skills and knowledge necessary to enter university. And the new piece was a law about measuring qualifications needed to enter university studies which makes it a lot easier for persons who left the educational system after primary school if they during life have acquired the qualifications. Another thing that happened was that political parties representing a majority of the voters said that they are eager to get the whole system in place, and I guess this was the reason that media, both TV and radio etc told that now it is in place. Tor Forde
Re: The Taliban's War on Women
Don't do anything with this... The account at Brandeis where the petition goes has now been closed for a couple of weeks and the account holder has gone to ground. Rule of thumb: Anything that says "copy and forward to as many people as possible" should be shovelled into the bit bucket asap... M M On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Caspar Davis wrote: Please sign and pass on if you feel comfortable doing so: -Forwarded Message- Subject: Please sign and pass on. The Taliban's War on Women: Please sign at the bottom to support, and include your town. Then copy and e-mail to as many people as possible. If you receive this list with more than 50 names on it, please e-mail a copy of it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even if you decide not to sign, please be considerate and do not kill the petition. Thank you. It is best to copy rather than forward the petition. Melissa Buckheit - Brandeis University The government of Afghanistan is waging a war upon women. The situation is getting so bad that one person in an editorial of the times compared the treatment of women there to the treatment of Jews in pre-Holocaust Poland. Since the Taliban took power in 1996, women have had to wear burqua and have been beaten and stoned in public for not having the proper attire, even if this means simply not having the mesh covering in front of their eyes. One woman was beaten to DEATH by an angry mob of fundamentalists for accidentally exposing her arm while she was driving. Another was stoned todeath for trying to leave the country with a man that was not a relative. Women are not allowed to work or even go out in public without a male relative; professional women such as professors, translators, doctors, lawyers,artists and writers have been forced from their jobs and stuffed into their homes, so that depression is becoming so widespread that it has reached emergency levels. There is no way in such an extreme Islamic society to know the suicide rate with certainty, but relief workers are estimating that the suicide rate among women, who cannot find proper medication and treatment for severe depression and would rather take their lives than live in such conditions, has increased significantly. Homes where a woman is present must have their windows painted so that she can never be seen by outsiders. They must wear silent shoes so that they are never heard. Women live in fear of their lives for the slightest misbehavior. Because they cannot work, those without male relatives or husbands are either starving to death or begging on the street, even if they hold Ph.D.'s. There are almost no medical facilities available for women, and relief workers, in protest, have mostly left the country, taking medicine and psychologists and other things necessary to treat the sky-rocketing level of depression among women. At one of the rare hospitals for women, a reporter found still, nearly lifeless bodies lying motionless on top of beds, wrapped in their burqua, unwilling to speak, eat, or do anything, but slowly wasting away. Others have gone mad and were seen crouched in corners, perpetually rocking or crying, most of them in fear. One doctor is considering, when what little medication that is left finally runs out, leaving these women in front of the president's residence as a form of peaceful protest. It is at the point where the term 'human rights violations' has become an understatement. Husbands have the power of life and death over their women relatives, especially their wives, but an angry mob has just as much right to stone or beat a woman, often to death, for exposing an inch of flesh or offending them in the slightest way. David Cornwell has told me that we in the United States should not judge the Afghan people for such treatment because it is a 'cultural thing', but this is not even true. Women enjoyed relative freedom, to work, dress generally as they wanted, and drive and appear in public alone until only 1996 -- the rapidity of this transition is the main reason for the depression and suicide; women who were once educators or doctors or simply used to basic human freedoms are now severely restricted and treated as sub-human in the name of right-wing fundamentalist Islam. It is not their tradition or 'culture', but is alien to them, and it is extreme even for those cultures where fundamentalism is the rule. Besides, if we could excuse everything on cultural grounds, then we should not be appalled that the Carthaginians sacrificed their infant children, that little girls are circumcised in parts of Africa, that blacks in the deep south in the 1930's were lynched, prohibited from voting, and forced to submit to unjust Jim Crow laws. Everyone has a right to a tolerable human existence, even if they are women in a Muslim country in a part of the world that Americans do not understand. If we can threaten military force in Kosovo
Re: (Fwd) RE: (Fwd) How science is really done
But the "scientific" evaluation of how it works has all these metaphors and cultural assumptions embedded in it. They help determine what will be accepted as scientifically proven and what not. That is why Einstein repudiated statistical mechanics and Heisenberg accepted it. It had nothing to do with the experimental data, but with a deep philosophical difference of opinion on the nature of science and the scientifc method captured by Einsteins famous justification for repudiating statistical mechanics, that "God does not play dice with the universe." There is no empirical content in that statement. It is a statement of cultural values and belief. It is beliefs like that which shape how science is done and what is accepted as legitimate data and what not. Except that Einstein wasn't religious. And it doesn't matter what he thought - the majority of the scientist accepted the uncertainty /quantum stuff in a couple of decades, regardless of their cultural background, because there were more mounting evidence. Lots of scientists are religous and - for -me uncomprehensibly - manage to totally separate their irrational thinking from their rational thinking. For I think it needs a special self-delusion or, well, let's face it - hypocracy. Why did people cling to the Ptolemaic view of astronomy despite the contrary data from Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler and even when Copernicus came up with a theory which matched their data ? For the best part of two hundred years ? Because it meant giving up an entire cultural world view and all the social values and power structures that went with it. Common, the earth does look flat. People find it a tod more easy to believe it's roundness, when the circumnavigation becomes commonplace. Information got round in those days even slower then now... But yes, people need the evidence and a bit of motivation to go for new ideas. However at some point the evidence becomes so ovepowering, that the new idea becomes just another fact of life. Statistical mechanics presents a similar challenge. It rejects the simple mechanical cause and effect arguments of the industrial culture in which progress is a value free term and can no more be denied than the earth can be prevented from circling round the sun. Progress is the equivalent in classical and neo-classical economics to gravity in Newtonian Mechanics. It is an anonymous, unexplained external force which governs everything and has the force of scientific truth. The whole of classical and neoclassical economics apes the classical scientific model. If classical science goes, so does neo-classical economics. Just as statisical mechanics requires the development of a new science in which the interdependence of observer and observed has to be expressly defined, so must an economics be developed in which this value neutral position which apes the independence of observer and observed in classical science, is dumped and in which values and human cultural intentionality is integrated (something which I had the impression you favour). not if it implies that it's some sort of static natural law that we can't do anuything about. Eva Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: real-life example
Would someone help me on this. What was Neo-Corporatism in the 1930s? I've run across the term and have found no description. As for hiring your leaders, that is what most American cities do. The elect a mayor and hire a City Manager to run the place.It works pretty well but does not avoid the issues of pollution or loss of resources that you were complaining about in your past posts. Ray Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] This puts us at a dead end, which may also be your point. I don't like the idea of scientists running things. I've worked with too many of them. One of the best couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, but he could do wonders inside that bag. They really don't want to govern. Who's left? The Pope? The UN? The IOC? Basically, I am suggesting a new governing structure with specific goals -- something like a corporation under a constitution with checks and balances. The entire system would be based on merit -- not popularity contests. Suppose society decided the primary "goal" was for our kids to live long enough to retire. Obviously, this implies a functional society, which is a "technical" question -- somewhat like asking "How can I make the cooking fuel on my boat last the entire trip?" The logical way to proceed would be to the experts specific questions, and then "hire" -- not elect -- qualified "leaders" (CEOs) to lead us to explicit goals. If they fail to meet specific benchmarks, fire them and hire someone else. We do not need the 90 million Americans, who read below the 7th grade level, to make decisions. A constitution with checks-and-balances has done a fairly good job of looking after their welfare so far. We would need to build this kind of "protection" for the disadvantaged into a new system. Indeed, I suggest universal welfare at: http://dieoff.com/page168.htm The bottom line is we are out of time. Our political and economic systems are based on utopian nonsense left over from the enlightenment. It's time to invent new social systems for the new mellienum. Jay
Re: democracy
I hesitate to get involved since so much of this feels like talking past each other. In my business I deal with people from a lot of different language cultures and from cultures who use the same language but in different ways. Math and Physics are about the only languages possible in these situations and only because they are so relatively simple and linear. The other modes of communication demand more respect for life's experiences and a willingness to really find out what the other person means by what they have written. So an unambiguous fact about Democracy, is that Iceland has had one longer than any Western Country as was pointed out to me on this list last year. There are also many pure Democracies in traditional cultures around the world. They are however, remarkably weak militarily and usually small in numbers. We had several in this hemisphere with the "Cuna" in Panama being the oldest. It is generally considered to be a couple of thousand years old, although I don't know how they can tell. Their governmental form is the "town meeting" similar to the old New England version that the settlers took from the Quakers and the Iroquois Confederacy's "Great Law of Peace". It is my understanding that the Maori in New Zealand are also a pure Democracy but perhaps one of our New Zealand list members could help with that more than I. The problem of respect, compassion and tradition that allows people to leave each other alone to work out their lives and yet cooperate together governmentally is not insurmountable. You just have to be willing to agree that nothing will be perfect and that you committ yourself to the children that are to come at all costs. As for science and knowledge. Developing people's whole potential and sensitively dealing with the rigidity of that which is passing, in a positive manner, allows change to happen without the anger and destruction. Every group has something to offer and it is THAT truth that must always remain before us. Otherwise it is just a perpetual adolescence and we are condemned to always resent the young. REH Eva Durant wrote: I pointed out (often), that there are fundamental conditions for a proper working democracy, and these conditions did not exist in our history so far. Then the reasonable observer would conclude they never will. What about universal literacy? What about the technology to make information universally available and open for everyone? What about the capacity to produce all basic necessities in abundance? What about basic experience in democratic de- cisionmaking? To my knowledge, some of these conditions only existed for less than 100 years and on the others we are still working on. So, who is this reasonable observer? Eva Jay
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Ray E. Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] As for hiring your leaders, that is what most American cities do. The elect a mayor and hire a City Manager to run the place.It works pretty well but does not avoid the issues of pollution or loss of resources that you were complaining about in your past posts. Yes, I haven't put all the bits and pieces together so it sounds coherent. Right now we DO hire our leaders -- even the elected ones -- but with the wrong goals (make more money) and selection criteria (good for business). In brave new "Hansonland", corporations would not exist "to make a profit", they would only exist for specific purposes to serve the public good. It used to be that way. Leaders with specific qualifications would be hired for specific functions. The corporation is probably the right form, but it needs a different purpose. Maybe next year (if there is one) I will crank out a longer paper about Hansonland. Jay
Re: real-life example
Interesting but what would you do about initiative?That has been the problem with all of the "job" oriented labor in the communist and socialist countries or so goes the propaganda here about it.In my culture it is the Sacred, the family, the work (power) and the life of the imagination that is considered to fulfill one's destiny.If a person does not have work that is bad but it is also as bad for a person's work to lack the potential to challenge and develop their imagination and creativity. Most non-profit state organizations are only for the highly motivated, others need profit or they stagnate according to the dominant political theories. What do you think? REH Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Ray E. Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] As for hiring your leaders, that is what most American cities do. The elect a mayor and hire a City Manager to run the place.It works pretty well but does not avoid the issues of pollution or loss of resources that you were complaining about in your past posts. Yes, I haven't put all the bits and pieces together so it sounds coherent. Right now we DO hire our leaders -- even the elected ones -- but with the wrong goals (make more money) and selection criteria (good for business). In brave new "Hansonland", corporations would not exist "to make a profit", they would only exist for specific purposes to serve the public good. It used to be that way. Leaders with specific qualifications would be hired for specific functions. The corporation is probably the right form, but it needs a different purpose. Maybe next year (if there is one) I will crank out a longer paper about Hansonland. Jay
The Society of Sloth
- Original Message - From: Ray E. Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Interesting but what would you do about initiative?That has been the problem with all of the "job" oriented labor in the communist and socialist countries or so goes the propaganda here about it.In my culture it is the Sacred, the family, I propose to put 95% of the people on welfare -- the society of sloth. Here is a snip from http://dieoff.com/page168.htm -- Step one would be to establish a global government of some sort with the authority to protect the global commons our life-support system as well as protecting universal human rights. This government would also oversee the "clean" manufacturing of "repairable" and "reusable" energy-efficient appliances and transportation systems. It would also insure the sustainable production of staples like wheat, rice, oats, and fish. Does this new global government sound repressive or restrictive? Not at all. A great deal of freedom is possible in fact, far more than we have now. eMERGY CERTIFICATES Step two would be to replace the organizing principle of "avarice" with the principle of "sloth"; break out of the money-market-advertising-consumption death trap. The Society of Sloth would not be based on money because that would be inherently unsustainable. Instead, it would be based on "eMergy Certificates". [37] Global government would determine the "needs" of the public, set industrial production accordingly, and calculate the amount of eMergy used to meet these needs. Government would then distribute purchasing power in the form of eMergy certificates, the amount issued to each person being equivalent to his pro rata share of the eMergy cost of the consumer goods and services. eMergy certificates bear the identification of the person to whom issued and are non-negotiable. They resemble a bank check in that they bear no face denomination, this being entered at the time of spending. They are surrendered upon the purchase of goods or services at any center of distribution and are permanently canceled, becoming entries in a uniform accounting system. Being non-negotiable they cannot be lost, stolen, gambled, or given away because they are invalid in the hands of any person other than the one to whom issued. Lost eMergy certificates would be easily replaced. Certificates can not be saved because they become void at the termination of the two-year period for which they are issued. They can only be spent. Insecurity of old age is abolished and both saving and insurance become unnecessary and impossible. eMergy Certificates would put absolute limits on consumption and provide people with a guaranteed stream of "needs" for life. With modern technology, probably less than 5% of the population could produce all the goods we really "need". A certain number of "producers" could be drafted and trained by society to produce for two years. The rest can stay home and sleep, sing, dance, paint, read, write, pray, play, do minor repairs, work in the garden, and practice birth control. SELF-DETERMINATION Any number of cultural, ethnic or religious communities could be established by popular vote. Religious communities could have public prayer in their schools, prohibit booze, allow no television to corrupt their kids, wear uniforms, whatever. Communities of writers or painters could be established in which bad taste would be against the law. Ethnic communities could be established to preserve language and customs. If someone didnt like the rules in a particular community, they could move to another religious, cultural, or ethnic community of their choosing. In short, the one big freedom that individuals would have to give up would be the freedom to destroy the commons (in its broadest sense) the freedom to kill. And in return, they would be given a guaranteed income for life and the freedom to live almost any way they choose. For the references, see http://dieoff.com/page168.htm Jay
