So, Pres. Biden and the U.N. and every futurist NGO are all setting up AI Advisory Councils and such, while the functional branch of Congress - the Senate (barely functional, a little) - holds hearings... and sage conferences feature hand-wringing jeremiads by many of the very same geniuses who seem so surprised that their cyber-invented entities are behaving so cantankerously! I posted about many aspects of this 'crisis' in my previous posting here. Let me now add a writeup on my 2017 speech that accurately (to the month) predicted (almost to the very month) when we'd face our "First AI Empathy Crisis." And many other aspects of the AI worry-fest that now surges all over.
And yet, despite cyber advances, it is way premature to write off the bio-organic world! Especially as it manifests in human brains... and minds. So let's dive into another bioscience roundup!
Starting with those vaunted neural networks made of squishy wet stuff.
== Brain & neuroscience ==
Can we begin with one more prediction cred? Even back in Earth (1991) I said that neurons alone could not be doing all the processing in the brain. First off, glial and astrocyte cells had to be doing more than just ‘support.”
Now comes news… “Previously, glial cells, especially astrocytes, were believed to merely support neuron functions. However, recent research highlights the ability of these cells to release neurotransmitters and directly influence neural circuits.” And probably much more!
An amazingly cool article about brain loci of memory and imagination! Where does imagination live in your brain?
Oxford researchers are developing a 3D printing method that could engineer cerebral cortex tissue to repair brain injuries.
And here's fascinating article about the brain-roots of both memory and imagination. Starting with the hippocampus and rats, we arrive at: “It’s amazing that we’re not all psychotic all the time, that we’re not all delusional, because our brains are clearly making stuff up a lot of the time about things that could be.” Clearly this researcher needs to get out and see the level of delusion in politics
Researchers have identified about 200 patients with hidden autoimmune diseases that had profound psychological effects, some institutionalized for years, A woman who has been comatose for two decades was awakened when her Lupus was discovered and treated. Fascinating tale and yes, a strong parallel with Oliver Sacks and Awakenings.
A common genus of microbe found in wet, boggy environments could play a key role in the development of Parkinson's disease.
== Biotech updates ==
The completed human genome lacked one piece, the Y chromosome. That’s finally done, with some surprises. For one, Y chromosomes were vastly different sizes, ranging from 45.2 million to 84.9 million base pairs in length. A year or two ago we also improved knowledge of past “Y bottlenecks,’ when apparently only small numbers of males got to reproduce. (That event becomes even more striking, the closer we look! It apparently happened across a very wide area, and during a particular era of transition to intense agriculture, but before large towns. And this has many implications that we might discuss in comments.)
Want more? Well, some of the genes that enable the naked mole rat to get exceptional longevity (for a rodent) have been transferred to mice with positive results on lifespan "and there are hopes to apply these results to humans." Yeah, well don’t get excited. Longevity results in mice hardly ever translate into human span-extensions, for a simple reason that I describe here.
For the first time, researchers have observed the beginnings of photosynthesis, starting with a single photon.
A Chinese team’s extreme animal gene experiment may lead to super soldiers who survive nuclear fallout, they assert. Modified human embryonic stem cells showed high resistance against radiation, according to paper by the Beijing Academy of Military Sciences.
Unlike many other species, gorillas seem to be remarkably resilient to early-life adversity or even trauma. Researchers examined whether each animal experienced any of six types of early-life adversity before age six, including losing their mom or dad, living through group instability or witnessing the infanticide of a fellow young animal. If the gorilla lived past six, its life prospects were no worse than any other.
== Tech & physics updates ==
Brian Keating's latest "Into the Impossible" episode offers terrific perspectives on J Robert Oppenheimer, in light of the recent film. My own comments on the flick were posted here, a week or so ago.
Albert Einstein in his General theory of Relativity more than a hundred years ago, said that antimatter should behave just like matter in a gravitational field, and fall downwards. Researchers at Cern have now confirmed that Einstein was right; by carefully constructing thousands of atoms of anti-hydrogen and then letting them fall. Cool stuff? Well…
DARPA is funding another look at MHD propulsion for submarines - as in The Hunt For Red October.
Wind Wings sails are made from the same materials as windmill blades, but operate as rigid sails on a few freighters. They are designed to cut fuel consumption and therefore shipping's carbon footprint. I was an investor in an earlier (now alas defunct) avatar of this company. I hope this version does good for the world.
And finally...
For those of you near retirement or looking for a side bennie-gig, there is of course the Peace Corps and similar entities. Take "Engineers Without Borders" modeled on the more famous Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières. One member of this community worked from them years ago, and designed a sewer line for a village in Rwanda, from the comfort of his home.
And yes, I'll soon be nagging you about "proxy activism" or how you can live up to your beliefs and wishes for the world, at minimal cost and discomfort, by joining NGOs who will save the world for you!
Proxy Activism, the power of joining! It's getting to that time of year. I hope when I issue the annual nag, many of you will go to comments and chime in: "Already done, David! Here are MY five proxy groups using my dues to help make things better!"
249 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 249 of 249Y'all are very welcome to think what you like of people who run for office, but I find statements that Stein voters shouldn't vote for Stein to be more than irritating. I get how the system works, but it is incumbent on you all to persuade them to save our democracy. That means actively CHOOSING to save it rather than complain about the rules we use for choosing.
I'm all for ranked-choice. Push for it in your home states. Those of you who have it already, help out the rest of us.
However, if you don't like how someone might choose, get off your butt and persuade them. It's the same job as peeling away the sane aunts and cousins from the direct opponent, but with a different argument.
———
Remember, I vote third party not because I think the other two are equivalent. The obviously aren't. I vote my way because I WANT what I want. I can be persuaded to defend our democracy, but I'll blow raspberries at anyone who argues I should vote for something I DON'T want.
Larry,
Therefore, anything that keeps power away from Republicans is good.
I don't accept that.
There are worse things we could do to our institutions.
Alfred
As an engineer I am surprised about your attitude
YES - push for a better voting system but you fight the war with the army you have
Always vote for the lesser of two evils
ONCE you have a better system THEN you can choose
You can't use tomorrows "machine" to fix todays problem
Alan Brooks:
What is a "harmless social democratic vegetarian cat fancier"? Is that a fancier of harmless social democratic vegetarian cats?
I can imagine, with difficulty, a harmless cat; and maybe even a social democratic cat; but a vegetarian cat is beyond me.
Dr. Brin,
One thing I find particularly good about that book is that the author makes it very clear where she is explaining the science and where she is coming up with her own speculations. Hopefully some of those speculations will inspire some future experimental testing.
A lot of her argument about the bottleneck boils down to how our ancestors might have responded to having trouble reaching Minimum Viable Population. It's a complex argument that I would be happy to discuss, if I can remember it. That's the problem with listening to books instead of reading them. They don't take up space on your shelf, but when you need to hunt down a good quote or review a section, finding it is a total pain, especially if it's on Audible. Audible doesn't let you navigate at all, except to back up or go forward in 30 second intervals. Das ist ein schmerz in die Gesass!
Paul SB
@Larry This is the video I was referring to ('Bloodlines'). It was intended for the mid-term elections in 2022 rather than 2020.
Your mission is to make the 'low information voter' an endangered species.
Update: What is a timeline? sez Mr Musk. Seems I was looking at a repost of something LP tweeted just after the Insurrection attempt. Anyway, enjoy(?)
Minimum Viable Population
We have "Experimental evidence"
Somewhere about 70 Polynesian islanders were marooned on the islands that are now New Zealand in about 1100AD
We know that there was no backward and forwards communication as their "toolkit" of plants and animals had major holes - the most obvious and delicious being the pig
When Europeans arrived about 500 years later there were over 100,000 Maori
So the "Minimum Viable Population" is less than 70!
I find it remarkable that there was no contact with other Polynesians in 500 years (other than the Chatham Group) I wonder why that might be.
Duncan,
What you describe encourages stasis. We are talking more about tanked choice BECAUSE people are voting for what they want.
What you describe is also a choice about winning. That’s not the point of voting for how we govern ourselves.
Tony Fisk
New Zealand is a LONG way from the Polynesian Islands - the nearest are 3,000 km away - and that is just one small group
The Atlantic is only 5,000 km across
The Polynesians did some long distances but it was mostly by Island hopping and it was in the Tropical waters - NZ is well out of the tropics
Alfred
As an engineer I am more interested in making things work
Your idea seems more like a work placard I remember
Don't let the perfect become an enemy to the better
If you don't WIN you cannot change anything !!!
If I don’t vote for what I want I don’t win either.
Two party systems have their ‘third’ parties wrapped under umbrellas. It’s not hard to give me something I want the win my vote, but it is very easy to make it sound like a necessity so one doesn’t lose more. Y’all can do better than that. And should. I know at least one Stein voter.
@duncan Tonga and Fiji are more like 2000 km to the North, and there are a couple of stopping points on the way. A long way, sure, but not beyond Poly-tech.
Having read the wikipedia entry, I am sceptical that Maori came from one group of 70 castaways.
Alan Brooks:
It was seven frigging years ago,
the statute of limitations has expired;
Dude, no one is on your case except your own guilty conscience.
Just don't do it again. :)
@Larry Hart
Sorry for mangling the 'Stein + Moms' posts earlier. I meant to have Dr. Brin's and your words as separate thoughts, but I failed badly.
Re: Minimum Viable Population
It may not simply be a number. Diversity is a treasure buried deep within our DNA. All kinds of critters and adaptations are squirreled away in there for a rainy day. Also, human psychology/sociology adds a whole new dimension. Without going all Gaia, there's also the strange new world that NZ offered. As Malcolm said in Jurassic Park, "Life finds a way".
Alfred Differ:
Remember, I vote third party not because I think the other two are equivalent. The obviously aren't. I vote my way because I WANT what I want. I can be persuaded to defend our democracy, but I'll blow raspberries at anyone who argues I should vote for something I DON'T want.
Usually, you come across as the practical one while I stubbornly refuse to let go of a cherished ideal. On this matter, we seem to have switched roles.
I'm not arguing that the situation we're in today is always the case, but lately we've been in a situation where it is more important to have a particular candidate lose than to have a particular candidate win. That's been true for both sides, btw. For most Wisconsin voters in 2016 (as one example), Hillary voters and Stein voters, Trump was likely the candidate they least wanted to win. But by splitting their vote, the real world effect was that Trump won. The flaw in the system is that there is no method of indicating a vote for defeat of a candidate, even though in 2016 and 2020 and again in 2024, that's what most voters will be trying to accomplish.
I'd be happy with instant runoff voting, which kind of allows you to do both things. But that's not where most of us are.
Y'all are very welcome to think what you like of people who run for office, but I find statements that Stein voters shouldn't vote for Stein to be more than irritating.
Well, Stein is a special case in this, because it's not just a matter of her being a spoiler. Nader voters most likely preferred Nader as a candidate, as unlikely it was for him to actually win a state. Stein voters who like her as more progressive than Hillary might be being played if she's a Putin operative. Raising that point with evidence is something different from simply telling people to vote my way instead of their own way.
I get how the system works, but it is incumbent on you all to persuade them to save our democracy.
What do you think I am trying to do? You just don't accept the argument I use to persuade.
That means actively CHOOSING to save it rather than complain about the rules we use for choosing.
There's a fine line between activism for change and "complaining".
As kids, we learn that democracy means "majority wins", and that is true for the electoral vote and for the House electing a speaker (to name two such instances). "More votes than any of the others" doesn't cut it--to win those elections, you need "more votes for than against."
That is not so in state elections for presidential electoral votes. A candidate who gets 30% of the vote can acquire all of the state's electoral votes as long as there are enough other candidates that no single one of them beats his 30%. To me this disparity--a candidate who doesn't win a majority of popular votes nonetheless captures all of the state's electoral votes--is the root cause of what I consider a problem.
I'm all for ranked-choice. Push for it in your home states. Those of you who have it already, help out the rest of us.
Well, Biden won (and will win) in California and Illinois in either case. The problem is that where ranked choice voting is most needed are in states where the voters skew Democratic but the gerrymandered legislatures are controlled by Republicans. They're not going to change the rules to our liking.
continuing...
Alfred Differ continued...
Remember, I vote third party not because I think the other two are equivalent. The obviously aren't. I vote my way because I WANT what I want. I can be persuaded to defend our democracy, but I'll blow raspberries at anyone who argues I should vote for something I DON'T want.
If satisfying your id is more important than who actually becomes president, decides foreign policy, and appoints judges, then I probably can't change your mind, except maybe by pointing out that acting on impulse is going to produce the opposite effect of what you want.
"Therefore, anything that keeps power away from Republicans is good."
I don't accept that.
There are worse things we could do to our institutions.
I'm speaking for this particular moment in time and this particular incarnation of the Republican Party. They will do those worse things if we give them the tools.
If I said in 1932 that anything to keep Nazis out of power is good, would you have responded with "There are worse things." I would have countered with "How could it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah!"
Tony
As far as the Maori are concerned the elephant in the room is the pig
Pigs are a core part of Polynesian life - The Polynesians took their toolkit with them to every island they colonised - the single exception is NZ - no pigs
If they had any form of backwards and forwards communication THEN they would have taken pigs -
No pigs means no backwards/forwards communication
The Maoris (despite their oral history) were castaways - once they arrived they did NOT go back
There may have been several "maroonings" - but the numbers were about the same
There were no large movements of people - boats that went south from the settlements on Tonga just disappeared in the ocean
Which does NOT encourage a lot of others to follow suit
Oral traditions
Wonderful example - the Moa were hunted on an almost industrial scale - we have found some of the camps that were used to exploit this wealth
When the Europeans found Moa bones and asked about them the "Oral History" had forgotten them!! - about 200 years and forgotten
That IMHO provides a "measure" of how accurate "Oral traditions" are
Tony: “ find it remarkable that there was no contact with other Polynesians in 500 years (other than the Chatham Group) I wonder why that might be.”
Life was very easy at first. Just poke a Moa with a pointed stick. They aimed their attention landward and forgot seafaring.
Re Stein…. Saying “I pull out of six battleground states”. *IS* a form of preferential ballot. Crude, but it lets her (of Nader) flex muscles and demand some kind of political payment from Hillary (or Gore). It WAS suggested by some desperate negotiators and utterly rejections. THAT is why I am convince both of them are at best preening monsters and more likely controlled enemy shills.
Larry,
…lately we've been in a situation where it is more important to have a particular candidate lose than to have a particular candidate win.
That is how it is pitched. Often. LBJ's campaign against Goldwater involved images of nuclear weapons detonating. This kind of campaign isn't new and isn't even limited to democracies. Fight for your faith or be forced into practices that will damn you to Hell! See?
It's not about Stein or any particular candidate. My point is that when you vote like that you surrender some of your power to those who would orchestrate your emotional dance. How many CSA soldiers fought for honor only to find themselves hooked into a fight for plantation owners who managed to wriggle out of serving in the war at all?
I don't like being played.
———
Stein voters who like her as more progressive than Hillary might be being played if she's a Putin operative. Raising that point with evidence is something different from simply telling people to vote my way instead of their own way.
Exactly. I'm generally for how our host does this. Put the evidence out there to convince us that Stein is an agent. I'll look. If I decide she's a fool instead, though, that's going to be my judgement… against her. Not necessarily those who vote for her because she wouldn't be the first fool people prefer.
What do you think I am trying to do?
From where I sit it looks like you are complaining about how people have preferences that split the vote. That's not fair of you, so I'm irritated. Instead, if you were trying to influence those preferences to eliminate the split, that's a very different thing. If your influence aimed to be positive instead of mushroom cloud analogs, I'd be perfectly fine with it even if we didn't otherwise agree on what to do.
"Don't split the vote" is very different from "Save our Democracy".
———
A candidate who gets 30% of the vote can acquire all of the state's electoral votes as long as there are enough other candidates that no single one of them beats his 30%.
Are you doing anything about this in Illinois? If so, I'll shut up. If not, I'll point out that a lot of people don't fight a flaw that currently serves them even when that flaw is a kind of cancer. Ranked Choice voting is needed EVERYWHERE and those of us in big states can serve as examples of The-Right-Thing-To-Do.
Larry, (cont'd)
If satisfying your id is more important than…
Ha! Well… you are talking to a guy who leans Libertarian. That is a distinct possibility.
However… In this case… I think I have the better motive.
———
As yourself two questions.
1. Why do you vote?
2. Why do you protect the claims others have to a right to vote?
If the objective is to win, you should be all for #1 and opposed to #2 for those who might oppose you... but I'll bet you aren't. I'll bet you defend both your own claim and others. If so, your belief is far from practical.
My idealism is about pragmatism. I've thought about WHY I do both #1 and #2 and find it only works right if we are adamant about retaining ALL of our franchise power.
Tolerating mushroom cloud campaigns is a terrible idea. It leads us to believe it is more important for the other guy to lose than it is for us to chose who we want to govern.
———
If I said in 1932 that anything to keep Nazis out of power is good, would you have responded with "There are worse things." I would have countered with "How could it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah!"
Well… there ARE worse things. We could have done nothing. Odds are very high the Nazi's would have collapsed under their own weight. Eventually. We could have waited them out, but there'd be no Jews left in the Old World and precious few anywhere else. We would have also made it clear to the world that we don't give a f#$k about them. How's that for worse?
@Duncan Fair point about the pigs. So why didn't they have any? (they clearly had women!)
This lack of preparedness could be said to extend to the lapse in oral tradition re moas (which is seen to be a very reliable craft in other cultures)
@David They clearly didn't completely forget about sea-faring, as there is evidence of landfall further South in the Auckland Is.
A riddle, shrouded in mystery.
When some MAGAloon goes after an officer of the court, will the Very Stable Clairvoyant 215lb Genius get the same punishment Henry II got?
Tony
They almost certainly retained some seafaring capacity - they Colonised the Chatham islands that are about 800km from South Island
But they did that ONCE - and the Chatham islanders (Moriori) became peaceful (because they were left alone) and were brutalised by the mainland Maoris when European ships were able to take an invading force
I suspect its more as OGH says - sailing out 3,000km to a "homeland" that had probably kicked them out and was already full when there was massive amounts of food just waiting to be eaten and lots of space was not a good enough idea to get the huge levels of resources dedicated to it that it would have needed
Alfred Differ:
"If satisfying your id is more important than…"
Ha! Well… you are talking to a guy who leans Libertarian. That is a distinct possibility.
That wasn't meant primarily as an insult, although I realized it kinda was one. I was responding to your declaration that "I want what I want", which seemed to me very id-thing to say.
I'm trying to appeal to your ego instead--the part of consciousness which understands not only what it wants, but the tactics that will best bring that outcome about and the tactics which are more likely counterproductive.
From where I sit it looks like you are complaining about how people have preferences that split the vote. That's not fair of you, so I'm irritated.
If all you perceive is me complaining then why not just ignore it. What's it to you?
If your influence aimed to be positive instead of mushroom cloud analogs, I'd be perfectly fine with it even if we didn't otherwise agree on what to do.
I thought I was attempting a positive influence, but I'm not a very good influencer in general. I come across as off-putting. The best I hope for these days is to bring someone who is a good influencer over to my way of thinking.
The difference between positive desires and mushroom-cloud fears is a bit subjective, though. Emphasizing that a Democratic presidency means competent civil servants, cabinet members, and judges is a positive, but it also comes off as a dig against the Trumpist Republican Party. It is indeed a dig, because in the past, a vote for a Republican wouldn't necessarily have been a vote against competent government, but in 2020 and in 2024, it is.
The vote for competent democracy over thuggish autocracy is the vote I don't want to see split. Do you really think that it's an unfair tactic to mention why that vote is important?
Ranked Choice voting is needed EVERYWHERE and those of us in big states can serve as examples of The-Right-Thing-To-Do.
I'll grant that it would set a good example for Illinois to adopt ranked choice voting. My point was only that the current flawed system wasn't affecting the outcome in Illinois the way it would in Wisconsin. I wasn't insisting on not implementing RCV here.
I will point out that RCV wouldn't help third party candidates win. It would help people like you vote for your favorite candidate without helping your least favorite to win. But the Democrat would have won Illinois under either system, and if something drastic changed (it has happened before) the Republican would win. The "winner take all" allocation of electoral votes is as much a culprit as anything else. For a third party to win any electoral votes, some form of proportional representation would be necessary.
"If I said in 1932 that anything to keep Nazis out of power is good, ..."
Well… there ARE worse things. We could have done nothing. ...How's that for worse?
Heh. I know I didn't make this clear, but I meant from the POV of anti-Nazi Germans that keeping Nazis out of power would have been more important than any specific policy disagreements among other parties. I wasn't thinking about what actions the US should or should not have taken at that time.
Re: oral tradition
J. Diamond made the point that skills are not easily retained orally - the example given was an island settled in an early wave of Polynesian expansion that was all coral. When settlers from that island pushed on to a further, volcanic island that had basalt outcroppings, the new islanders did not make use of this new source of high-quality stone tools. I suspect that after the Easter Islanders cut down all their large trees - and we do mean all here - they lost the skill to build large, ocean-going vessels a generation after the raw material source was wiped out. No going home - it's a trap.
Pappenheimer
P.S. LH / AD
There was widespread opposition to the Nazis in the 20's but it was indeed fragmented. Larry's strong point is that Germans at the time followed Alfred's advice somewhat and voted their preferences rather than against the Apocalyptic. (Even at the time it was obvious to many, if not most, that the Nazis were a 'revenge' party intent of rearming to refight WWI.)
P.P.S. high-grade industrial diamonds were (and are) key to military industry, and the Allies tried to cut off Germany from its major diamond source, Africa. IIRC, even though most of the diamond-producing countries were in Allied control, the diamonds still got through. IIRC the easiest transshipment point was Switzerland. War is indeed good for some people's bottom lines.
If Goldwater was an existential threat; if Trump is an existential threat, we have to ‘tell’ others how to vote. Next year, I’m going to say to voters who plan to vote for someone other than the Dem potus candidate:
“It’s on your head.”
Such is fair game.
Correction: cat-fancier.
People are always on each others’ case.
Larry wrote:
I will point out that RCV wouldn't help third party candidates win.
That's not entirely true. It wouldn't guarantee they win, and it likely wouldn't result in them winning higher level offices often in the short term. But what it would allow is for third parties to build enough of a following to become a more serious force in elections, and possibly for the kinds of party shuffles that keep being hoped for to be more possible.
Right now it's very difficult to get a true signal from the voting public about their preferences, because voting is such a binary choice for most people by necessity of our current system. With RCV, people can express their preferences in a way that doesn't harm their second choices, which can eventually result in those preferences having a more serious shot at winning, or which could force the more entrenched parties to actually pay more attention to those voters.
The hardest part about RCV is that because it does by its nature make it more possible for the big two parties to lose their power over the electorate, neither one is particularly enthused about supporting it, so the bulk of the support has to come from pressure outside the parties themselves. There is more support in the Democratic party than the Republican party for RCV, but neither party has made it a priority. Gavin Newsom vetoed a ranked choice bill in CA, which bugs me enough that if I had a reasonable alternative to him I'd totally vote for them instead.
Personally what frustrates me about how third parties seem to function in our elections currently, is that they only seem to get attention when they run for president, as an alternative to the two options that stand a chance at winning (until we rework the electoral college in some way), so acting as a spoiler on a grand scale is the primary impact. For a third party to really establish themselves, they need to build at the lower offices and get enough of a base that they can actually have an impact.
Oral History
As well as the Maori and the Moa I remember reading about "oral history" where the "history" was traced to some lessons that a European gave - 30 years later they were part of the "oral tradition"
I can completely understand that
When I was working in industry my team got downhearted - we did not seem to be making any progress
But we were making steps - the problem is that a couple of weeks after we implemented an improvement it became "normal" - in a couple of months "we have always done it that way"
I can easily see how "Oral History" will be auto-updating
Most of the "accuracy" of oral history is AFTER said history has changed to match the facts
Larry,
I'm trying to appeal to your ego instead—
My tactical mind says I need people like you making the 'negative vote' argument so I can point out how that doesn't move people to be positive about their future. It feeds the very fear mongering many of us hate to see happening.
I'd rather it wasn't you being that example. You've demonstrated a positive outlook on life which I think does more to move people than a whole boatload of negativity. So, when considering the example you set for the people who see you (like co-workers), I encourage twisting a little bit to rephrase things.
———
For example:
Vote for anyone who can win so we defeat thuggish autocracy.
VS
Can we agree to defeat thuggish autocracy this time and then maybe over a beer figure out what to address next? The one we both support will have to pay at least some attention to both of us.
The second one turns a 'lesser of evils' choice into an alliance offer. It's the one that moves me to side with some of you who around here who lean strongly progressive and don't mind picking my pocket. As long as I'm not mistreated later, I can be made into an ally now. For conflicts involving points upon which we agree, that produces the same result as 'lesser of evils' but in a way that makes it clear to anyone watching us WHY we defend each other's franchise.
———
…but I meant from the POV of anti-Nazi Germans…
Oh. That makes more sense now, but consider how they did NOT see alliance with each other as more important as evidence for why I think it is so important to remind people why we defend each other's franchise (in the narrow case) and liberty (in the general case.) They did NOT stop the Nazi's, so they obviously didn't see each other as possible allies. We should.
———
I will point out that RCV wouldn't help third party candidates win.
I should hope not. All I ask is for the system to capture what people want to happen instead of what they want to prevent. No system would do that perfectly, but incremental improvement in that direction is an unqualified Good.
It would also help us eliminate our over-reliance on biased pre-election polling to know what we are thinking. There would be more information in vote statistics which feed the models for how the next one will turn out.
Cari Burstein,
For a third party to really establish themselves, they need to build at the lower offices and get enough of a base that they can actually have an impact.
Agreed. That's what my county level libertarian party is doing lately. Most of the visible messaging comes from state and national level people, but the grunts at the county level focus on county offices. They are/were even savvy enough to ask candidates if they wanted to be visibly endorsed since that can actually lose votes in some cases.
I'm not opposed to running third party candidates for higher offices, but I think the embarrassment of losing with less than 1% of the vote should discourage us. Anyone pulling numbers like that and not feeling at least partially embarrassed likely isn't someone we should trust with the power of the office.
For local offices we fare better and even give people a chance to see that we aren't all batsh*t crazy.
One thing about voting in FPTP systems...
If your elections are ranked-choice, then it is entirely reasonable to rank your votes in your personal order of preference. You can "vote for what you really want" and secondarily vote for "what you can accept".
But if your elections are not ranked-choice, but FPTP, then your voting nonetheless practically presents a "revealed" preference.
That is, if you vote in an election where the winner will be either Party Y or Party Z, and your preference ranking is:
1. Party X
2. Party Y
3. Party Z
Then by voting for "Party X", the preference revealed by your vote is actually:
1. Party X
2. Party Z
3. Party Y
That is, by choosing to take a vote away from Party Y, you are indicating that you would prefer Party Z to win rather than Party Y.
This may be fine if you are convinced that there is no real difference between Party Y and Party Z (something that some have argued in the past), or that supporting Party X is more important than who wins, but nonetheless the practical effect of your vote is to indicate a preference for Party Z over Party Y.
Alan Brooks:
If Goldwater was an existential threat; if Trump is an existential threat, we have to ‘tell’ others how to vote.
"Telling" others how to vote is exactly what Alfred reacts against. To continue the Freudian analogue, it comes across as superego-like. Or schoolmarmish.
What I do try to impart is the inevitable consequences of voting a certain way.
Next year, I’m going to say to voters who plan to vote for someone other than the Dem potus candidate:
“It’s on your head.”
Such is fair game.
Getting to say "I told you so," is a poor consolation prize for losing democracy, but I will avail myself of it because I'm just that petty. That's for people who won't vote for Biden because he's not liberal enough after they help Trump get elected. For those who honestly believe there's no difference, or that Trump has his good points after all, that would be like water off a duck's back.
* * *
Cari Burstein:
"I will point out that RCV wouldn't help third party candidates win."
That's not entirely true.
...
But what it would allow is for third parties to build enough of a following to become a more serious force in elections, a
Quite right. I meant it wouldn't help them win right away.
gregory byshenk:
That is, by choosing to take a vote away from Party Y, you are indicating that you would prefer Party Z to win rather than Party Y.
In baseball standings terms, if a liberal votes for someone other than the Democrat, he's giving half a game to the Republicans. He's not giving the Republicans a win, but he's costing the Democrat a loss. That's not as bad as giving a whole game to the Republican--giving the R a win and the D a loss--but it's half as bad.
In 2016, it was believable for such voters that Hillary was untrustworthy and Trump might be a breath of fresh air. In 2024, that is not plausible. Anyone who is ok with Trump winning knows what it is that they're ok with. If they complain about Trump afterwards, I'll join with Alfred in saying they have no standing to do so.
I see some merit in a system in which the candidates themselves get to voluntarily pool their votes until one has a majority. So Nader could have given Gore his votes in Florida in exchange for promises of policy concessions or a position of influence in the administration.
That's sort of like Ranked Choice Voting except that it's the candidates themselves bargaining for second and third choice votes. The benefit being that they could do actual horse-trading for the votes in which the smaller party gets real concessions in exchange for its political support.
It would also demonstrate whether Jill Stein is an idealist or a Putin agent. Watch who she gives her votes to.
Alfred Differ:
"…but I meant from the POV of anti-Nazi Germans…"
Oh. That makes more sense now, but consider how they did NOT see alliance with each other as more important as evidence for why I think it is so important to remind people why we defend each other's franchise
From what I've read, they saw Hitler as an ally, or at least a soldier, against the other guys. He'll get rid of the communists. He'll take back from the aristos for the workers. And of course, he'll show those pesky Jews what's what.
I hear some of that sort of rhetoric about Trump. He's an uncouth boor, but he stands for Christian values. He'll not tolerate uppity minorities. He's for the working man against the corporations and deep state. Voters who are fine with fascist autocracy because they don't imagine that it will be turned against them.
The mainstream news media even seem to think that Trump is good for ratings. That while he's saying out loud that they are the enemies of the people who he will prosecute once in office.
so they obviously didn't see each other as possible allies. We should.
I do. And I worry when I'm losing you as an ally.
Ok, sometimes over-the-top hyperbole is just hilarious...
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Nov14-6.html
[Texas congressman Pat] Fallon is only 55. He could serve another 30 years, easily. Why is he leaving a cushy job that requires no actual work and pays $174,000/year? He plans to run for the Texas Senate seat he once held. Get this: The members' own regard for the House is so low that at least one member regards serving in a state legislature as a promotion.
Now, the funny part:
This is not only man bites dog, but man repeatedly bites fleeing dog and chases it to bite some more until the dog screams for mercy and the man keeps biting. And when the dog catcher grabs him, he starts biting the dog catcher until the dog catcher flees so the man can continue biting the dog.
OMG.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/12/opinion/ohio-abortion-republicans.html
In the eight years since the so-called New Right emerged on the scene and Trump began to dominate the Republican landscape, the Republican Party has become less libertarian but more libertine, and libertinism is ultimately incompatible with a holistic pro-life worldview.
See, the reason anti-abortion is a losing issue even in red states is that Trump Republicans have become too permissive.
I’m not arguing that the pro-choice position is inherently libertine. There are many millions of Americans — including pro-choice Republicans — who arrive at their position through genuine philosophical disagreement with the idea that an unborn child possesses the same inherent worth as anyone else. But I’ve seen Republican libertinism with my own eyes. I know that it distorts the culture of the Republican Party and red America.
So he generously acknowledges that some of us, including some Republicans, in fact think a unborn child has less worth than the rest of us. Not, y'know, that some of us think a woman has equal worth to the rest of us, and that her life and health are part of the equation.
Concern over a ten year old rape victim being forced to carry to term is not primarily about the worth of the fetus.
The difference between libertarianism and libertinism can be summed up as the difference between rights and desires. A libertarian is concerned with her own liberty but also knows that this liberty ends where yours begins.
In theory, maybe. I haven't heard a big-L Libertarian yet who would consent to his own liberty being constrained by that of others in any way. And Alfred is the only small-l libertarian I know who might agree with that condition.
A healthy libertarianism can still be individualistic, but it’s also deeply concerned with both personal virtue and the rights of others.
This guy hasn't read Ayn Rand, I take it.
A libertine, by contrast, is dominated by his desires. The object of his life is to do what he wants, and the object of politics is to give him what he wants. A libertarian is concerned with all forms of state coercion. A libertine rejects any attempt to coerce him personally, but he’s happy to coerce others if it gives him what he wants.
So let me get this straight. The anti-abortion forces reject coercion of others to get what they want, even as they try to pass state and federal laws forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term in peril of her life and health. While those who push for women to be free to make their own medical decisions--some like me who will never be pregnant myself--don't recognize the rights and dignity of others?
We are well into 1984 doublethink here.
The attraction of Rank Choice voting only STARTS with #1 offering folks a chance to both vote FOR their favorite and AGAINST their most disliked. There's another vital point that then emerges organically from #1.
Because of #1, the third party candidate emerges with a LOT more first round votes, so that her/his movement gains credibility and will get more attention, next round. That attention might lead eventually to a victory. Or else... far sooner... to policy concessions by one or the other leading party candidates. Perhaps inclusion of some staff members or advisors from the 3rd party candidate.
In other words, it can be a method for coalitions - kinda like in a parliamentary system - and policy compromises.
And yes, both Nader & Stein coulda got that, in exchange for keeping out of FL, PA, WI and so on. That they did not reflects AT BEST stupidity and delusion... at-bets. I lean toward a far worse interpretation.
“ IIRC the easiest transshipment point was Switzerland. War is indeed good for some people's bottom lines.”
As I savaged in EARTH! (Just finished the rewrite for a new edition.)
“Personally what frustrates me about how third parties seem to function in our elections currently, is that they only seem to get attention when they run for president”
The January 6 "shaman' is now running for office as a libertarian.
“I’m not arguing that the pro-choice position is inherently libertine. There are many millions of Americans — including pro-choice Republicans — who arrive at their position through genuine philosophical disagreement with the idea that an unborn child possesses the same inherent worth as anyone else. But I’ve seen Republican libertinism with my own eyes. I know that it distorts the culture of the Republican Party and red America.”
Again and again. Reds qualify as 'libertine' in the other meaning of the word.
If we set aside Utah and Illinois as outliers (or even if we don’t) average rates of almost every turpitude are far higher across Red-run states than Blue-led ones: from gambling, addiction, STDs, domestic violence and murder to teen sex, divorce and net tax parasitism on the rest of the nation. That is a huge, undeniable fact! It should discredit all ‘conservative’ claims of good governance, especially when you add in the fact that national Republican administrations are always spendthrift wastrels, sending deficits skyrocketing, while Democratic ones are always fiscally responsible. Always. And I welcome $$$ wagers on any of that.
Throw in the failure of a single Rightist “supply side economics’ prediction ever, ever to come true,with the sole outcome of rocketing wealth disparities, along with the deliberate war on science and the planet, and the stench gets overwhelming, even before we go on to all the lies and treason and an ongoing list of other insanities, a mile high.
onward
onward
They won’t listen if I don’t say,
‘it’s on your head’.
They like humility but have no respect for the humble.
David, u mentioned this Y bottleneck multiple times when I talked with u at the TusCON conference last week. I found this idea fascinating bc I've never heard this before
However, it FITS with other things I happen to know about Sociobiology that I like to call "sperm combat."
It also fits with concepts I developed to explain how natural selection maintains the genes that lead to the way human fight wars. Since I was trained to think in terms of animal behavior, I immediately tried to look at animal species that fight intraspecies competitors similar to the way human societies fight wars. With a nod to TH White's Once and Future King, I realized the list is quite short. Really, we're looking at ants, bees and wasps.
Ok, so how are ants, bees, and wasps like humans?
Well, they have high population density living structures (hives/cities), they have relatively sophisticated mass communication (chemical signalling/written language), functionally segmented ecological system in which individuals specialize in providing one aspect of the whole the group needs to survive (worker bees, royalty caste ECT/ human economic specialization), and a management class that synthesizes the whole society into a social survival machine.
However, one difference I noted was that the "mating class" in humans was pretty much everyone at one point in their life cycle, vs a severely limited royalty class in the insects.
Well, a 90% mating bottleneck for most human males pretty much gets rid of that difference. This also makes me question my conclusion that warfare is implicit in the social infrastructure that maintains human "civilization."
If we can maintain a culture that "democratizes" mating opportunities for males for enough generations, we might "outgrow" warfare as a species. We might eventually get to the point where most "soldiers" will give their commanders "the middle finger" like the French Army did in the summer of 1917 after they got repeated "over the top" orders from a Field Marshall determined to break trench warfare with massed firepower.
This point provides food for thought.
Alfred, my father had some experience in this area. He came the the US in 1956 as a Filipino physician.
Well, let's just say the reception he got as an Asian physician in post WW2 America was ummm...less than welcoming in many situations.
He heard, "I don't want that Jap Dr.," countless times.
Of course, by the 80s, my father considered his Asian appearance an advantage bc patients presumed he was smart, and everyone wants a smart Dr. Also, looking funny, meant patients he saw in consult always remembered him, and people began saying, "I want to see that funny looking Asian guy," to their primary care Drs. (My Dad is 5'1" 115, so he's smaller than most Filipinos).
By the time he retired in 2000, he had many more people who wanted to be his patient than he could ever hope to see.
David, when we chatted at the TusCON conference last weekend, you mentioned this Y chromosome bottleneck (which I didnt know).
It does seem to fit a puzzle I tried to unravel in grad school, which was why didn't natural selection lead soldiers to give their commanders "the middle finger" when ordered to fight a battle which provides them little to no benefit in terms of inclusive fitness (like the French Army did in 1917 when subjected to months of "over the top" orders from a new Field Marshall determined to break trench warfare with massed firepower).
Since I thought in terms of animal behavior biology, I looked for animal species who engage in intraspecies conflicts that resemble human warfare. With a nod to TH White, my list was ants, bees, wasps.
These species are similar to humans in certain respects, such as live in high population density structures (cities/hives), unusual communication ability (chemical triggers/language), functionally segmented ecology (specialized subclasses that only produce a part of what the species needs to survive (worker caste, warrior caste, royalty caste ECT/human economic specialization), management class that synthesizes the production of the specialists into a social survival machine.
One big difference was limiting mating to the royalty classes in the insects vs. pretty much everyone among humans, at least at one point in the life cycle.
Well, the 90% y bottleneck pretty much eliminates that difference. Sorta interesting. Need to kick around the implications of this.
Dr. Brin, you mentioned t buthis Y bottleneck when we chatted at the TusCON conference 11/10.
It really fits with an animal behavior problem I tried to address in grad school about human warfare. Ants, bees and wasps fight intraspecies battles similar to human warfare. There are surprising similarites between our species which, I think, help explain why we fight in a way that's unusual in the animal world. But one big difference is that the insects restrict reproduction to the royal caste while the vast majority of humans are fertile.
Well, a 90% bottleneck on males pretty much eliminates that difference, at least in some cultures.
Well, communication and warfare are interrelated. Without writing, it's REALLY hard to supply an army beyond the equipment it can take with it and the supplies it can forage from the land it seizes.
Running the Roman empire was only possible with its network of internal roads and it's communication network that allowed it to hold its frontiers with legions composing only a small fraction of its population.
Would Charlemagne's empire have been possible if the Carolingians didn't capture the Catholic church and got its infrastructure of monks to write messages for them?
Post a Comment