This week’s missive by Nathan Gardels in Noema Magazine – about longstanding Eastern philosophical alternatives to Western Modernity - was thoughtful, informative and moving. “The Philosophy Of Co-Becoming: Ancient concepts of the relational interdependence of humans and nature are being revived.”
Still - (and you knew that a ‘still’ would come from this contrarian!) – I am reminded that ‘by their fruits you shall know them.'
Sure, Western industrial civilization threatens to destroy all the Fruits of Nature… indeed, the planet we depend upon… unless that same civilization’s commitment to science, conscience, and relentless self-criticism – leading to the world’s first wave of major environmentalism – all prove adequate to mitigate those harms.
Above all – as I point out in Vivid Tomorrows – the West’s altered philosophy does not only have to do with individualism. It also transformed notions of TIME and of HISTORY.
During my time talking to students in China, I found that even those who loved science fiction also felt a profound ambivalence. Many of them fretted over admitting even the possibility that the future might be better. That people might learn from past mistakes and gradually improve. To them this seemed an implied insult to their ancestors! When I probed this reflex, each of them admitted wanting their own children to be ‘better’ and going to great pains and expense to make that so. I pointed out that - no doubt – their revered ancestors wanted that, as well. So how was it insulting to admit that they succeeded at their fondest goal? I number of the students stared back at me, wide-eyed, having clearly never thought of that.
What I came to realize: they were expressing the ‘Look Back’ zeitgeist that dominated almost all philosophies, across all of time! That there were Golden Ages in the past, when people were better and that things have declined since. And not just in the East, but almost all mythic systems across the globe, including the West. Even today, you can find it totally dominant among millennialists like those fervently praying for End Times.
Or else, more secular, but just as fanatical, is a political cult that clutches almost biblically a tome pushing a meritless mishmash of so-called “cyclical history” called The Fourth Turning.
For example, we now know – from very clear archaeology, anthropology etc. - that there was never some grand, past golden age. Indeed, any Golden Age – if ever – will be something that we build… or our successors might… in the future. Hence the time reversal in perspective that some find daunting, even sacrilegious..
My second point has to do with history – that horrible litany of horrors across 6000 years (or much more), nearly all of it dominated by brutal males who repressed progress by crushing any possible hist of criticism or competition by bright sons and daughters of those below. Whereupon those lords hired priests and ‘philosophers’ to preach lessons of humility and acceptance to the masses.
Is individuality that much better? Not if it becomes the all-against-all insanity pursued by some… and that the West is denounced as promoting!
But it has never been so among a majority, even of Americans. Want evidence? Look in a mirror. Your own critical view toward excessively insatiable egotism and greedy hyper individualism is far more widely shared than you tend to (egotistically?) believe. Most of the pro-individualism messages carried by Western myths come accompanied by finger-wag lessons about “don’t be a jerk about it.”
And maybe seek a little wholeness with others… and serenity… while you are at it.
73 comments:
Dr. Brin,
"they were expressing the ‘Look Back’ zeitgeist that dominated almost all philosophies, across all of time! That there were Golden Ages in the past, when people were better and that things have declined since. And not just in the East, but almost all mythic systems across the globe, including the West."
This is very reminiscent of the work of sociologist William Foote White, who studied the classes around the middle of the last century. The observation he's most well-known for has to do with how people at different levels of society value time. The upper crusties are past-focused. They are all about their glorious ancestors and their "breeding" - which allows them to rationalize away any guilt for all the starving people around them while the eat off of golden plates. Middle class people tend to be future-focused. They see results from working hard and delaying gratification, so they will emphasize doing things now that will improve their future. Poor people, OTOH, are present-focused. They see that no matter how hard they try, they have no chance of improving their future, so they try to get what joy out of life they can in the moment.
Much of what we think of as American values are essentially middle-class values. That can happen when your demographics are predominantly middle class. Every state-level society has at least a small middle class, but the West has seen that level grow rapidly since about the middle of the Industrial Revolution, when nations started to create laws to protect workers and trade unions.
China, OTOH, did not have a large middle class until pretty recently. They don't exactly match Foote White's model, however, which I suspect has a lot to do with Confucianism and civil service it lead to. For more than a millennium, anyone could (in theory) read the Analects and take a test on it. If they score high enough, they got hired into the civil service, where they made a reasonably livable wage with some opportunity to ladder-climb. In practice, however, it was pretty uncommon for a peasant farmer to be able to find the time, assuming they even knew how to read, to pass this entry requirement. I'm not exactly sure how this led to the majority of Han society developing the rich-people's time orientation, though. Any thoughts on this?
Paul SB
Then there's this,
“No, I have my eye on you, holding you accountable if you do harm. So, act decently in your own best interest.”
In small scale societies this is a matter of peer pressure and social obligations. State-level societies have generally used law enforcement and religion. The latter convinces people to behave decently because that's what the gods want, the former is there to catch those who don't buy it.
But I wasn't talking about pre-industrial societies, I was talking about Industrial Age to today, what we are living in now.
"Hey, aren’t you COMPETING WITH ME, RIGHT NOW?"
Discussing and competing aren't necessarily the same thing. I'm not arguing for the sake of money, or even ego. I just want to get ideas out there that people can benefit from. Yes, good people really do exist. You're one of them, as I suspect are many of the people who comment here. Goodness is a very common motivation, and does not require threats of hell to enforce. It's part of human nature, but like most things human, it is quite variable.
As for wealth creation… it’s pretty easy to disdain it while wallowing in its comforts and the magic powers of gods you are enjoying right now, snacking on elf-level foods while arguing (competing) with me via the magic Palantir on your desk… all of which miracles happened because some folks said I want to make all these things happen and benefit from my efforts.
Elf-level? I'm not sure what that means. But I have seen plenty of people who, at the very least, will do no harm intentionally, and a great many who are motivated to actually help each other. Of course they want to benefit themselves, but not everyone is willing to crush there people to do it. Only 18% are T-types naturally.
Paul SB
“so they try to get what joy they can out of life in the moment”
This might be what Loc overlooked as a physician. He wrote how he was blue-in-the-face attempting to dissuade them from indulging in excess.
Perhaps many of his patients were poor and strived to get what they could, while the getting was good—which isn’t necessarily irrational.
Alan Brooks:
Perhaps many of his patients were poor and strived to get what they could, while the getting was good—which isn’t necessarily irrational.
A line from "Hamilton" :
See, I never thought I'd live past twenty.
Where I come from some get half as many.
Ask anybody why we livin' fast and we laugh, reach for a flask.
We have to make this moment last, that's plenty.
They were tickled to be pickled.
Hoo boy, last thread locumranch agreed with me, but in terms I disagree with. Does that imply a paradox? Locumranch said "What Paradoctor said is true", but Paradoctor said "What Locumranch said is false."
The problem is that locumranch has a... binary way of thinking. If we harshly punish major felonies, then shouldn't we just as harshly punish minor misdemeanors? Certainly not! Grey areas exist. In fact they're essential, to ensure system stability.
Likewise one must grey-area competition vs cooperation. Excess of either is toxic. I favor the prisoner's-dilemma model, where the competition and cooperation is between competition and cooperation.
I have devised board games with a fourth 'truce' outcome and a prisoner's-dilemma point scheme. Tic-tac-toe works with this, if you allow 3-in-a-row for both sides as a truce outcome. Chess also works, with truce = mutual checkmate. My partner and I discovered that such games often end with high-tension high-stakes negotiations. Fun!
I'm sure that the flat-fair competition that our gracious host favors is not the sort of competition that one competitor can win once and for all. But that means that flat-fair competition is the sort of competition that nobody ever completely wins. A grey area!
You know what else has a binary way of thinking? Robots.
There's also idiots and ideologues, but I repeat myself.
Prior to the machine age work was done by turning the living into cogs; From pit ponies to paupers the tyranny of hunger ruled lives even when overt brute force did not, though that was frequent, too.
As a device, though, imagining an earlier paradise has been a thought experiment to identify underlying values of an existing society. Imagining an earlier America “when men were [fill in the virtue]” makes a statement about the writer’s values, not about history.
“Is individuality that much better?”
The foundational truth of Capitalism is that people free to exercise their own talents for their own profit are more productive than those who are not free to do so, even when both have access to the same modern tools.
Just as I am endangered when your house is on fire, Society has an interest in providing mechanisms to find the balance between my freedoms and yours.
i.e. Individual freedoms are not respected in either autocracy or anarchy. This is how you get to democracy.
This writer possesses the supersane chipperness of the True Nut:
https://www.workers.org/2024/02/76745/amp/
" If we harshly punish major felonies, then shouldn't we just as harshly punish minor misdemeanors?"
I'm trying to remember the name of the Chinese minister who tried to implement that. Nearly every crime had the death penalty. To simplify, that dynasty fell when an officer escorting a bunch of prisoners to their execution woke up in the morning to find his charges had all escaped. Realizing that if he reported back, he and all his men would be executed, he decided he might as well become a rebel and convinced his men to do likewise...
Pappenheimer
I would imagine it'll be difficult for SCOTUS to both betray the 14th amendment's plain text AND take up the preposterous immunity case to delay Smith.
Paul I won’t belabor this.You seem to think that state and religion power is the only combo applying accountability on our neighbors. That is SO blind to how we are each vastly empowered to hold others including (at least for now) much of the elite. Your portrayal of competition is likewise, to my eye, utterly off-base. But let’s just put it here:
Please tell us now of a culture that had much less ‘competition’ and that provided more human needs, from necessities to freedom and opportunities to science and so on, than we in the West have. I await your extollations of examples of these uber-cooperative mega achieving nations.
--- I deem these efforts to keep DT off the ballet as supremely foolish.
Anyone with a modicum of artistic taste wants to see DT kept as far from the 'ballet' as possible.
I agree with OGH - keeping TFG off the ballot is a bad idea -
Any possible GOP replacement would be just as evil and much MORE competent
If the evil party wins its better if its incompetent - and incontinent
Paradoctor,
"Likewise one must grey-area competition vs cooperation. Excess of either is toxic. I favor the prisoner's-dilemma model, where the competition and cooperation is between competition and cooperation."
- Prisoner's dilemma is fun to contemplate, but any game theory results need to be taken as sources of hypotheses rather than as evidence. The problem with game theory is that is decontextualizes human behavior. Isolating variables is necessary in chemistry and physics, but social systems are far more complex. It's still valuable, but insufficient by itself.
"I'm sure that the flat-fair competition that our gracious host favors is not the sort of competition that one competitor can win once and for all. But that means that flat-fair competition is the sort of competition that nobody ever completely wins. A grey area!"
- And that is exactly why the rich and powerful try to suppress flat-fair competition. They don't want grey, they want to be declared the victor and crush all opponents. And since they are rich and powerful, they have the ability to do it. Without vigilant monitoring and regulation, wealth tends to snowball, big businesses gobble up little businesses until there is no longer any real competition. But when government tries to regulate business, business tries to regulate government, partly through direct corruption, but also through the propaganda that denigrates all government and glorifies all business.
Paul SB
Susan,
"Prior to the machine age work was done by turning the living into cogs; From pit ponies to paupers ..."
- It looks like technology is a primary mover. Previous societies would have been more inclined toward tyranny simply because they needed a whole lot of labor to get anything done, and from the perspective of a king, it's better to force people and animals to perform that labor than to pay them. Think about what a huge project it must have been to create the huge irrigation system in Mesopotamia. That didn't last forever, though, in spite of the huge investment. The problem there is a matter of what's called The Tragedy of the Commons. When a resource is held in common by a large number of people, it's relatively easy to cheat and overtax the system. That includes shirking the hard labor of dredging the canals out when they silt up. Eventually the shirking and silting led to regions and irrigation systems being abandoned, though that took centuries. I'm sure Mesopotamian people thought that their irrigation canals would provide them with prosperity for all eternity.
Now think about the atmosphere and hydrosphere in terms of The Tragedy of the Commons.
"As a device, though, imagining an earlier paradise has been a thought experiment to identify underlying values of an existing society. Imagining an earlier America “when men were [fill in the virtue]” makes a statement about the writer’s values, not about history."
- That's one of the reason I gave up on becoming a historian. They all seem to have axes to grind that belong in their own century but are of limited application to previous ones.
"The foundational truth of Capitalism is that people free to exercise their own talents for their own profit are more productive than those who are not free to do so, even when both have access to the same modern tools."
Actually, that's the foundation of the free market. Capitalism is something more specific than the free market. Capitalism is about the capital market - a way to build huge snowballs.
"Just as I am endangered when your house is on fire, Society has an interest in providing mechanisms to find the balance between my freedoms and yours."
- And this is exactly why a completely free market, if it ever existed, would destroy itself in time.
Paul SB
Dr. Brin,
"You seem to think that state and religion power is the only combo applying accountability on our neighbors..."
- No, that is not at all what I think. You're still talking about structure where I'm talking about superstructure. Both of these, along with infrastructure, feed and influence one another, so all three levels have to be tended to.
"Please tell us now of a culture that had much less ‘competition’ and that provided more human needs, from necessities to freedom and opportunities to science and so on, than we in the West have."
- That's a pretty tall order, given that H. sapiens has been around for at least a quarter of a million years, but the Industrial Revolution is only a couple centuries old. I'm sure if you went back to Rome in the Second Century AD, people would insist that their ways will make their empire last a thousand years. That didn't happen, unless you count the constantly shrinking Eastern Empire, which was eventually whittled down to not much more than Constantinople and environs.
If you insist of remaining stuck in the same competition v. cooperation binary, there are a whole lot of especially health statistics that point to European Socialism as being much more effective than America's attempted laissez-faire. Even before the pandemic, 1 in 5 Americans were being treated at any given moment for a mood disorder - conditions that are extremely susceptible to stress. Most countries in Western and Northern Europe had less than half that. I haven't seen statistics since the pandemic, so who knows what the situation is now, though it's reasonable to guess that the numbers have gone up everywhere.
But you are still missing the point. It's not about having less competition, it's about valuing human life over competitiveness. As I've said, competitive people will compete. You don't need cultural institutions to reinforce what comes naturally. There's nothing wrong with competition as long as it doesn't become destructive. But that is exactly what it has been doing, especially since Reagan turned the tide against the people to favor only the rich. What you need is cultural institutions to reign in those excesses. The American Empire is not likely to last a thousand years when slimeballs like the Sacklers get away with parasitizing the people of the country. As long as people think that competition is holy, little will be done to stop the cheaters and killers. You hear it from the right wing every day. They scream "It's not fair to regulate business!" no matter how much damage a business does, and "It's a job killer"even though failing to regulate businesses is literally killing people.
You don't want to promote Social Darwinism, or the Providentialism that it was modeled after. But by glorifying competition, that is the unintended consequence.
Paul SB
duncan cairncross:
I agree with OGH - keeping TFG off the ballot is a bad idea -
Any possible GOP replacement would be just as evil and much MORE competent
I agree with your agreement with OGH, but for a different reason. A concurrent but separate opinion, as it were. The Constitution says who can serve as president, not who the parties are allowed to select as their candidate. Let them pick Trump and then, if the courts decide, declare him ineligible in the real election, or prevent electoral votes for him from being counted. But the courts don't seem to have any standing over primary ballots.
Keeping Trump off the ballot will be construed as "cheating" by too many people who will see the Democrats as subverting (rather than preserving) democracy. It gives him the "It was rigged" argument.
I also disagree with your reason for preferring Trump to any other Republican candidate.
Trump is more dangerous because the threat posed by his Brownshirt followers allows him to get away with blatant violations of the Constitution and applicable law that wouldn't be tolerated for others. No other Republican has a chance at establishing himself as dictator because the congress and the courts wouldn't back them. Trump alone benefits from the kind of immunity his followers confer on him via threats and intimidation. It's "I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let The Donald win."
It's true that he's incompetent, but the Evangelicals, the Federalist Society, and Putin will be all too happy to advise him.
Lena:
Certainly prisoner's dilemma oversimplifies human society. Binary win/lose oversimplifies it even more.
My experimental evidence of playing dilemma chess is that it builds to a peak of tension, which then either breaks down into win/lose or breaks through to truce/draw.
Larry Hart:
I'm not interested in magic bullets against Trump. I say we throw everything at him.
LH:“Keeping Trump off the ballot will be construed as "cheating" by too many people who will see the Democrats as subverting (rather than preserving) democracy. It gives him the "It was rigged" argument.
Exactly. This round, Stacey, Bernie, AOC, Jaime and the rest know their task – to ferociously denounce any freeping preeners who desert the grand coalition of US salvation. If they do, then beating such a mess should be easy enough, unless the shit the oligarchy has planned gets really bad.
Paradoc: I'm not interested in magic bullets against Trump. I say we throw everything at him.”
I tried to offer weapons. Got no interest: Polemical Judo, by David Brin: http://www.davidbrin.com/polemicaljudo.html
-----
Paul: “If you insist of remaining stuck in the same competition v. cooperation binary,…”
jesus. Again and again, that zero sum thing is YOUR trip, sir. You show not the slightest sign of having read, let alone paraphrased to indicate understanding, a single thing that I have said on this topic.
The plethora of ways that nature herself has used an interplay between the two to drift toward multilayers, positive sum outcomes is THE core them explored in EARTH. Now that we are sapient, we have found - primitively, so far - was to cooperatively harness competition to achieve positiv sum outcomes with minimal blood on the floor, while minimizing waste of talent. We are only partway there nd this narrow renaissance is vulnerable to cheaters who would end our cooperatively designed flat-fair-open-creative arenas.
But your armwave dismissals aren't helpful at all. Nor is wriggling out of showing us a single example of a human society that was actually ‘cooperative’… without significant competitive elements… that achieved a damn thing. Your refusal to do so is hugely telling. As John Lennon sang... "We'd all love to see your plan. Wha, no?"
“”But you are still missing the point. It's not about having less competition, it's about valuing human life over competitiveness…”
What a stunningly pompous thing to say! SHOW US when human life was better valued than when 95% of children go to school with full bellies every morning and 90% of adults have never witness war with their own eyes? When kings and priests have to keep their mitts off of you, because YOU have the power to denounce them, if they don't?
When a majority of women can switch from high-r to high-k reproductive strategy that values 1 or 2 children supremely instead off popping them out by the dozens, with calloused heart because nearly all of them were doomed?
“You don't want to promote Social Darwinism, or the Providentialism that it was modeled after. But by glorifying competition, that is the unintended consequence.”
Bah and I am done here until you show me even one example.
Competition is GOOD
But there must be "Rules" - or its the bigger Chimp wins
The making of the "Rules" is where society and Governments come into the equation
Todays "rules" in the USA lead to a toxic combination of positive feedback and as Adam Smith warned us about "The rich buying the levers of power"
Dr. Brin,
"But your armwave dismissals aren't helpful at all. Nor is wriggling out of showing us a single example of a human society that was actually ‘cooperative’… without significant competitive elements… that achieved a damn thing. Your refusal to do so is hugely telling."
- Once again, I never said anything about there being zero competition. In fact, I said at least twice that I am not saying that competition should be reduced, but you keep making that assumption. For example:
"As I've said, competitive people will compete. You don't need cultural institutions to reinforce what comes naturally. There's nothing wrong with competition as long as it doesn't become destructive."
And actually, I did give you examples. They aren't examples of societies that have zero competition, because those don't exist anywhere. But there are societies that place more focus on social responsibility. For example, just last week I heard an interview with health scientists who examined changes in human height, which is a good indicator of health. All over the West, average heights have climbed ever since the invention of the refrigerated rail car, which allowed a much greater access to higher trophic-level foods. But in the last four decades, the increase in height has slowed in America, but not in Europe, Canada, Australia - all places that have a national health service. Average life expectancies have also been climbing with height, but not in America anymore.
I've brought this up before, many times. The forces that bring about the rise and proliferation of state-level societies frequently turn out to be the same things that destroy them later.
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/01/26/why-are-americans-getting-shorter
Paul SB
On a different subject, my son has been reading dan Ariely's new book, Misbelief: What Makes Rational People Believe Irrational Things. It's a pretty timely subject, so I'll share a couple excerpts. I haven't read the whole thing yet, though, so I can't give an opinion on the book, except to say that the guy has written some pretty interesting things before.
Excerpt Chapter 3:
The Fraying Effects of Economic Inequality
If community cohesiveness is so important for resilience, what factors might contribute to or erode community cohesiveness and build up or destroy resilience? Jon Jachimowicz and hid colleagues, including several of the researchers who conducted the study in Bangladesh, , set out to examine an important force that they suspected might ‘fray the community buffer,’ as they put it: income inequality. Why would income inequality have such and effect? Possibly because as economic inequality increases people might feel less connected to their community and more alone in their struggle for economic stability. The researchers’ hypothesis was that inequality would fray the community buffer for both relatively rich and relatively poor societies, as long as the level of inequality in a society was high. By studying communities in the United States, Australia, and rural Uganda, they found that higher levels of economic inequality indeed decreased reliance on the community for support and created greater financial pressure.
What about the different levels of wealth? The researchers found that all societies, regardless of their affluence level, suffer socially as income inequality increases, but, as you might expect, the suffering was unequal across wealth levels. The negative effects of inequality on those living in relatively well-to-do neighborhoods (and yes, even very expensive neighborhoods can have high levels of economic inequality) were not too bad because those people were financially secure and had enough resources to manage economic ups and downs on their own. For those living in relatively poor neighborhoods with high levels of income inequality, the effect of having no community to turn to was devastating.
…
Excerpt from Chapter 4:
The Emotional Elements of the Funnel of Misbelief
We all experience general stress - predictable and unpredictable.
The experience of unpredictable stress can create a feeling of lack of control, which can lead to the condition of learned helplessness.
Stress negatively impacts cognitive function and decision-making.
Resilience is increased by community support but weakened by inequality.
Under compounding stress, we can begin to feel hard done by.
This leads us to seek answers and ways to regain a sense of control.
We get a temporary sense of relief and control when we find a villain to blame - similar to the relief an OCD sufferer gets from compulsive behaviors like hand washing.
However, the relief is only temporary, so we go back for more. In the long term, it makes us feel worse, but we keep looking in the same place for short-term relief.
Feeling as though the pain is being inflicted intentionally adds to the sting.
The stories misbelievers believe are extremely complex for several reasons:
Form the content creators, complex stories mean they can create more context.
Complex stories satisfy the “proportionality bias” which tells us that a large or intense problem must have large causes.
Complex stories satisfy the desire for unique knowledge, making the misbeliever feel more empowered and in control.
The stories often have a morally repulsive theme, designed to fuel hate.
Paul SB
Dr. Brin:
I do enjoy your idea of wager challenges. You've put a lot of thought into it; details like vetting by retired military, putting up bet values, and best of all, mocking those who run away. But I don't know any military men, and my means are modest, though I would enthusiastically yell "buck-caw" at retreating backs. So I'm not the best to try out this innovation. You are.
So do it, man! Collect a vetting board, set aside some money, pick a target, confront that target publicly, and loudly mock his retreat.
I get that doing this for real, and with the brazenness required, would be difficult and scary. So to encourage you, I'll tell ya what: I have a dollar bill here that says you ain't gonna do it. Prove me wrong and earn a buck! Make the incident go viral and/or televised and you get two bucks!
The best argument for NOT blocking Trump from the ballot is that we should probably require a conviction regarding the relevant charges before doing so. In this way a JURY OF HIS PEERS says he is guilty and that liberates a State to enforce the judgement instead of make a judgement.
The best argument FOR blocking him (that I know) is that States have authority over their voting rules. Mostly. The feds don't have to get involved in what Colorado chooses to do. If their state court feels they are authorized by state law to block Trump's name on the ballot, so be it.
For the record, I don't want him on the ballot ever again. Not for anything... even city pussy grabber. We look like f@$#ing idiots right now. Having said that, I'd prefer we chose a legal way to do it. Rule of Law matters.
Paul,
In small scale societies this is a matter of peer pressure and social obligations. State-level societies have generally used law enforcement and religion. The latter convinces people to behave decently because that's what the gods want, the former is there to catch those who don't buy it.
Uh… No.
State level societies use both. The law enforcement stuff kicks in to cover the fact that in large communities most people don't know most of the other people when conflict emerges. Peer pressure is short ranged but VERY much still in play in large communities.
If you walk into a pizza place and buy lunch, much of the social enforcement going on is at the peer level even though you might not know anyone. There are unwritten social rules we tend to obey even when there is a strong chance we won't run into anyone from there ever again. Not everyone does obey, but MANY do in the same sense they obey traffic rules that have never (and CAN never) be written down.
Law enforcement is for dealing with conflict that erupts when some of us intend to break rules. It is a formal expansion on the Common Law.
——
As for religion, you and I likely agree on its social purpose.
We probably agree it goes a LONG way back too.
——
As for your examples of places doing better with less competition than we have in the US, you are describing members of The West. They can afford to do as they do because we've all become extravagantly wealthy, but they don't work as the examples our host challenges you to offer because they are not separate enough. They are us even though they are not exactly us.
I might tick off our friends from Australia, NZ, and elsewhere, but they are also too much a part of The West to offer good counter-examples. They've simply chosen a slightly different way forward… and those of us in the US should probably pay more attention to all the alternatives on display around us. Yes. Even Canadians! 8)
The differences between us are pretty minor. Sure… we like our guns… but a lot of us don't. Our counterparts in this great aggregate civilization have their quirks too.
locumranch,
..an act which I have just redefined as an insurrection (in accordance with the current legal standard), and this now allows me to indite, imprison & bankrupt him as an imminent threat to 'Muh Democracy' in both the EU & US.
Feel free my friend. Let's see how far this goes with a jury of your peers. I'm sure I'd have some legal fun with you when I gave back the loving attention you offered.
For a guy who was so strongly inclined to quote dictionary definitions at us, you've strayed quite far from your former self. I get that the above statement just just snark, but it is inconsistent with your earlier snarks. Leaves me thinking that your actual intent is just to snark at the libs.
------
I've got a doctor friend who expressed similar exasperation with his patients. He explained that 75% of his work involved issues related to Type II diabetes and our inability to take decent medical advice to avoid it before onset or cope with the issues afterward. He saw it as a mostly avoidable way to suffer terribly and found it VERY frustrating every time some fool asked him for a magic pill.
He was never my doctor, but the look on his face and the obvious impact all this had on his personality actually got through to me. I won't be asking any of his colleagues for magic pills. Instead I get my lazy ass up to exercise and I track what I'm eating. It ain't rocket science.
I suspect you had to deal with a lot of that crap too if you did family medicine stuff. If so... well... some of us get it. Not enough, but some.
From the UK - via the USA to NZ
I agree 100% that we are all part of "The West"
But we DO have different rules - this is part of my core disagreement with Alfred!
I believe that we should be USING those differences - changing them to improve society
YES - We can't 100% predict the outcomes of rule changes
But we can move forwards and make changes that help - and if we screw the pooch we can CHANGE them back again
We CAN "tinker with the engine" - and IMHO we do know the changes that will almost certainly improve things
The USA has painted itself into a corner with its almost impossible to change Constitution
Duncan,
To be fair, the US Constitution is basically a beta test version. The writers at least foresaw the need for amendments, and amendments have been made - up until 1992. Since then, well, you're right. A Constitutional Convention is still possible, but with the states having equal votes, I'm not sanguine about the changes wrought by a convention weighted towards cows and sagebrush instead of people. Corporations and their owners aren't going to allow useful changes like repowering the VRA and ditching Citizens United, because that would disempower their useful tool (the GOP.)
Here's the thing, though: from the reactionary side, this gridlock is a frantic effort to prevent a future where white people have lost some power, which they imagine to be losing ALL power*. That perception will not change. They will stand in the path of the future, (if poor) brandishing firearms and (if rich) funding useful idiots.
When will this come to a head? My POOMA forecast is 2055-2075, and I don't know how the breach will manifest. I'll probably be dead by then, unless I start taking better care of myself - my wife agrees with Alfred and Loc about my bad living habits - but I'll try to hang around as long as possible, voting early and often.
*cue Samuel L Jackson's voice, "I ate all this M--- F--- dualism on this M--- F--- plane (of existence)
Pappenheimer
P.S. Maybe Scidata could Seldon his way to a more accurate forecast, but there are just Too Many Variables. People aren't gas molecules and our state changes cannot be precisely calculated with today's hyper-Babbage thinking engines
P.P.S. hey, maybe we'll have industrial-scale fusion by then. Or interstellar travel. Or be scrabbling in the ruins for the last few Twinkies.
Pappenheimer:
A Constitutional Convention is still possible, but with the states having equal votes, I'm not sanguine about the changes wrought by a convention weighted towards cows and sagebrush instead of people.
Red states may have lost a little ground, but not too long ago they were one or two away from having enough state legislatures to call for a Constitutional Convention. I'm sure ALEC and the Federalist Society are busy writing Constitution 2.0, with a preamble beginning with "We, the White Christians..."
This is why a different, more-competent Republican is not as threatening as Trump is...
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Feb08-3.html
...
Senate Republicans who actually want a border solution (as well as aid to the three countries) and are scared witless to cross Trump. He is as close as you get to being a dictator while still technically a private citizen. Even Barrasso, who as the #3 Republican in the Senate has far more actual power than Trump does, feels he has to bow to Trump.
...
But again, Trump is not interested in sealing the leaky border. He is interested in winning the election so he can pardon himself. McConnell, oddly enough for him, actually wants to do the right thing for the country. What's wrong with this picture?
Pappenheimer: Maybe Scidata could Seldon his way to a more accurate forecast
I explained in the previous session that psychohistory cannot be used for forecasting due to confounding variables and the need for prior-result pair matching, which is impossible except when both are in the past. I do get the jest; as a kid I was called 'Spock', and as a teacher I was called 'Hari Seldon or even Isaac'. Usually kind-hearted, and even flattering, but not accurate or deserved. I like to solder while listening to baseball. Although "attempting to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins" does hit home a bit.
Re: 14th Amendment
I wasn't saying it was a noble cause, I was saying that it traps SCOTUS in a very sticky wicket of originalism and textualism. They may be forced to decline the immunity case just to save face. That would grease the wheels for an earlier Smith trial. Brilliant if it works. Judicial judo.
Alfred Differ: The best argument for NOT blocking Trump from the ballot is that we should probably require a conviction regarding the relevant charges before doing so.
A criminal conviction is not applicable because it's merely a disqualification (denial of privilege), not a criminal finding. Foxites daily make the exact same argument regarding 'guilty of rape' vs 'liable for indiscretion'.
Alfred,
You are absolutely right about the role of peer pressure in state-level societies. Everything that characterized humans of the distant past is still with us in one form or another. It's an Anth 101 thing to note that while state-level societies are based on market economies, they all still use both reciprocal and redistributive exchange systems as well. You can apply that dynamic to virtually everything - cultural evolution rarely replaces one trait with another entirely.
However,
"As for your examples of places doing better with less competition than we have in the US..."
Here you are making exactly the same mistake that Dr. Brin is. I write one thing, you read something entirely different. I never, ever, ever said that this is a matter of "less competition" - it's a matter of context, specifically the superstructural environment in which that context operates. On the most fundamental of levels, you, him, and I are in complete agreement. I'm talking about an important tweak, though. Consider the fact that both of you grew up at roughly the same time, in the same nation, on the same side of the Iron Curtain. Now ask yourself what assumptions have myelinated in there that make you automatically ssume that I am talking about curtailing competition, when I have said over and over again that I am not.
I'm sure I can apply that same set of questions to myself. I regularly do, and seek input from others to triangulate from.
Paul SB
A significant majority of the many legal experts that have been interviewed about this subject, or written articles about it, agree that a criminal conviction is not required and was never intended to be required in order to disqualify a person via the 14th section 3.
My opinion (worthless to any but me) is that Trump does qualify for being barred from the ballot per the 14th section 3 and I think he deserves to be. But my preferred outcome is that Trump is not barred from any ballots, wins the RP nomination and then is soundly beaten at the ballot box. And at this point I think he would be soundly beaten, though there is plenty of time for the zeitgeist to be changed.
What I like least about this ballot issue is having this particular SC making a ruling on the case and risking that they will again ignore well established precedent, and again usurp more authority to the SJ or the executive. One thing is certain. Whatever the SJ does it will not be a result of an honest, unbiased assessment respecting well established precedent. No, the metric will be what's best for the maintenance of their personal authority and wealth, as best they can guess.
Paul SB: I write one thing, you read something entirely different.
That's what led Berkeley to rename Kroeber Hall. We see what we expect to see. Therein lies the real hope of artificial intelligence.
Paradoc: Thanks. I am glad you are among the few who seem to ‘get’ the power of the wager challenge. It IS possible for a random citizen to find retired senior military officers… and be assured no one will ever call your bluff, if you demand wagers based on easily provable trends like ocean acidification. Still, I get your notion… that maybe I should put out a call for such a panel NOW, in case anyone ever does find the cojones to step up and bet. And offer that panel to any of YOU who ever need it.
Let me think about how I’d go about that.
=====
Carumba, I truly am tired of Paul’s wriggle-evasions. He claims to have never said we should eliminate competition when – essentially – he certainly has. He claims to have given ‘examples’ and they boil down to lame pointings at OTHER fully western mixed economies (with TONS of Smithian competition) that are doing a better job (currently) of using cooperative methods to enhance the abilities to children to grow up able and equipped to compete. Moreover, he KNOWS that has been my position about ‘competition” all along.
More generally, he knows EXACTLY what I am talking about. He knows that I have long discussed how there is a dance of cooperation creating rules of engagement -- plus investing in children – plus transparent accountability – that has finally enabled competition to create prodigious wonders, despite relentless efforts by would be lords to cheat… exactly the path recommended by Adam Smith. Productive competition NEVER happened in the past and is entirely an outcome from fairly recent cooperation. As I describe in EARTH.
Paul, let’s just let this go. Your attempts to writhe in knots over a word that you don’t like are just making you look foolish. Worse, you are trying desperately to paint me and that word “competition” in ways that you know to be completely inaccurate and misleading. Drop it.
Dr. Brin,
Sorry, but you are still completely misunderstanding everything I said. I've been here long enough that I know - and largely agree with - your positions on these matters. If you don't understand what I am saying, then obviously I am failing as a communicator.
Paul SB
Hi Folks,
There’s been a discussion of “The Transparent Society” and OGH on Charles Stross's blog (https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2024/01/same-bullshit-new-tin.html#more).
COMMENTS: 621(proto-comment), 623(proto-comment), 635, 647, 656, 675, 680, 683, 713.
Just a question:
When a candidate dies or looses qualification (such as, being barred because of participation in an insurrection) for the presidency after the primaries, who then becomes the official candidate?
The person selected for the VP slot or the person who ended up in second place during the primaries?
Or are new primaries conducted?
Der Oger,
Primary elections are relatively new features in US elections. It isn't clear who steps in when a leading candidate dies after a choice is made to put them on the general ballot.
What we DO have is an historical convention. Party bosses decide and then do everything they can to get names legally swapped in the various states. This convention is a fall back to the days before primary elections occurred where party bosses (smoky back rooms) decided who could run with under the party banner.
As for disqualifications, those don't happen often. If someone is indicted, they usually bow out and then a party boss fills their slot. For example, if a Democrat here in California were indicted and stopped running, the people who lead the Democrats in California would convene in some back room and work out what the "party" is going to do about it. This is where party officers matter along with powerful elected officials of that party.
Disqualifications at the Presidential level haven't happened. Back before we got annoyed at the power that party bosses had (and pushed primary elections to curb them) the people who might have been disqualified would get kicked to the curb by the relevant boss.
At some point in our history we were going to wind up in a situation where a party's bosses were weak and a terrible candidate was still strong. Many think that's where we are now, but we've been here before. Such events wipe out an entire party. The US Whigs came apart at the seams back in the boss era and the GOP was born from those ashes. The boss system wound up surviving that.
Paul,
I think I'm aggravating the situation here, so I'll stop too...
except to say that I think I can see some of the distinctions you are making.
IF (big if) you want to pick this up we can do it at my blog. Or we can just let this sit awhile. 8)
Alfred Differ:
It isn't clear who steps in when a leading candidate dies after a choice is made to put them on the general ballot.
It sometimes depends on how close it is to the general election.
When Mel Carnahan ran for Senator in Missouri, he died in a plane crash* too close to the election to be replaced on the ballot. So "he" ran anyway and actually won against John Ashcroft. Carnahan's wife was then appointed to fill his spot, and Ashcroft became W's attorney general, which goes to show that sometimes we can get what we want and still not be happy.
* As Democratic Party politicians are wont to do. Sort of like falling out of windows in Russia. Just sayin'.
I said:
So "he" ran anyway and actually won against John Ashcroft.
Upon further thought, this may have some bearing on what should happen if Trump is disqualified. If Trump were to win the election but then be ruled unqualified for the office, I can see multiple possible scenarios.
+ They still vote for Trump, he wins the electoral vote, but is not allowed to assume the office. The VP (who is always sworn in first) ascends to the office upon its vacancy.
+ The electors who are pledged to Trump get to vote for whomever they want, presumably a Republican because they are Republicans themselves. If 270 of them pick the same winner, he gets to be president.
+ The electors vote for Trump, but their votes are deemed not to count, and so nobody gets to 270 and the House of Representatives gets to choose among the top 3 electoral vote getters. They'd of course like to pick a Republican, but they're limited by that "top 3" thing. Depending on how the electors voted, we could get President Manchin, or President Sinema, or President Williamson in this scenario. Any of those would likely need only one (rogue) electoral vote in order to qualify.
Alfred,
It might be best to let it rest. It is encouraging, though, that you seem to be getting it.
Paul SB
I just remembered that the Kindle edition of the book I excerpted above is on sale for $1.99 right now. My son is reading over the notes he took on the first few chapters, and I'm definitely going to read it myself when I finish the book I'm currently reading.
https://www.amazon.com/Misbelief-Rational-People-Believe-Irrational-ebook/dp/B0BQMZXC3T/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1TIHSBU0DWD1W&keywords=misbelief+what+makes+rational+people+believe+irrational+things&qid=1707452430&s=digital-text&sprefix=misbelief%2Cdigital-text%2C251&sr=1-1
Paul SB
Hi Paul
"the Kindle version is not available just now"
@ Alfred, Larry,
thank you!
Duncan,
That's weird. I just checked last night. Maybe it's different in your area? Not that it makes any sense for a digital product ...
Paul SB
James Comey redux...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/us/politics/biden-special-counsel-report-documents.html
The decision on Thursday not to file criminal charges against President Biden for mishandling classified documents should have been an unequivocal legal exoneration.
Instead, it was a political disaster.
The investigation into Mr. Biden’s handling of the documents after being vice president concluded that he was a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and had “diminished faculties in advancing age” — such startling assertions that they prompted a fiery and emotional attempt at political damage control from the president within hours.
...
My daughter-in-law is a nominee at the ADG Awards in Hollywood this weekend. Fortunately, in an entirely different category than OPPENHEIMER, whew.
Actually Smith said that it would be useless to prosecute because ANY JURY WOULD conclude "that he was a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and had “diminished faculties in advancing age”"
...and hence prosecution would be futile. What I wanted from this report -- maybe it's there and the media failed to report it -- is comparison of the SEVERITY of the documents and their Quantity, which one has an impression are very, very different. Tho Smith does show that JoBee cooperated while DT went into paroxysms of resistance.
Scidata congrats on your daughter-in-law's honor!
Marcy Wheeler covers the Hur (not Smith) report on her legal blog here:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/02/09/robert-hurs-box-checking/
(I wouldn't recommend commenting there if you aren't a lawyer, but I find the place very good at providing insight into legal issues of the day.)
Hard to see this report as anything but a hit job, similar to Durham's output. The Justice department often seems to me to be full of Republicans with axes to grind (*especially* Comey, as Larry pointed out).
Dr. Brin, re wager challenges:
Start small and informal. For instance corner the politician in a corridor, accompanied by camera-phone holder taking a video. Ask target about issue X, then wager for the opposite position, with small stakes. "Ya wanna bet on it? This dollar bill here says that you're wrong!" Bring documentary evidence if his hypocrisy/error/deception, so you can refute him on the spot. Film his retreating back and mock him. "Chicken! Chicken! BUC-KAWW!"
Then upload the clip to the Web.
It's important that the stakes be small. Remember when Romney bet the other candidate $10,000? This was not well received by the general public. Whereas a dollar bet is affordable and relatable, and when he walks away that proves that he doesn't care a dollar. When you pull that dollar bill out of your shirt pocket, then the more more creased and worn it is, the better.
It's also important to be brazen and impudent, in a relatable way. Thus "ya wanna bet?", the small stakes, and "buc-kaww".
If the video goes viral, then you can upscale the meme to the more formal version you've mentioned, with written terms and retired military reviewers and bonded stakes.
Dr Brin:
Actually Smith said ...
I don't think Jack Smith was involved in this one. From my reading, the special counsel was Robert K. Hur, a Trump-appointed judge. Merrick Garland bent over backwards to show "fairness" by siccing a wanabee Kenneth Star on the case so that when he (correctly) proclaimed there was nothing to charge, it wouldn't look like the fix was in. Then, when Hur pulled a "Comey", injecting his personal dissatisfaction with his own conclusion into the decision*, Garland apparently felt he had to release the biased and unprofessional report verbatim instead of doing what Bill Barr would have done.
* "We're not bringing charges, but man does this smell bad!" Exactly what the DOJ refused to do with Trump/Russia because it's "not fair" for the accused to be denied an opportunity to defend himself. Why do only Democrats have to be fair? Why is the result of an investigation only considered unbiased if a Republican does the investigating, against defendants of either party? Inquiring minds want to know.
Paradoctor:
It's also important to be brazen and impudent, in a relatable way. Thus "ya wanna bet?", the small stakes, and "buc-kaww".
Agreed. Nothing like slamming a bill on the table (or bar) and insisting, "Ten bucks says you're full of shit." Not even as a question, but as a declaration.
Paul,
If we equate "a completely free market" with unmediated competition between individuals then, indeed, a balance would not be struck between the interests of existing and future actors much less currently competing ones. But competition between societies favors those with governance that both respects individual rights and has the scale to deal with maintaining the commons over larger areas and longer time spans than individuals can.
Given a mechanism such as good governance that takes our grandchildren into account, we will use it.
@Susan Watson,
"a completely free market with unmediated competition between individuals" sounds about as useful as a combustion engine which doesn't direct the force toward mechanisms which do useful work, but allows the exploding gasoline the "freedom" to direct its force in any direction it wants to.
@Larry Hart
Exactly! Being free to exercise your own talents for your own profit is not the same thing as the unregulated unstable dystopia Paul imagines it to be. In fact the ability to enter a freely chosen win-win contract implies enabling laws and their enforcement... Laws are needed to enforce contracts, to set a level playing field, to maintain infrastructure and public safety as prerequisitea for business.
Laws - codes - are definitely needed for civilization, however: I think that, all things considered, the current legal playing field cannot really be considered level. It is definitely unbalanced towards those with plenty of money already.
Pappenheimer
As a man prone to quote dictionary definitions, I thought it self-evident that a passionate personal conviction (aka an opinion) was non-equivalent to that of a criminal conviction (aka a formal legal finding), but I may have been mistaken in this regard.
Even so, I await the pending SCOTUS ruling while bearing witness to the widening gyre as (1) the Biden DOJ excuses its own namesake for 'willfully violating' US classified document law because mental incompetency and (2) Blue Hawaii, along with every other blue sanctuary state, abandons its US constitutional center and embraces anti-federalist anarchy.
In both the US & EU, it seems that events have passed the Point of No Return, so much so that minor course corrections and major policy modifications can do very little to prevent the coming smash-up, as the West appears to have discarded the individual responsibility principle in preference for the collective variety.
Collective Responsibility is the modern equivalent of Blood Libel, a principle that holds each & every member of the group responsible for the perceived actions of each & every solitary individual, as evidenced by the claim that all westerners are responsible for climate change, all whites are responsible for both slavery & racism, and all gun owners are responsible for every single shooting, but it's a two-edged sword because those who demand collective responsibility will receive exactly what they've demanded.
Best
It's frustrating to see him so improved... yet still so silly. As pointed out above, it was a former TRUMPIST counsel under Smith who did the portion of the investigation about Biden's secret docs and he was clearly grumbling over having to exonerate JoBee. Try paying attention.
Also to the vast differences in DT vs JB COOPERATING with returning the docs. Or the NUMBER of them or the ajudged SEVERITY of the secrets. It's like the pure fact that almost 100x as many hight goppers than demmies have been idicted/convicted across the decades... their divorce rate is vatly higher, plus gambling and especially child sexual predation. And yeah, EVERY TURPITUDE averages higher in red-run states (barring Utah.)
No, it's not 'civilization' that's dissolving into filth and treason. It is YOUR confederate cult.
And next I'll weigh in about Tucker....
Tucker Carlson replaces George Will as the worst American.
Larry Hart: Tucker Carlson replaces George Will as the worst American
Yay. scidata (Mike Will)
Susan,
You are exactly right, except for one thing. I'm not talking at all about governance, or laws, or regulations, or institutions of any kind. Those are all structure. I'm talking about superstructure - the belief system that informs the voting public.
Where I grew up, hardly a week went by without someone claiming that all government is evil, all the time. I grew up in a rather extreme place, but I get the same thing from people on the internet almost daily. There are a whole lot of people who don't want small government, they want no government. In their eyes, the only thing government ever does is take their money and their freedom. These, of course, are the same people who claim they stand for law and order. Somehow it never occurs to them that without government there is no law. They are also the same people who are constantly trying to outlaw other people, people who aren't rich, white, hetero, Christian males.
That dystopia could happen if enough people are convinced that these fools are right and vote that way, to say nothing of taking their AR-15s to grocery stores or WalMart.
Beliefs matter every bit as much as institutions.
Paul SB
Beliefs matter every bit as much as institutions.
True
But institutions are much easier to change - this gives us a "lever" to try and improve
“Remember when Romney bet the other candidate $10,000?”
That was the Texas Gov at the time and Rom’s rival. Yeah, folks saw a rich man being bullied by a very rich man. And it poisoned the very concept for twenty years.
"Tucker Carlson replaces George Will as the worst American."
Not even close. TC is merely an evil traitor. I would not call him fully sapient. But GFW is totally aware, brilliant, likely not blackmailed. Has no excuse for his continuing to make excuses for a movement he openly admits has gone cancerously insane.
onward
onward
If a dead person is elected President, the Vice-President Elect becomes President instead.
Post a Comment